Someone help me out here.....

[Ziggy]

And yet the Greek Orthodox Church considers the entire LXX including the apocrypha canonical - - how did that come about in the historical development of canonicity?

 

[George Antonios]

Dr. Stringer's article is not reliable. For example, he invents a factoid from Dewey Beegle (not Beagle, as he has it) in his "Conclusion." I have the book, and what Stringer claims is not there. Dr. Stringer is a good guy, but inaccurate here. (He's also written a falsehood about me, hopefully inadvertent, in his "The Word for All Nations" article.)

Can you give the details please?

 

[John of Japan]

Can you give the details please?

1. Springer wrote in your link: "According to Dewey Beagle (sic), only in recent years (he was writing in 1960) have 'scholars' begun to value the Septuagint again." However, Beegle's actual statement was "many of the Old Testament scholars," not just "scholars" as in Springer's statement. New Testament scholars have always valued the LXX, something Springer apparently doesn't know. For example, my hard copy of the LXX (Brenton) was first published in 1851. Thayer's lexicon (1896) often refers to the LXX. Springer is careless with the facts.

2. In his article, "The Word of God for All Nations" (Article: The Word of God for All Nations by Phil Stringer - Textus Receptus), Springer says in the Japanese section (the facts for which he got from me), "Unfortunately, missionary Hime (spelling my name wrong) rejects the Verbal Plenary Translation method and speaks harshly of it." He pulled this out of thin air. What I actually did was write a negative review (with nothing about whether I agreed with VPT) of H. D. Williams' book, Word-for-Word Translating of the Received Texts (possibly the worst book ever written on Bible translation). In other words, I criticized Williams' book (with no personal attacks on Williams), and that was unforgivable to the Dean Burgon Society crowd. You can read my review here: Amazon.com: Customer reviews: Word-for-Word Translating of the Received Texts, Verbal Plenary Translating

 

[John of Japan]

Bunch of hooey from a well known KJVOnly source, ultimately going back to Ruckman.

In proof of Ziggy's assertion here, the oldest version of the "post NT LXX" postulate (not enough evidence to call it a theory) is that of Peter Ruckman in 1970 in The Christian's Book of Manuscript Evidence, in which he has a whole chapter on the subject, Ch. 4, "The Mythological Septuagint."

Not only does it have a "bunch of hooey" in it, in Ziggy's eloquent phrase , it viciously attacks many good men of God, such as my grandfather, about whom (catch that "whom," Ziggy) he wrote in various books, "Bible rejector," "used of Satan," "blockhead," "naive and shallow," "stupid," "liar," "blasphemous," and "hypocrite."

Anyone who follows Ruckman follows vicious ignorance.

 

[George Antonios]

1. Springer wrote in your link: "According to Dewey Beagle (sic), only in recent years (he was writing in 1960) have 'scholars' begun to value the Septuagint again." However, Beegle's actual statement was "many of the Old Testament scholars," not just "scholars" as in Springer's statement. New Testament scholars have always valued the LXX, something Springer apparently doesn't know. For example, my hard copy of the LXX (Brenton) was first published in 1851. Thayer's lexicon (1896) often refers to the LXX. Springer is careless with the facts.

2. In his article, "The Word of God for All Nations" (Article: The Word of God for All Nations by Phil Stringer - Textus Receptus), Springer says in the Japanese section (the facts for which he got from me), "Unfortunately, missionary Hime (spelling my name wrong) rejects the Verbal Plenary Translation method and speaks harshly of it." He pulled this out of thin air. What I actually did was write a negative review (with nothing about whether I agreed with VPT) of H. D. Williams' book, Word-for-Word Translating of the Received Texts (possibly the worst book ever written on Bible translation). In other words, I criticized Williams' book (with no personal attacks on Williams), and that was unforgivable to the Dean Burgon Society crowd. You can read my review here: Amazon.com: Customer reviews: Word-for-Word Translating of the Received Texts, Verbal Plenary Translating

I will have to look into these things. Thank you. Assuming your rendition of things is correct (I'm not saying it's not, just saying that I don't know yet), have you contacted him concerning these things?

 

[HankD]

I will have to look into these things. Thank you. Assuming your rendition of things is correct (I'm not saying it's not, just saying that I don't know yet), have you contacted him concerning these things?

George, you can trust John.

 

[George Antonios]

I appreciate the nod but it's meaningless to me. I trust you can understand that.

 

[HankD]

I appreciate the nod but it's meaningless to me. I trust you can understand that.

OK

 

[George Antonios]

Anyone who follows Ruckman follows vicious ignorance.

'Anyone'?
Now, that sounds like a viciously ignorant statement. You see, we're all prone to over-reaching, just as Ruckman.

 

[John of Japan]

I will have to look into these things. Thank you. Assuming your rendition of things is correct (I'm not saying it's not, just saying that I don't know yet), have you contacted him concerning these things?

No I have not. He hangs out with H. D. Williams (for example, on the board of BPS Global), accepting what Williams said about me in his personal-attack-filled response to my review. I just figure they consider me to be their enemy. (The reverse is not true.)

 

[George Antonios]

I just figure they consider me to be their enemy. (The reverse is not true.)

All the more reason to reach out, no? But anyway, that's your business at the end of the day. I was just interested to see if there had been a exchange between you two on this particular matter.

 

[John of Japan]

'Anyone'?
Now, that sounds like a viciously ignorant statement. You see, we're all prone to over-reaching, just as Ruckman.

Sorry, I've never met a Ruckmanite who know what he was talking about. That's ignorance. And as I pointed out, Ruckman was a vicious man. So my statement is accurate, not an overreach. Did you read what I listed that Ruckman said about my grandfather? Ruckman was a very vicious man. Further evidence: One Ruckmanite wrote a nasty pamphlet, DEAR Dr. JOHN: Where is my bible? That is exactly the title, with mixed caps and lower case, and lower case "b" for Bible.

Are you a follower of Ruckman?

 

[George Antonios]

Sorry, I've never met a Ruckmanite who know what he was talking about. That's ignorance. And as I pointed out, Ruckman was a vicious man. So my statement is accurate, not an overreach. Did you read what I listed that Ruckman said about my grandfather? Ruckman was a very vicious man. Further evidence: One Ruckmanite wrote a nasty pamphlet, DEAR Dr. JOHN: Where is my bible? That is exactly the title, with mixed caps and lower case, and lower case "b" for Bible.

Of course you must now double-down on your statement. Moving on.

Are you a follower of Ruckman?

Well it's kind of hard to follow a guy who's physically dead, but you would consider me that, yes.
Please note that I clearly implied that Ruckman did over-reach at times.
Who was your grandfather?

 

[John of Japan]

All the more reason to reach out, no? But anyway, that's your business at the end of the day. I was just interested to see if there had been a exchange between you two on this particular matter.

I see no need to respond to such personal attacks. These are unreasonable people

In your determination of whether or not what I say is accurate, if you want to examine Williams' personal attacks on me, go to the source: Word for Word Translating

 

[John of Japan]

Of course you must now double-down on your statement. Moving on.

Well it's kind of hard to follow a guy who's physically dead, but you would consider me that, yes.

The question would be based on his books and pamphlets, which live after him, unfortunately.

Please note that I clearly implied that Ruckman did over-reach at times.
Who was your grandfather?

John R. Rice

 

[George Antonios]

John R. Rice

Well then, I learned about your grandfather and learned to appreciate his work [aside from the KJB issue] because of Ruckman's writings on him and because of a Ruckmanite Bible Institute.

You seem to be ignorant [now there's some irony] of a number of positive things Ruckman wrote about your grandfather.

 

[HankD]

'Anyone'?
Now, that sounds like a viciously ignorant statement. You see, we're all prone to over-reaching, just as Ruckman.

Actually i liked Ruckman, though i didn't/couldn't agree with him when it came to KJVO (although for many years I was KJVO.

He was a good expositor and actually referred to the Greek Text (TR) at times.
Once he was preaching (I was reading the sermon) in 2 Timothy and gave his own translation of a passage,
i thought it looked familiar - i checked it out and it was almost word for word the NIV rendering.

But his heresies of Double Inspiration and Advanced Revelation caused me to depart from the KJVO position.
His life was tragic and unhappy, i was sad when he left planet earth but i believe he is with His LORD Jesus.

 

[John of Japan]

Of course you must now double-down on your statement. Moving on.

I'm not sure you are understanding what I said. I did not say that any follower of Ruckman was ignorant and vicious. I said that following him meant following ignorance and viciousness. I challenge you to go through one of his books and note the personal attacks he makes against good men of God. That is not the approach of a Spirit-filled preacher.

 

[John of Japan]

Well then, I learned about your grandfather and learned to appreciate his work [aside from the KJB issue] because of Ruckman's writings on him and because of a Ruckmanite Bible Institute.

Good to know.

You seem to be ignorant [now there's some irony] of a number of positive things Ruckman wrote about your grandfather.

Yes, I'm completely ignorant of anything positive Ruckman ever said about JRR. Do you have a quote for me?

 

[George Antonios]

I recall at least a couple of instances but I'll have to look.
Here's what I recall [and he wrote that way about all the guys he blasted on the KJB issue], something to the effect that in such-and-such area, John R Rice was good and I couldn't teach him anything.

If you want more concrete proof, a Ruckmanite Bible Institute (one at least) makes his book "The Home" mandatory reading.

Ruckman repeatedly insisted that just because a man was wrong/weak/apostate on one issue did not mean he was so on all and that God wasn't using him. He just never got the same kind of slack back from those guys because they were too offended.