Posted on 01/06/2007 7:13:58 AM PST by Titanites
I understand your position, but the argument you present seems to invariable lead to the conclusion that you either have perfect faith in the Bible in toto, or you don't really have any faith at all.
8-)
And then, who authorized the authorized King James Bible? I mean, where did Luther derive the authority to remove several books from the Bible, the Bible which was used by all Christians in his day, without contradicting his own foundational principle of "the Bible alone"?
"OK, I'll change the Bible around until I get it the way I like it and then no one else can change it."
Even my young daughters think the logical headstands are funny.
Thank you, but I was just pretending. Actually I hate everybody. Especially when I weigh myself or haven't had enough coffee.<p.But Seriously, thank you for those kind words. I will endeavor, in my finer moments at least, to deserve them.
Its threads like these that make me get down on my knees and thank God I'm an ATHEIST.
Doesn't matter...The King James translators had enough honesty and integrity that whenever they inserted a word into to the text that they couldn't find a source for, they printed it in Italics so everyone would know that there was no source word available...
How many words in the other translations were added without source words??? You don't know...The translators weren't honest enough to tell you...
As it is published today. Well, now you are changing the goal posts.
The Septuagint as it is published today comes primarily from several different recensions, one of which is the Codex Vaticanus (Codex B), which is of Egyptian origin. The others are the Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Sinaiticus. The Codex Vaticanus (Codex B) is popular because it is believed to be the oldest (nearly) complete copy of the Greek Bible in existence. The Roman edition of the Septuagint (1587) was based on the Vaticanus. Maybe Kolokotronis can inform us about the version preferred by the Orthodox.
However, Codex B did not come from Origen’s Hexapla as you claim. Rather, it belongs to the family of manuscripts used by Origen to compose his Hexapla. Origen duplicated the Septuagint in his Hexapla. The manuscript that did borrow from the Hexapla is the Alexandrinus Codex.
Or are you laboring under the misconception that the Septuagint today can be found someplace earlier than Origen's Hexapla? If so, then where is the Septuagint found earlier than Origen's Hexapla?
I’m not sure what you mean by the Septuagint being found “someplace earlier than Origen’s Hexapla”. The Septuagint was used by Origen to compose the Hexapla, so the Septuagint was of earlier origins than the Hexapla. If you are asking if the original manuscript of the Septuagint is available for examination, the answer is no. But if that is your requirement to prove that the Septuagint existed, you also need to realize that we don’t even have Origen’s Hexapla (a much later work), which seems to be your touchstone.
And tell us where there can be found any manuscript evidence of a pre-Christian Septuagint.
The Dead Sea Scrolls. Also, Hebrew manuscripts found at Qumran more closely follow the Septuagint we have now than they do the Masoretic texts.
Please tell us about earlier pre-Christian manuscripts of your canon. And what is the earliest complete manuscript now available containing your full OT canon. Before you answer, please note that even the Dead Sea Scrolls don’t contain a complete manuscript of your OT canon.
The fact still remains that the Septuagint pre-dates Origen, which is the topic of this thread.
All believers are indewlt by the Holy Spirit, even when they are out of fellowship. God still created humans as creatures with volition, meaning we are able by our free will, rebel from Him. We do not have the power to remove Him from us as once we are saved with eternal life, we are part of His royal family forever. So I suspect the Spirit of Truth resides in most Catholics, although many, just like other denominations, might not be in fellowship with Him.
Similarily with Catholic believers and the body of all believers as a whole, while we follow His enabling work in us with our volition, we may remain in fellowship with Him. This is also sometimes referred to as being filled with the Spirit, but is different than the indwelling of the Spirit, which is also different than enduement of the Spirit.
In regards to the passages presented, they don't seem to reflect the intent of the poster's argument.
John 14:11-12 reads of the relationship of Father and Son, and the significance of works performed through Him.
John 16:13 reads as though addressed to either the apostles or individual believers, those who believe in Him, although I do not have a translation which uses the word "Church", but instead uses the word, "you" in addressing to whom the Spirit of Truth will perform His ministry. (The New American Bible produced by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the United States Catholic Conference uses the word, "you" where the post uses the word "Church".)
1 Timothy 3:15 refers to Timothy speaking to his audience as to why he is writing, that if he should tarry long, they might know how to behave themselves in the house of God.
BTW, some advanced doctrine might be present in these passages relating more to how God indwells each and every believer, which Person of the Godhead is active, then how we work together amongst ourselves, through faith in Christ, with the unique gifts each of us has from the Holy Spirit. Perception of the passages from the perspective of a comparative religion, where a particular denomination owns property they drive to, walk inside and perform various religious activity is a different meaning of 'church'.
FWIW, I encourage all in these threads to read, think, understand, and memorize the meaning of Romans 10:6-7, but only after a simple thinking of God and quick confession of any known or unknown sin, and allow Him to write His meaning in our mind, then our hearts, so that while we remain in fellowship with Him, we might better perform through faith in Him in all things.
GB
mark
luke ;^)
*Actually, we keep the Bible in the glove compartment of the Popemobile. The glove compartment is in the front...
Did you know the Popemobile gets over eight miles per gallon?
The Popemobile is powered by the engine of Tradition and the pneuma of the Holy Ghost is its fuel.
And no, you can't take it for a spin. To be qualified to drive that, one must be in the Driver's Seat - a Office Divinely-Constituted by Jesus - and be able to read and correctly follow the Bible - the road map to Heaven. You don't have a license - to drive or interpret Scripture...and I am afraid you'd crash the Popemobile.
Sorry...
I am perfectly content using the KJV. Which version of the KJV do you prefer? 1611? Or a later version?
1611 used ben Chayimm's Masoretic text, and Erasmus' textus receptus as its base. Do you think that the KJV, ben Chaymm's Masoretic text, and Erasmus' textus receptus all stand equally in authority, or does (that particular) Masoretic Text and (that particular) version of the textus receptus exceed the authority of the KJV? (I understand from what you wrote above that you think Ben Chayimm's Masoretic Text and the textus receptus used in the original KJV exceeds all other Hebrew and Greek versions in authenticity, so what I am asking is if the English is as authentic as the Hebrew and Greek, or do we need to skip the English entirely, disregarding even the KJV, and go straight to the Hebrew and Greek?
Do you read and write ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek?
"And let's not forget every New Testament book, though written in Greek, was written by a Jew."
Are we sure Luke a Jew? Where does it say that?
Well, we don't want just any riff-raff in our Churches. You gotta have a thick skin. Thick head doesn't hurt either ...
Well, that's a start. What else can we do to help get you down on your knees thanking God more often?
>> Respectfully asked...I must admit I have not read all those books, but are they chok full of Messianic prophecies? <<
The issue of Greek contamination and Messianic hopes that the Jews considered false aren't exactly separate issues, and the Jews did not treat them as separate issues. Not all of the Deuterocanonicals have specific Messianic prophecies, but they all took place after what the Jews considered to be Greek contamination.
The tought thing is that those that did were very specific. Looking back, it is clear to Christians that many Psalms foretold the Resurrection ("The LORD shall rescue me from the grave.") But such prohecises can also be explained away in ordinary ways (such as interpreting rescuing from the grave as meaning sparing from death or Ezekiel's boneyard being taken metaphorically, for instance). Keep in mind, that the Jews take the suffering servant (cf Isaiah), for instance, to refer to the nation of Israel only, and not to a specific person. On the other hand, Judah Maccabees feared not the grave specifically because he prophecied that he, himself, would be raised in the flesh on the last day.
How can we listen to Dean Burgon?! He was a self-proclaimed numismatist! A flaming homosapien who regularly exposed his epidermis to people!
;^D
Just show me some sort of proof.
Yikes! Thank goodness this scandal isn't on the Catholics.
Sorry for not getting back sooner. In a flood of replies, I missed yours.
My garble inhibitor has been acting lately. (Know where I can get a good second-hand spork weasel?) Here goes:
>input text as follows: <
The problem with this reasoning is that the Septuagint is 90% closer to the New Testament wordings than any reasonable thranslation of the Hebrew into Greek. It's not the Septuagint that is the messy translation, it's the Masoretic text which is!
>proccessing... processing... processing... output complete:<
The author has falsely presumed that the Septuagint is in error, on the basis that the Septuagint varies so greatly from the Masoretic text. (The Masoretic text is the translation used by the Jews, and which St. Jerome translated into the Vulgate.) The truth is that, in fact, it is the Vulgate and Masoretic text which are problemmatic. This can be demonstrated by comparing the passages wherein the New Testament quotes the Old Testament: 90% of the time, the passages are more similar to Septuagint than to a direct Greek translation of the Masoretic Text.
>> passage complete. <<
Hmm... more verbose... is that degarbled sufficiently?
>> If the SHEPEHRD OF HERMAS was in the 4th century bibles why is it not in it today. <<
"The Shepherd of Hermas" was not in 4th century bibles. Nor was it ever included with the Old Testament. Along with "The Teaching of the Twelve" (Gr., "Didache"), it was considered by many 2nd-century churches to be "writings suitable for the spiritual formation of converts," and included in publications of apostolic writings. Most such books, with those two exceptions, later became known as the New Testament. Unlike other non-biblical works, such as the Gnostic gospels, these two books were never condemned by name as impure, but were not included in the bible when various councils of bishops set forth the New Testament canons in the third and fourth centuries.
Thank you! I understood that much better, and it is very interesting.
Someone on the Undead Thread sells spork weasels - you might try a keyword search.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.