As I was pondering this thread I was lead to the following verse which I think to be appropriate:

(Jer 6:16) Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.

The Lord God said to walk in the old paths. He did not tell us to seek out new "versions" of the Bible or to walk in the intellectualism of the current era. I find the New Evangelicals to be caught up in pride. Pride of their thoughts and stance that they have a "better" Bible that is more accurate than the King James Bible.

The Bible itself addresses the King James Bible:

(Psa 12:6) The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. (Psa 12:7) Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (emphasis mine)

The King James Bible is the 7th major English translation of God's Holy Word. That causes it to fall into line with the passage of scripture quoted above. It has been purified seven times. Then it goes on to tell us that the seventh purification will be preserved for ever.

That's good enough for me!

In Christ,
George

Brother George,

The NIV has verse 7 as:

7 O LORD, you will keep us safe
and protect us from such people forever.

What a travesty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The ESV has

7You, O LORD, will keep them;
you will guard us[a] from this generation forever.


Footnotes:

a. Psalm 12:7 Or guard him

Just looked it up on Bible Gateway.

That translation is a bit strange.

This post was last modified: Sat Mar 22, 2008 07:38 PM by Davo.

There are so many things I want to respond to, but as I was trying to write everything, I began to be overwhelmed (especially with the in-laws in town although it makes for a good escape). Instead of starting 10 new discussions in the LXX thread, I will just state something else on the LXX and move on.

Before I do, I have to say that I can understand how this discussion could turn heated. If it were not for Brother Tim's statement about ferver and humor, it could be easy for someone with my view to be quickly offended. After all, you have discredited my Bible college, my professors, my education, my church, and my own views altogether. I was asked to respect others views when it seems like my views have not been respected but ridiculed. Things have not been said as a disagreement but as an absolute. I am glad you are confident in your views, but you might want to be careful how you come accross in your confidence. Especially when this issue isn't even part of the statement of faith. This is just a suggestion. I am enjoying these discussions, but I wanted to pass this along for whatever it is worth. I don't want you to stop speaking your mind and arguing for what you believe to be truth (notice I didn't put truth in " "). Eph. 4:15 - "But speaking the truth in love..." I think that might have been lost somewhere.

I didn’t mean to imply that the TR used the LXX. I think that is highly unlikely. What I was trying to point out is that the NT probably quotes the LXX in some places but most other places they translate from the HOT. Those 6 examples were places that are clear quotations. I showed where there was 100% agreement between the LXX and the TR thus indicating that the NT writers quoted the LXX at times.

Does anyone ever get a weird feeling right before they post a comment wondering if what they are about to say is going to be rebuked or accepted? Well here goes...

This post was last modified: Sat Mar 22, 2008 08:07 PM by Greektim.

First, Brother, I can only speak for myself. I don't believe that I have said anything to discredit your Bible college, professors, education, or church. If anything I said was taken for that, I apologize. (note: it is not wise to talk about one's in-laws on the internet - it is not all that anonymous ) I do know that some others have used some rough words. It is not my style.

Your views are fair game as are ours. That is the point of the dialogue.

Again, I have not questioned the possibility that the NT writers may have used a Greek OT. You have listed some possibilities. Your reasoning questioning the reverse to be true is worthy of consideration.

My original statement has to do with the KJB translators using LXX readings instead of the Hebrew manuscripts is some places in the OT not the NT. Because you are far more familiar with the LXX than I am, are you aware of any instances where this might be true?

I am fascinated by George's comment re: Psalm 12.6. I have studied the topic of Bible translations for years (I only use the AV) and that is the first time I have heard that. What do you consider to be the 7 major revisions?

This post was last modified: Sun Mar 23, 2008 09:15 AM by kenny.

GT,

Glad you at least understood part of my statement regarding the Letter to Aristeas. However, you missed the main point, and went right back to your statement:

GT Quote: "I didn’t mean to imply that the TR used the LXX. I think that is highly unlikely. What I was trying to point out is that the NT probably quotes the LXX in some places but most other places they translate from the HOT. Those 6 examples were places that are clear quotations. I showed where there was 100% agreement between the LXX and the TR thus indicating that the NT writers quoted the LXX at times."

The above statement is contradictory. The "LXX" quotes the NT, which was written 300 years before the reference to the "LXX" shows up. Not ONE place does ANY NT writer quote a mythological pre-AD septuagint.

GT Quote: "Things have not been said as a disagreement but as an absolute. I am glad you are confident in your views, but you might want to be careful how you come across in your confidence."

You should take a strong look at the same way your "absolute" statements come across in their cockiness. I know that most, not all, of today's Bible college professors have an avowed hatred for the Book that got me saved(KJB) and subtly, with a great deal of piousness, attack it in the course of "textual criticism". They're wolves in sheep's clothing, and I do not appreciate the slyness of those types of "arguments". The King James Bible is the pure, perfect, preserved word of God. Any "backdoor" attack on it tends to raise my ire a bit.

This post was last modified: Mon Mar 24, 2008 01:03 AM by Mongol Servant.

James, are reading what you are writing, Brother?

Do you not speak with the same "cockiness" that you accuse another brother of doing? I have underlined the statement above to illustrate. Unless you do a lot more traveling than I could imagine and have a great amount of time to sit in on "most, if not all" Bible college classes, how could you make such a blanket, horribly erroneous statement as this?! This kind of rhetoric is what turns serious seekers of truth away from our position on the KJB. You make us all to sound like rabid dogs!

(emphasis mine)

Brother, I thank God for what you have sacrificed to serve where you do, and our church is happy to support your family in prayer and giving. I pray that you will take this rebuke from one who is learning to behave myself as well.

Mongol Servant wrote:

I have no doubt that the LXX is pre the NT age. Josephus writing at -the latter part of the 1st Cenury, 70-100AD wrote that it was old book in his day. He says that 72 scibes were sent to translate it, but 2 died in the process leaving 70 which is why it is called the LXX. The king of Egypt wanted to add all the writings in the world to his library in Alexandria. This library was later destroyed in an earthquake.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/male...brary.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Aristeas

Hi Bro Tim,
If my statements came across as anything other than a concern for looking at the truth without a "professors' eye-glass", I apologize. When my initial statements on this issue were "brushed aside", I re-emphasized them with a little more forcefulness. Again, my apologies. GT made this statement:

Quote: "I am enjoying these discussions, but I wanted to pass this along for whatever it is worth. I don't want you to stop speaking your mind and arguing for what you believe to be truth..."

So, I wanted to indicate that, for many years of looking at this issue, I've found that the BC septuagint supporters tend to undercut the authority of the KJB, whereas the AD septuagint (mentioned in the letter to Aristeas) supporters, tend to reinforce the authority of the KJB.

As I said, "most, not all,..." would indicate that the majority follow the Alexandrian line of thinking on the LXX. I've spoken with some professors, Pastors, evangelists, missionaries, and teachers from several of the prominent (IFB) Bible colleges, and many have stated this very thing. There are some that do not, however, follow the standard Alexandrian thinking, and they should be supported and applauded for their research and diligence in reinforcing the authority of the word of God(KJB).

Again, I appreciate your rebuke, Brother, but my intent was not to appear as a "rabid dog", but only to give what I perceived, as another side of the issue, that maybe GT had not looked at before.

You know I believe the so-called Bible scholars and professors are the root of the problem. We have had a number of people come here on the forums who claim to be Bible "scholars." Most have lead to an untimely demise. Is that because we do not want to listen to facts from the Bible? No, I do not believe that to be the case.

Any ordinary person can study the Bible without such "scholarly" influence. God made the Bible so that the ordinary person can read, study and understand it without some professor or whatever telling us what it says. The use of a simple dictionary can give us what we need of the Bible. When I speak of the Bible I mean THE Bible which is the King James Bible.

I study that book daily using only a dictionary, a Young's Analytical Concordance and e-Sword. I don't need a "greektim" or some other person who purports to have a superior knowledge of the original tongues of the Bible to tell me what it says. I believe that trying to understand what the original authors of the Bible meant when they wrote it is a futile effort. We do not have to try to get into their skins and their minds to understand what was written. It is there to read.

All of this scholarly stuff is akin to politics to me. One person has this opinion and another another opinion yet the Bible says what it says. Why try to pick it apart and get into the minds of the men who wrote it under God's direction? I mean no malice to any man yet there are times when we must draw the line and say enough is enough.

In Christ,
George

Isn't this inconsistent? You say that you only use a dictionary, Young's Concordance, & E-sword, but then you say that you don't need some other person who purports to have a superior knowledge of the original tongues of the Bible to tell you what it says. Isn't that what Young's Concordance is doing? If you don't need help from some other person, why do you need E-sword? Why do you trust them over other sources? I am not claiming to have all the answers, but if iron can sharpen iron, then truly brothers in Christ can help each other find truth - perhaps even a "greektim".

If I came accross as haughty, proud, or arrogant; I apologize. I don't believe I ever claimed to be a scholar or say that I am an expert in any languages. I have studied them but I still consider myself a student. My name "greektim" comes from my email address. I chose "greektim" not because I am a Greek whiz (cause I am not). I chose it because I needed an new email address for my interactive internet Hebrew class. I chose "greektim" as a joke to my Hebrew professor. I am not trying to purport myself as having a superior knowledge of the original tongues.

Also, what is exegesis if you are not trying to seek the original author's meaning? What interpretation are you seeking after? Is it not what the original author intended? Is it not what God also intended? Didn't Peter and ultimately God say that there is no such thing as a private interpretation in 2 Peter 1:20? If there is no private interpretation, then the only objective method of exegesis is to determine what the original author meant when he wrote what he wrote. I don't think this process is futile (though it can be difficult at times). I am wondering if I misunderstood what you meant by the statement, "I believe that trying to understand what the original authors of the Bible meant when they wrote it is a futile effort."

This post was last modified: Tue Mar 25, 2008 05:39 PM by Greektim.

Brother let me tell you something. This afternoon as I was reading in the Gospel of John I was moved to tears, When I stopped and realized that what I was reading was the actual words of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ I cried. When I realized that what I had in my hands was the actual words that Christ spoke I cried. To be able to have the words of our Saviour in my hands and be able to read them was a very moving experience to me.

I am not trying to down play any kind of scholar. In fact I am sort of envious of anyone who can read the Greek of the New Testament. I have an elderly gentleman in my Sunday School class who is fluent in the Greek and brings a Greek-English inter-lineal Bible to Church with him. I have the utmost of respect for him and ask him quite often if I am correct in my understanding of certain words and passages.

However when a person comes across as having a superior knowledge or the private interpretation mentioned I get quite turned off. The Bible is its own best interpreter. If one takes the time to really look at what they are reading it tells its own story. I do not wish to engage in any kind of debate or argument here. I just believe that folks who profess to have working knowledge of Koine Greek often come across as being superior.

In Christ,
George

EXACTLY, brother George.

I often like to tell people that Bible is it's own best commentary.

Love in Christ,

Jim

That is why I apologized if I came off as superior. I was not trying to do so. I was just adding in my two cents which I believed to help clarify the situation between the languages.