Septuagint still perfect?

Please explain what you mean.

 

Many discrepencies found in the Septuagint .

Only imagined ones in the KJB.

 

How do you know if you can't compare with the autographs?

I find it a strange arguement that the copies of copies of copies of copies are more accurate than the copies of copies.

 

Nice try, but I was not a passenger on that train.

Ed

 

Wow, thanks for the kind words, Ed. :wavey:

 

aaithoase of

OK I guess, but that is not what the text says. And if the text did not say it, how woulds you know what Jessu said, to begin with??

I am demanding nothing, here. Luke's claim is this:

Luke doesn't claim to be an eyewitness, but to have been instructed. His claim is perfect understanding, and that Theophilus may know for certain, what he is saying. Luke claims 'to have checked it out' (HCSB, ASV. DARBY, NASB, NIV, ) or to have "perfect understanding" (NKJV, KJV, KJ21). Peter, who was an eyewitness of the transfiguration, says that the "word made sure" was more dependable than his own eyewitness testimony, and that 'holy men of God spoke as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit' (From memory, not a direct quote of any version, here). Paul said "All Scripture is God-breathed-out, ..." (II Tim. 3:16) And Jesus said "Your word is truth" (Jn. 17:17), and "the Scripture cannot be broken." (Jn. 10:35). It would appear what you suggested above is inconsistent with what the Bible says, here. Or does your Bible read in a different manner? Uh- exactly how DOES your Bible read in these listed verses?

Say what?? Jesus was reading from an imperfect copy, here? Is that your claim? BTW, I said nothing about questioning the historicity of Isaiah, or that the scroll Jesus was reading from, being anything less than a perfect copy. The text says nothing about Luke using any copy of the Isaiah scroll, here - only Jesus and the attendant or minister of the synagogue. (Lk. 4:20)

Certainly the "viewpoint' of the writer is considered. I do not believe, nor do I teach any "Mechanical Dictation" theory. Paul's writings are those of Paul; David's words are those of David; Moses' words are those of Moses; Luke's words are those of Luke; etc. They are simultaneously the words of God, and are under the full inspiration of God, the Holy Spirit, for we believe they are Scripture. (II Pet. 1:16-21) Incidentally, nowhere does the Bible say that Luke penned either 'Luke' or Acts, although I believe that he did, consistent with the testimony of the "early church fathers." BTW, I have said nothing about any Scripture having any errors, either.

I never made any such claim; I can speak for no others, in this, as to any claim he or she may or may not have made.

Wrong! The passage in question, at least the one I have been speaking of (Lk. 4:15-22) , is in Greek, not Hebrew. And I do not believe Luke tells us what is the language of the scroll Jesus was reading from.

Proving what about the passage Jesus read in Lk. 4, and which was written in Greek? I commend you on your success of your recent foray to the ocean. You apparently came back with a bountiful harvest of those little 'fishies' known as herring, and have apparently smoked several of them considering the frequency with which you are tossing them around..

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I offer Exhibit "A." of a remark that is totally and completely

Ed

 

Well reasoned.

I wondered about the text Jesus read. Is it that Luke is making an inperfect quote of what Jesus said based on another's perspective or did Jesus use a translation no longer extant?

 

The goofs in the KJV's Acts 12:4 & 1 Tim. 6:10 are not imagined...they're real booboos.

And let's not forget that JESUS HIMSELF mighta been reading aloud from a copy of the Septuagint in Luke 4:16-21. Even Dr. Thomas Cassidy sez that at the very least he was reading from a vorlage version, & certainly not the Masoretic Text translated into the KJV's version of Isaiah. And don't forget that Jesus called it "this Scripture".

 

He might have, had it existed.

As for Acts 12:4, I know you have been rebuked on this MANY times, for I have personally told you of your error in this matter at least twice before, once on www.kjbonly.com when I owned that domain, and then again at www.endgathering.com/forums when I operated that forum.

Tyndale INVENTED the word Passover. He should know how to use it. And he did, in Tyndales Bible.

Act 12:4 And when he had caught him he put him in preson and delyvered him to .iiii. quaternios of soudiers to be kepte entendynge after ester to brynge him forth to the people.

Everywhere else, Tyndale used the word he invented, passover. He was not an idiot.

Go and ask a greek what the word for Easter is - Pascha
Go and ask a greek what the word for Passover is - Pascha

The key is the context. And since the Passover had finished, and it was the days of unleavened bread (the passover was ONE DAY, not a whole week), Herod was looking forward to EASTER, HIS PAGAN FESTIVAL, to bring forth Peter.

Like Salamander said, your error is imagined.

And 1 Timothy 6:10

1Ti 6:10 For loue of money, is the roote of all euyll, whiche whyle some lusted after, they erred from the fayth, & pearced the selues through with many sorowes. - BISHOPS

1Ti 6:10 For the desire of money is the roote of all euill, which while some lusted after, they erred from the faith, and pearced themselues through with many sorowes. - GENEVA

1Ti 6:10 For coveteousnes is the rote of all evyll which whill some lusted after they erred fro the fayth and tanglyd them selves with many sorowes. - TYNDALE

It says the same things in previous versions of the Holy Scriptures

Only after the RSV, did the translators start adding in "kinds of evil"

 

Enough warnings. This is not staying on topic, some insist on turning the topic to the KJV.

Closed