Did the LXX Exist BEFORE the NT age.

I have large 2 bookcases in my house and 2 shelves for manuscript evidences only.

They posted proving me wrong, but the truth was NOT there.

 

Again no documentation cited to support his beliefs or findings. Just opinion. Give us specific documentation. His writings are much like the kid who comes to his mom and dad and says, "Everybody's doing it." That is until the mom or dad begin to ask some of those who are from the everybody crowd.

No evidence to support whether or not he examined any other evidence or theory and refuted it.

Prov. 18:17, "The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him."

He has not done his homework period. The Dr. is not worthy of those letters. Dr. Means he is capable of doing research and documenting his findings not just an opinion. If it an original them let's examine his data. Data? I see none. He has no published first hand knowledge or data. Seems all of his writings are hearsay and nonsense.

Why do you think those in the world laugh at such research? We ought to be the best and have the most integrity in our research and documentation. We should never be afraid of the facts.

 

I provided you with two references, one friendly one not.

Personally I agree that Ruckman is all wet about the LXX.

While you might agree as well (that he's all wet), he is a scholar in his own right.

Here is his website of books and articles he has written including Mythological Septuagint

http://www.kjv1611.org/kjvdefnd/kjdefend.htm

HankD

 

I have large 2 bookcases in my house and 2 shelves for manuscript evidences only. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, la-deee-daaaah! That proves nothing. I've probably got twice that. It doesn't prove a thing, askjo. It doesn't show your "evidence".

 

I have large 2 bookcases in my house and 2 shelves for manuscript evidences only. </font>[/QUOTE]Then certainly you have examined the case thoroughly and look at all of the references used in those books. But we are waiting for some documented evidence and not just someone's opinion.

I have never heard one word ever mentioned about Ruckman ever taking a look at a manuscript or photostat copy and examining it. I have never seen his name in print with anyone who has who has examined any manuscripts nor have I read anything from him to indicate that he has.

But on the contrary I have read materials by Aland and Metzger and many others who have stated that they have and given dates to the manuscripts. But none for Ruckman.

 

I have large 2 bookcases in my house and 2 shelves for manuscript evidences only. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, la-deee-daaaah! That proves nothing. I've probably got twice that. It doesn't prove a thing, askjo. It doesn't show your "evidence". </font>[/QUOTE]Are you KJV preferred?

 

Why do you ask, askjo? I have stated many times where I stand on the KJV.

 

I believe, based on some of his work, that Ruckman is capable of doing advanced, dissertation level research- the problem is not that he lacks the capability; but the will. BJU certainly thought him capable of advanced-level work at one time: hence his PhD.

The problem is that his extreme bias has for so long obscured his judgment that he is no longer able (at least in regards to the KJV/TR) to do the unbiased research demanded. Instead of researching & collating evidence, and then drawing logical, reasonable conclusions; Ruckman has chosen to formulate his conclusions first, and then to focus upon (or even concoct) only the evidence which might seem to support his desired thesis.

 

It really does not so much matter where a person stands when it comes to proper research and honest documentation. It's a matter of ethics and integrity.

 

Why did you disagree with the KJV preferred against the LXX? KJV preferred against the KJV preferred???

 

The they should take his Ph.D. from him. Either he is a poor representation of what the degree requires or was granted a degree on the basis of the good ol' boy club.

If he comes to a problem with a presupposition that he is determined to support without proper research then he is a liar at best and not an honest accurate researcher. If he does not give his findings then I cannot challenge his research or findings but just consider him opiniated. Therefore his opinion is just that--worthless opinion.

 

Could you give an example of that kind of work by him? What was his dissertaion on. I looked in a database of dissertations that goes across the nation back many years and did not find his name listed.

 

Why did you disagree with the KJV preferred against the LXX? KJV preferred against the KJV preferred??? </font>[/QUOTE]Because proof is proof and honesty is honesty...it has nothing to do with my preference...it has to do with truth. I for one am not afraid of it.

 

Could you give an example of that kind of work by him? What was his dissertaion on. I looked in a database of dissertations that goes across the nation back many years and did not find his name listed. </font>[/QUOTE]Nothing I have handy or can produce off-hand. His degree is over half a century old, I believe- and BJU being unaccredited (then & now) I doubt he/it would be listed on any national dissertation database. BJU at least has somewhat of a reputation for some rigor required in academics though (as opposed to so many other unaccredited Bible Colleges which will award "Doctorates" with very little or no demonstration of even the slightest skills that should be required at that level.

 

Proof from the deceit and proof from the honesty disagree each other.

 

Askjo,

Stop with the spin and just post your sources(if any)! You made a claim now back it up.

Show us some evidence and prove that you are not..well...you know.

Thank you

 

Proof from the deceit and proof from the honesty disagree each other. </font>[/QUOTE]Again, askjo, prove the deceit and dishonesty. In other words, put up or shut up. You spout, but you post no proof. You're more of an instigator than investigator.

 

Argue over "proof" -- let me ask you question: Was the TR there in 2nd Century? Please answer Yes or NO with no explanation.

 

I am tempted to get the book Mythological Septuagint to see just what is there.

If and when I do I'll give a book report.

Personally, I'de like to be able to prove him wrong or at least lacking in credibility though I don't believe the issue is what one calls the source documents the apostles used in quoting the OT as it was definitely not the Masoretic text.

It seems to me that if God "re-inspired" the English words of the KJV then the NT KJV quotes of the OT should match word-for-word.

HankD

 

Argue over "proof" -- let me ask you question: Was the TR there in 2nd Century? Please answer Yes or NO with no explanation. </font>[/QUOTE]You will not turn this argument around. You've made blanket statements...now prove them. Either that or it is further proof you have no evidence in the first place, which wouldn't surprise me.