He listened for 18 hours!

FSSL

Active member
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
6,749
Reaction score
15
Points
38
1. Through study and reflection upon multiple English translation that should progress to learning the translation process and all it entales.
Then why do you insist that one must know Greek to know the Truth?

2. Why did you study Greek? It is obvious from your own actions you believe it was important to study Greek to know the Truth.
To be able to interact with commentaries and writers who cite the languages (both Greek and Hebrew) and see if they are accurate.

3. That is your narrative. You're wrong. I'm trying to get people to really know the Truth. Not rely upon others but get it from the source. Just like those noble Christians at Brea.
If the Gospel is not involved, then why do you capitalize the word "Truth?" Why insist that one must know Greek if what you say in #1 is true?
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Active member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
521
Reaction score
27
Points
28
Depends on which line of manuscripts you follow.
The two lines argument has not been proven to be true, and it has not been proven that the two claimed lines were kept completely separate without any mixture.

You ignore the fact that the Church of England makers of the KJV made use of texts and translations that KJV-only advocates places on their corrupt line of Bibles. For example, the KJV was influenced in some places by the Greek LXX, the Latin Vulgate of Jerome, and the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament made from the Latin Vulgate. The revisers who made the KJV borrowed a good number of renderings from the 1582 Rheims.
 

illinoisguy

Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
237
Reaction score
22
Points
18
The KJV translators also referred to the 1602 version of the Spanish language Reina-Valera Bible, which according to the KJV-only people was a "corrupted" Catholic version of the Bible. If that is true, then why did the KJV translators use it as a reference work? Actually, the Reina-Valera was not corrupted or Catholic. The 16th Century translators of the Reina-Valera used what is now called the Received Text (same as the KJV) and they were Protestants who were persecuted by the Catholics.

I suppose the Reina-Valera translators could have saved themselves a lot of hassle and persecution by the Catholics, if they had not translated the Bible into Spanish and had instead said to everyone, "Go read it in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek cuz that is your final authority."
 

GeneFrenkle

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 2, 2014
Messages
131
Reaction score
1
Points
18
Depends on which line of manuscripts you follow.
The oldest and most reliable are not the 'most reliable'.

This guy gets it. It's a pretty easy study. Most of it begins by figuring out that the Septuagint is a lie.

And "Starlifter". NICE! I worked on C-141's in the AF.
 

Ransom

Calvinist Mole
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
7,499
Reaction score
80
Points
48
This guy gets it. It's a pretty easy study. Most of it begins by figuring out that the Septuagint is a lie.
Does Bigfoot or Hitler's faked death fit into it, too?
 

Ransom

Calvinist Mole
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
7,499
Reaction score
80
Points
48
As far as being a "BC" invention, yes.
Hey, Ronald McDonald, if the LXX wasn't a "BC invention," can you explain why fragments of it were found in the Qumran caves with the rest of the Dead Sea Scrolls?
 

logos1560

Active member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
521
Reaction score
27
Points
28
This guy gets it. It's a pretty easy study. Most of it begins by figuring out that the Septuagint is a lie.
Had the KJV-only view's trusted Church of England scholars in 1611 easily figured it out since they suggested that the NT writers quoted from the Greek Septuagint? Does your assertion suggest that the critics who made the KJV were not so well informed and studied on textual matters?

The Greek LXX influenced or affected some of the KJV's translation decisions.
 

illinoisguy

Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
237
Reaction score
22
Points
18
According to the KJV translators, the Septuagint was published in the 3rd Century BC. Here's what they said: "But when the fullness of time drew near, that the Sun of Righteousness, the Son of God should come into the world, whom God ordained to be a reconciliation through faith in his blood, not of the Jew only, but also of the Greek, yea, of all them that were scattered abroad, then lo, it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek Prince ( Greek for descent and language) even of Ptolemy Philadelph King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek. This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, commonly so called which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching."

Ptolemy II Philadelphus reigned from 283 BC to 246 BC. That's BC, as in "Before Christ."

If the KJV translators were wrong about that, how can we trust any of their other scholarly work, including their English translation of the Bible?

It seems to me that the Ruckmanites are hurting their own cause when they keep insisting that the KJV translators were mistaken about so many important issues.
 
Top