Quote:
Originally Posted by TimV  I just love the methodology of the true Conspiracy Theorist.
It's true that the vast majority of people who have looked into the subject believe that two hijacked planes brought down the two towers on 9/11, but we know different because jet fuel isn't hot enough to melt steel. If you don't believe me, check out this article written by so and so, a licensed architect! Folks, we're dealing with a HUGE conspiracy!!!
And while it's true that virtually all scholars who specialise in the subject, from all denominations, and for all of Christian history believe that there was a Greek translation of at least the Law and some of the Prophets in wide circulation at the time of Christ, and that NT authors quoted from them, it's NOT TRUE!!! And to prove it read this book!!!
I don't have to bow down to people who know the relevant languages and subject matter!!! I can get there using deduction!
You see, in both cases, the Conspiracy theorist works backwards. They first come to a theory, then work backwards to prove their theory by picking and choosing items that support their theory.
But whether one likes it or not, the only true test of a theory is to try to disprove it. |
Hello Tim,
At the end of the 17th century the Letter of Aristreas was proven to be fraudulent by Humphry Hody - who wasn't a conspiracy theorist, he was a Reformed Professor of Greek at Oxford University. This was discussed in this thread:
LXX Torah only, or Genesis-Malachi?
The Reformation begins upon the publication by Erasmus of his New Testament in 1516 and Valla's work in 1517. Hence, the Received Text breaks upon the world coupled to the proof that the Isidorian Decretals and Donation of Constantine are fraudulent documents. It is upon this ground that Luther's
very first 95 Thesis brings home the point that our Lord's teaching at the beginning of His ministry is "Repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand." This is overturning the sacrament of penance which is derived from the Apocrapha, which comes from the Greek Old Testament and thereby influenced Jerome in the translation of the Latin which reads: "Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (See Matthew 4:17, in the
Authorized Version and the
Latin Vulgate)
Learning that the LXX is fraudulent is common knowledge and is just the continuation of the Reformation in uncovering the width, height, depth and breadth of the Ole Deluders work at the height of Arianism in the middle of the 3rd century.
Everyone has known this and it was a long settled issue and has been for over three centuries. Elder Rafalsky and I have only continued a discussion that is the historic Reformed and orthodox position.
We must, however, rest our opinions upon the truth of Scripture and not the opinions of men in a majority or minority. That is what is being argued for in this thread. Anyone can jump off a building denying the validity of gravity, but the truth of God's Law will prevail - and it doesn't matter which position one takes, you can believe in gravity or disbelieve in it, jump off a building and God's Law will prevail.
We do know that there is a Greek Old Testament that includes the Apocrapha, indeed is the source of it. Where it came from is what is being discussed here. Either way, if you believe it is genuine then certainly you are entitled to your opinion - it's just that as Protestants we have long rejected the Apocrapha and don't recognize its source as being an authentic and legitimate transcription of the Holy Scriptures.
The follower so of Wescott and Hort have now for a century broken upon the Protestant world and made merchandise of the Church disturbing the peace and purity of the Church claiming that all along Rome has always been right.
For you to break in upon a thread accusing the historic Reformed and orthodox position on the true identity of the New Testament as being "fanatical" and that we mustn't forget that the Roman Catholics are "orthodox" too and then respond with your flippant and disrespectful post makes it very difficult to take you seriously.
The question is can you defend your arguments or not? Are juvenile responses like this the best we can expect?
Cordially,
Thomas