The "Septuagint" - Fact or Fiction?

DocCas · Dec 3, 2001

Facts concerning the "Septuagint."<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>The "Septuagint Papyri" is a collection of about 30 papyrus fragments bearing a portion of the OT in Greek. All but one of these were written between 150 and 750 AD. The exception is the Ryland Papyrus #458, dated about 150 BC, which contains portions of 5 chapters of Deuteronomy in Greek.<LI>The earliest existing manuscripts of the "Septuagint" are Codex Vaticanus (B), Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph), Codex alexandrinus (A), and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C). There were written between 350 and 500 AD.<LI>The 5th column of what is purported to be Origen's Hexapla is what is generally called the "Septuagint" today.<LI>The "Septuagint" is the official OT of the Greek Orthodox Church.[/list]Arguments For the Septuagint.<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Its existance is almost universally accepted by "Christian" scholarship.<LI>Even the translators of the KJV made reference to the "Septuagint" in their preface.<LI>The "Septuagint" is supported by manuscript evidence - the John Rylands Papyrus (c. 150 BC) and the great Codices of the "Christian Church."<LI>The "Septuagint" is supported by several of the Dead Sea Scroll readings.<LI>The "Septuagint" is supported by some ancient authorities such as Jesus, son of Sirach (132 BC) speaks of a Greek version of the Law, the Prophets, and the other books 'uttered in Hebrew and translated into another toungue'. And Philo of Alexandria (20 BC-50 AD) refers to the Letter of Aristeas, and quotes from a Greek OT. He does this around 40 AD. He is a Jewish Gnostic philosopher. Josephus (37-100 AD) also refers to the Letter of Aristeas (around 90 AD) and uses a Greek translation of the OT. He is a Jewish Historian. Eusebius (160-339 AD) cites the writings of a BC Aristobulus who mentions the translating of the Torah into Greek. Eusebius was a "Christian" historian.<LI>There is no disputing the fact that many Jews lived in Egypt from the days of Jeremiah (see 47:7), and that Alexandria became an influential Greek center with a large Jewish population after the conquest of Egypt by Alexander the Great in 332 BC. Thus it would be logical to expect a translation of the OT into a more fimiliar tongue, just as the Targums were Aramaic translations for the Jews in Babylonia.<LI>Even though the Letter of Aristeas is legendary, its existance strongly suggests that an authorized translation of the Hebrew into Greek did occur.[/list]Arguments Against a "Septuagint."<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>God committed the preservation of the OT to the Jews (Romans 3:1,2). If the LXX version is the inspired OT, then, as Ewert notes, "The preservation of the LXX must then be credited to the Christian Church and not to the Jews." (From the Ancient Tablets to Modern Translations, Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan, 1983, page 107)<LI>God ruled out any Egyptian translation of the OT in Jeremiah 44:26.<LI>Only those from the priestly tribe of Levi were to copy the Scriptures (Deut 17:18, 31:25, 26; 33:10; 1 Chron 16:4; Ezra 7:1-6; Malachi 2:7). The scribes began with Ezra, who returned to Palestine in 457 BC. The colony of Jews in Egypt had begun about 131 years earlier. It is resonable to expect the scribal tradition to continue in Palestine, not Alexandria. Besides, Acts 6:1, 21:37; 22:2; and Philippians 3:5d indicate some rivalry between Hebrews (Palestinian Jews) and Grecians (Hellenistic Jews).<LI>There is no difinitive manuscript evidence for the existance of any authorized pre-Christian Greek OT. (See "Facts" above)<LI>Christ and the Apostles never quoted from the Apocrypha, which the LXX contains!<LI>Christ and the Apostles would never quote (and hense endorse) an OT containing the apocryphal writings which teach contrary to sound doctrine.<LI>And OT LXX is not necessary to account for differences in wording when the NT quotes the OT.<LI>The attitude of the Jews to their sacred Scriptures, their language, and to Gentiles in general would preclude the acceptance of any translation of the OT into a "heathen" tongue from receiving official, authorized sanction. In Christian times the Jews refered to the LXX as the "work of Satan."<LI>The Targums were never official translations for the Jews, at least until the second century AD. This indicates a reluctance of the Jews to accept translations.<LI>The Greek versions of the OT by Aquila (128 AD), Theodotion (180 AD), and Symmachus (200 AD) were early attempts to produce an acceptable translation of the OT into Greek. Why would this be necessary if a pre-Christian LXX was already an "authorized" Greek OT? Ewert says, "Symmachus, and Ebionite Christian, prepared a Greek version of the OT for Jewish Christians." Why would that be necessary of the LXX was so popular with the Christians? And if the Jews did in fact reject their LXX after it became the Bible of the Christians, why would Christians respect it also? According to Miller (General Biblical Introduction, Houghton, New York, Word-Banner Press, 1960, page 113) the Apocrypha were not contained in the versions of Aquila and Symmachus. Why not, if an authorized LXX contained them?<LI>Why should we accept the word of "The Letter of Aristeas" when it is known to be a fable?<LI>While Philo and Josephus may have referred to the LXX, they were both writing after the birth of Christ. "Philo, the Alexandrian Jew, clearly rejected the canonicity of the Apocrypha at the time of Christ as does official Judiasm at other places and times. In fact, the extant copies of the LXX date from the fourth century AD, and DO NOT PROVE what books were in the LXX of earlier times." (Geisler and Nix, "From God to Us" Chicago, Moody Press, 1974, page 96 - emphasis mine).<LI>The writings of Jesus ben Sirach do not prove the existance of the LXX. Exactly what he said is found in the forward to the Apocryphal Book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus). He says, You therefore are now invited to read it in a spirit of attentive good will, with indulgence for any apparent failure on our part, despite earnest efforts, in the interpretation of particular passages. For words spoken originally in Hebrew are not as effective when they are translated into another language. That is true not only of this book, but of the law itself, the prophets, and the rest of the books, which differ no little when they are read in the original." (The New American Bible, Confraternity edition, Nashville, TN, Nelson, 1971, page 723.<LI>Jerome produced the Latin Vulgate OT between 390-405 AD and encountered a fierce storm of protest and criticism for translating it from the Hebrew rather than the venerated LXX. He also rejected the Apocrypha, eventually adding them to his translation after receiving some "friendly pressure" from the Papal Legate. Why would this be so, if the LXX was as it is claimed to be, "inspired and authoritative?" The term "Vulgate" was first used of Jerome's translation in the 13th century AD and it received the title Latin Vulgate at the Council of Trent in 1546. In Jerome's day the term "vulgata" meant corrupt, and was applied by Jerome to the existing Latin versions that were translated from Origin's revised Septuagint! (Miller, Op Cit, page 239). While it is true the KJV translators accept the "fact" of the LXX, this is what they said about it in their Preface: It is certain the tranlation was not so sound and so perfect, but that it needed in many places correction . . . howbeit the edition of the seventy went away with the credit and therefore was not only placed in the midst by Origen . . . so it is evident the seventy were interpreters, they were not prophets, and did many things well . . . but yet as men they stumbled and fell . . . yea they may be sometimes noted to add to the original and sometimes to take from it . . . (The Translators To The Readers, Authorized Version, London, 1611, Robert Barker, Printer)[/list]Conclusion: from the statements above, the following conclusion is drawn.

1. There never was any widely accepted, official Greek translation of the Old Testament among the Jews.

2. There were several translations of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek before and after the time of Christ. It begins to appear that there probably never was a single Septuagint text, but a whole series of Greek translations, revisions, modifications, and amplication, which ought to be called, not the Septuagint but rather "Greek translations," or, as Sir Frederick Kenyon used the term, "the Greek Bible." (Grant, F. C., Translating the Bible, Edinburgh, Scotland, Thomas Nelson, 1961, page 27.)

3. There was some competition among these Greek translations for acceptence. This apocryphal letter (Aristeas), a typical piece of propaganda, was designed, as Dr. Kahle and others think, to win support for one particular Greek version of the Torah by representing it as old, official, and authorized - fully authorized, in fact, but the Greek King, the Jewish High Priest in Jerusalem, the seventy (-two) themselves, and the whole Jewish community in Alexandria! As Kahle points out, no one invents propaganda for what is already generally accepted. Ewert, Op. Cit., page 21, 22)

4. What is known today as "The Septuagint" is of late origin, and is directly related to the work of Adamantius Origen (185-254 AD) in particular his Hexapla (c240 AD). This polyglot OT was both a collation and an attempt to standardize the text of the OT. The 5th column was his own work, which was later published by Eusebius of Caesarea (160-339 AD) who produced 50 Bibles for the Emperor Constantine I (228-337 AD). The earliest surviving manuscripts of the Septuagint are Codices B and Aleph, both of which have been linked to the Eusebio-Constantine Bibles of 331 AD. The LXX was produced in Alexandria, but not BC, but AD, by Origen. It contains many words and phrases which are peculiar to the Greek used in Alexandria. It contains a liberal amount of Egyptian words. (Miller, Op. Cit., page 222). Whoever produced the LXX was not a Jew! He had an imperfect knowledge of Hebrew. (ibid). His (Origen) labors on the Old Testament were thwarted by his imperfect knowledge of Hebrew . . . Fuller, Which Bible, Grand Rapids, MI, Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975, page 140). There is evidence of Christians changing the text of their Greek OT to suit their ends. In Justin's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew (c 135 AD0, Justin sees a prophecy of the cross in Psalm 96:10 . . . Trypho objects on the gounds that the Hebrew does not have this. Justin then retorts that the Jews have erased this reading. Trypho finds that incredible. And, in this case, Trypho was right; the phrase . . . was not omitted by the Jews, but added by the Christians. (Ewert, Op. Cit., page 107).

[ December 03, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

Dr. Bob · Dec 3, 2001

DR. CASSIDY IS BACK! How can we tell!!

Question #1 of several - The NT seems to quote OT Greek versions (septuagint or whatever) rather than directly translating from the Hebrew.

These are called "Scriptures"

So, IF (for sake of argument) there was an OT translation into Greek used by Jesus and the Apostles and it was "Scripture", THEN would not these be a proto-septuagint?

Question #2 - How did history get the fact of the Septuagint so mixed up ("mixed up" if we accept YOUR opinions which I doubt most will do anyway!!)

DocCas · Dec 3, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
So, IF (for sake of argument) there was an OT translation into Greek used by Jesus and the Apostles and it was "Scripture", THEN would not these be a proto-septuagint?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I tend to try to be as exact as possible in my nomenclature. To me, the "Septuagint" is the Greek OT, translated by 70 (or 72) Jews, 6 from each of the 12 tribes, and considered to be "reinspired" and "authoritative" and the "official" Greek OT. I agree there were probably several Greek tranlations of the OT in the Apostolic era, but I do not believe any of them was "reinspired" nor considered the "only authoritative" Greek OT (shades of KJVOnlyism!), nor the "authorized" or "official" Greek OT. It is also most likely that Christ and the Apostles quoted, in their public ministries, from these Greek OTs. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Question #2 - How did history get the fact of the Septuagint so mixed up ("mixed up" if we accept YOUR opinions which I doubt most will do anyway!!)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Several reasons. <LI>The first is academic laziness! Somebody made a statement, and the rest just climed on board without bothering to check the facts! (Rather like we see so often on the BB!) <LI>The second is that great Baptist distinctive, Tradition! Once something is generally accepted, no matter how inaccurate it may be, to openly disagree with "Baptist Tradition" is tantamount to heresy! Thinking for ones self is not a Baptist distinctive!<LI>Thirdly, sloppy terminology. Most people today who accept the term "Septuagint" do not accept the Letter of Aristeas as genuine, but continue to use the term "Septuagint." This disorderly nomenclature is confusing and tends to give the false impression that the person using it accepts the myth of Aristeas as fact.

[ December 03, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

Pastor Larry · Dec 3, 2001

Thomas,

Thanks for your clarification here. This is the information I was asking for in the other threads--trying to find out exactly what you were saying about the LXX. At least Bob knew the right buttons to push to get it out of you

Seriously, my understanding of the term "Septuagint" as traditionally used is of the Greek OT in its many forms. We use a similar term in referring to the Byzantine text or the Alexandrian text: It refers to a family of divergent mss, very similar, yet not a uniform "photocopy." I have no great reservations with your description given above. My only difference might be that I would tend to think the evidence probably leads to a more concrete LXX in the pre-apostolic times but I would not quibble that it was likely not a uniform version.

Phillip · Dec 4, 2001

Uh, maybe I misunderstand here, but it is my understanding the Byzantine stream of manuscripts contained the apocrypha also, from which was translated into the original KJV. If this is true, does this not defeat the argument that Jesus would not quote from books that were NOT intended to become part of the canon regardless of whether they came from his time or later?

I also can't see that Jeremiah 44:26 relates to people living three to 400 hundred years later (1 1/2 to 2 times the length of the United State's independence). I believe Jeremiah was a prophet, but not sure he was speaking of the particular time the septuagint was written.

It has been a long day so I will deal with only two at a time. It seems as though a lot of the negative arguments are quite a stretch considering the positive arguments.

I do agree the Septuagint was no doubt NOT inspired, but just another translation.

The arguments in the first post seem to be very KJVO. I don't understand exactly the standing of the writer here. He seems to be constantly walking a line or fence balancing between KJVO and non-KJVO. The statement that God would maintain his scripture and the way it is applied to ONE document only (unless I misunderstand) sounds very KJVO to me. I realize the author believes the Byzantine manuscript stream to be the most accurate, but I also get a lot of strong HINTS that are more KJVO related than not. Of course, that is just my opinion from reading posts on this subject.

Finally, the section marked "conclusions" is more of a section of "author's opinions" because they are definitely not the typical scientific method of arriving at a conclusion. I base this on my background as a Research Engineer/Scientist.

[ December 04, 2001: Message edited by: Phillip ]

Phillip · Dec 4, 2001

Oh, one more item. I am almost certain that although the Modern Greek churches use what used to be considered the Septuagint--that it has changed quite drastically over the years (just like our mv's) to a more updated version of Modern Greek from the Common Greek. I just did a study on the current Greek Orthodox Bible and something is ringing a bell in the back of my head that there may be some major errors with the first post on this thread as far as the origin of their current scriptures. This isn't necessarily a positive for the proof of a Septuagint, but it does go towards reliability of the stated facts.

Dr. Bob · Dec 4, 2001

In between watching Brett Favre bring the Packers back for another come-from-behind thriller, I reread the world's foremost OT scholar (imho) Gleason L. Archer in his book that originated in the ETS meetings - Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete survey (Moody Press, 1983)

I was amazed that his entire work is based on 100% opposite view of the Septuagint as you hold, Bro Thomas. He carefully details the quotations in the NT from<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Masoretic Text in LXX and from there into the NT<LI>LXX variant in the NT that is NOT the same as the Masoretic Text<LI>Masoret Text predominant over the LXX, but some of each in the NT quotation<LI>Quotations direct from the LXX and not the Masoretic Text<LI>Quotations that totally vary from either the MT Hebrwe or LXX Greek and serve as the Holy Spirit's "commentary" on the OT passage[/list]His OT works, along with RK Harrison, were the foundation of my OT studies. Both men accept the Septuagint of the 2-3rd century BCE as fact and their works detail it.

Hey, I went to the same seminary you did!
(1) Where did you come up with this view?
(2) Is this somehow related to your almost-but-not-quite-KJVo-position?

Absolutely mystified the more I study. Thanks for bringing up the subject!

DocCas · Dec 4, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Hey, I went to the same seminary you did!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah, but I paid attention! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>(1) Where did you come up with this view?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>From personal study of the very works which were part of the outside reading requirements. I listed some of the authors who, when I read the assignments, tended to see the LXX in an entirely different light. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>(2) Is this somehow related to your almost-but-not-quite-KJVo-position?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As I don't hold to an "almost-but-not-quite-KJVo-position" your question is a non sequitur.

Dr. Bob · Dec 4, 2001

C'mon Thomas, you are one of the strongest defenders of the KJV position (just short of an only - oh, sorry to make a height reference).

Is there a tie between your staunch defense of the AV1611 and your denial of a pre-Christian LXX?

And brother, I'm combing through my OT Intro notes and texts, and cannot find ANYONE who agrees with you.

DocCas · Dec 4, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Is there a tie between your staunch defense of the AV1611 and your denial of a pre-Christian LXX?

And brother, I'm combing through my OT Intro notes and texts, and cannot find ANYONE who agrees with you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The reason I deny the existance of a pre-Christian LXX is that it did not exist. I thought I made that pretty clear in my initial post. The Letter of Aristeas is a myth, a fake, a fable!

As to your inability to find anyone who agrees with my position, I clearly remember giving several cites in my initial post. Scroll up and check the authors listed, and read the quotes. I got the position from them.

Phillip · Dec 4, 2001

Without pointing fingers and hopefully in a Christian attitude, I submit that the post with the following quote. . .

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The reason I deny the existance of a pre-Christian LXX is that it did not exist. I thought I made that pretty clear in my initial post. The Letter of Aristeas is a myth, a fake, a fable! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

. . . as being absolutely no different than what other people on this posts are accused of in this quote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Somebody made a statement, and the rest just climed on board without bothering to check the facts! (Rather like we see so often on the BB!)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is simply non-scientific based opinion of one person based on a list of references of which some are indeed questionable. It is simply like the book about the Bermuda Triangle----I can write a fascinating story of supernatural out-of-this-world powers by quoting enough fact mixed with speculation in my bibliography. The above statement IS based on speculation and not fact. True, there may not be a LOT of facts dealing with the proof, but enough that a good portion of good Biblical Scholars believe that the Septuagint existed. In fact, the view above is not found very often anywhere from reliable and educated sources. (No reflection on the author of the post, simply stating a "fact")

Another point is that in the face of the lack of facts, textual criticism and scientific studies must be made to determine what can be considered as "hypothosis", "theory" or "fact". It is only recently that a round earth has gone from the theory category to fact and I believe the authors definition of "fact" is not exactly that of a scientist; however, this would be fine, but he tends to hold himself to a much lower standard when quoting what he calls "facts" than he holds those who oppose his posts.

For example, the one letter above may or may not be fact, but it actually probably falls more into the "hypothetical" category. This is a weak argument since the strongest argument for the Septuagint is not only the number of Jews who used the Greek language, but the multiplicity of statements in the New Testament early manuscripts that are just way too close to our copies of the LXX to be coincidental. This, as the author is aware, still falls into the "theoretical" category because there is a lack of "ABSOLUTE VISUAL PROOF" (a dead body for instance in a court case), but it does hold a LOT more credibility to be in the "theoretical" category than the so called "facts" quoted in regards to "there was no Septuagint, because blah, blah, blah.
[ad hominem attack deleted]

If so, we can live with this, but I think it would be best to be as open as possible to the actual motive rather than the continuous "beating around the bush" on actual beliefs. New members are looking at this site every day and like a good newspaper reporter, it would be a good idea to continuously let people know where we stand rather than rely on a post that is buried under a pile of 400 previous posts which all seem to conflict with each other.

Also, another note is that we wish to deal with "facts" here, but that is difficult when dealing with many authors (present and past) of many opinions, many of which are from manuscripts or writings too old to provide evidence capable of a verdict. I will state; however, that the following quote is an example of an opinion which is considered by the author as a fact:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The "Septuagint" is the official OT of the Greek Orthodox Church.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I had more time to study this today among several sources and this is not necessarily considered as "fact" or "factual" by all intellectuals, many of which are extremely well versed in this particular art.

To me the following quote followed by what is considered fact and fiction about the Septuagint is in conflict because the author is using the very same method of debate that others of using:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>on board without bothering to check the facts! (Rather like we see so often on the BB!)
The second is that great Baptist distinctive, Tradition! Once something is generally accepted, no matter how inaccurate it may be, to openly disagree with "Baptist Tradition" is tantamount to heresy!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Finally, the above quote also fits neatly into my theory because many of the references listed before tend to fit in the lower category of "Tradition" and not what would be totally accepted as scientific scholarship.

This post is not made in anger, nor to hurt anybody's feelings, but to simply express my views regarding the discrepancies that seem to be appearing in this particular subject category.

Last, but not least, I do want to give credit where it is due: Dr. Griffin and Pastor Larry--both of you inspire my thoughts and it is obvious that your background and study is solid and your beliefs do not shift with the sands of the desert and appear to be rooted on the Solid Rock!

[ December 05, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

TomVols · Dec 5, 2001

Dr. Thomas wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> As I don't hold to an "almost-but-not-quite-KJVo-position" your question is a non sequitur <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thomas, are you sure you don't hold to the almost KJVO position?

[ December 05, 2001: Message edited by: TomVols ]

DocCas · Dec 5, 2001

Yes. I have made my position clear several times on this Board. I believe in the superiority of the Byzantine textform, and consider the KJV quite superior to the other versions based on the Alexandrian textform, and marginally superior to the other versions based on the same textform due to the translation technique used.

I can't help but wonder why my honesty, leadership, scholarship, intelligence, and even my salvation is being constantly questioned on this topic? Unlike most of the people posting on this issue, I have actually studied it! I took my Th.D. in this subject! I have written extensive papers on the subject. But my position is, nevertheless, misrepresented, my honesty and leadership are attacked, and my salvation is called into question by some of the "good Christians" on the Board who disagree with me but cannot support their positions so they engage in ad hominem attack.

Sorry, Tom, I was not refering to you as I have always found you to be a Christian gentelman. I am just venting a bit.

Phillip · Dec 5, 2001

Thomas, I want to make something very clear to you and it still comes in the form of an appology: Any questions that I have questioned you on and I will not mention those on open forum had nothing to do with your intelligence, education or basis for beliefs. To be specific, they had to do with the way I felt you were editing my posts and your posts so that it would appear to go your way regardless of the disagreement or debate involved. The debate was not the main issue. If these edits were made in good faith, again I say I'm sorry to you. I know for a fact we got off on the wrong foot, but I have never seemed to be able to break through to that heart that I know you have inside. Any questions or accusations I made personally were simply to make you think about what you were doing and how it appeared, not really to question your credentials, faith, etc. For that I appologize again.
My point is made with the way you edited my last post with the following statement: [ad hominem attack deleted] then in the next post you accused somebody of making all these accusations and implied that person made ad hominem attacks; thereby implying that it was me. Just be up front and say so. I am simply trying to get through to the REAL Thomas Cassidy that is under that tough skin of always having to be right. I think there just may be an excellent Christian man deep inside, but due to strange editings and having such control of the conversation it appears that this is not true. Thomas, I really want to believe in you, we really can, as brothers in Christ, agree to disagree and this is NOT an insult to your education, research, study or anything else. After all, many fine professors have gone down the wrong road of evolution, so education as an end to itself is not necessarily what I judge a person by as far as theological knowlege is concerned.
My belief is that I have a right to disagree with you and say things such as you say about me and you post them without saying I am attacking you. Please, just this one time, let me print the paragraph that you covered as an attack and let us let the board itself decide if it is a true attack against the person (you) or the theology (a disagreement of beliefs). I am going to try to post it one more time and I pray that you will post it as said and then you can debate it and call me anything you want, but as a Christian, I appologize for any questioning of your character that I did (in private--you were the one who posted it and implied that I did it by editing my preceding post). I ask you, in the name of God, please leave this post as is so the board can see how I feel and if THEY judge me wrong then you may feel vindicated. If not then you may correct my errors in fact.

Thank you and God Bless you.

--Added 12/26/01 by Phillip: Thomas went ahead and edited out the paragraph again for which I was appologizing to him being man enough and letting the board decide if I was out of line. I will not repeat it again here, but if anybody is interested in what I said I will be glad to e-mail it to you. If he edits this out, I will post the paragraph along with a news story a www.baptist-church.org which receives hundreds of visitors a day due to the name and print the paragraphs there. I think people have a right to speak and if the moderator can't take the heat, then as the board rules imply, he should stay out of the kitchen. Thank you!

[ December 07, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

[ December 26, 2001: Message edited by: Phillip ]

Phillip · Dec 6, 2001

Dr. Cassidy,
I want to make this public because I think I owe that to you. Thank you for not editing out the statement above. Like I said it is simply my opinion and I also appologize to you again because I do have a debative (I know--bad grammar) spirit and when I do that it may appear I am attacking your education, qualifications or background. This is not true, this is my way of getting you (or anybody for that matter) to debate their best and I can learn by researching the statements made.
Put yourself in my shoes. I don't know you from Adam; but, that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to. Your training and education and research is important to you as is mine to me and I did have a tendency to attack that personally and I appologize for that. If I debate an issue with you, I am NOT saying that your qualifications are lower than mine (although I may have implied that in the past--my fault in the heat of the moment). But, I will say that I think the real Dr. Cassidy must be a pretty nice person based on the way your church members (at least one on this board vouches for you).
If you wish to feel like I'm an idiot for not believing certain things, that is your option, but I would like for you and I to move (and I admit--I pushed it) beyond that to debating the issues and not our qualifications or personalities.
I want to reiterate the accusatory questions I sent to you personally were to get a response. For that, I also appologize. I do NOT dislike you.
So, let's try a new start and I will respect you, although I may debate and disagree with you, that is the point of the board, right? I want to tell you that I do care for you as a brother in Christ and respect the fact that you left the above post in its entirety.
Thank you and God Bless!
Phillip

Chick Daniels · Dec 6, 2001

Thomas,

Obviously, no one should have their salvation questioned based on their text position! I have also studied this issue at length and written several articles and have come to many conclusions opposite of your conclusions (i.e. Byzantine textform usually inferior, etc.) and yet you are my brother in Christ desiring to express your beliefs.

Best wishes,

Chick

Phillip · Dec 7, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Chick Daniels:
Thomas,

Obviously, no one should have their salvation questioned based on their text position! and yet you are my brother in Christ desiring to express your beliefs.

Best wishes,

Chick<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chick,
As a Christian I must confess in person. I am the one who made accusing questions to Dr. Cassidy by private e-mail because I was frustrated at what I thought was the way he was editing the posts. That is actually his job and he can edit as he pleases, but in the heat of arguing I asked several questions among which was "Is Christ really in your heart?" or something to that effect. THAT was a sin. I was upset over another issue unrelated to textual issues, so it got tied together, but I have no problems with a persons believes whether they feel the Byzantine text is more accurate or not. Above I have appologized to Dr. Cassidy, but it still does not take away something that was printed in anger and for THAT and my remarks concerning Dr. Cassidy, I humbly appologize. I think all of us were getting a little personal on the issues and it got out of hand, but I was the one who pushed it. I just wanted you to know that as far as I know I am the only one who has questioned his salvation and that was more to provoke a response, for that again I'm sorry.
I must say that I disagree with several issues with Dr. Cassidy, but he showed what a man he was by leaving my post alone so the board could see that it was my fault. I tend to agree with Bro. Larry and others on theology, but as Christians I hope we can agree to disagree and I want to always hear Dr. Cassidy's side regardless of agreement, because how do we learn if we don't get into a discussion where we research hard to find the answers. Blame me for the statements and nobody else. If nothing else I owe this to Dr. Cassidy.

ventin · Dec 13, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Chick Daniels:
Thomas,

Obviously, no one should have their salvation questioned based on their text position! I have also studied this issue at length and written several articles and have come to many conclusions opposite of your conclusions (i.e. Byzantine textform usually inferior, etc.) and yet you are my brother in Christ desiring to express your beliefs.

Best wishes,

Chick<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i would like to know how is the Byzantine textform inferior. thanks!

DocCas · Dec 24, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by ventin:
i would like to know how is the Byzantine textform inferior. thanks!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So would I, but don't hold your breath waiting for an answer on this thread, but there is another thread which addresses that subject.

TomVols · Dec 26, 2001

Ventin asked:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> i would like to know how is the Byzantine textform inferior. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The superiority of Alexandrian witnesses & inferiority of Byzantine mss have been discussed to death in other threads. So you'll probably want to find those topics and search them out there. There are also some good links to good conservative information on this topic posted on the threads by Chris Temple in particular.

The "Septuagint" - Fact or Fiction?

DocCas New Member

Dr. Bob Administrator
Administrator

DocCas New Member

Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter

Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

Dr. Bob Administrator
Administrator

DocCas New Member

Dr. Bob Administrator
Administrator

DocCas New Member

Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

TomVols New Member

DocCas New Member

Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

Chick Daniels Member

Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

ventin New Member

DocCas New Member

TomVols New Member

Useful Searches

The "Septuagint" - Fact or Fiction?

DocCas New Member

Dr. Bob Administrator Administrator

DocCas New Member

Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b> Site Supporter

Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

Dr. Bob Administrator Administrator

DocCas New Member

Dr. Bob Administrator Administrator

DocCas New Member

Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

TomVols New Member

DocCas New Member

Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

Chick Daniels Member

Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

ventin New Member

DocCas New Member

TomVols New Member

Dr. Bob Administrator
Administrator

Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter

Dr. Bob Administrator
Administrator

Dr. Bob Administrator
Administrator