Responding to James White of AOMIN

Status
Not open for further replies.

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Quick break. 1. Someone substantiate the Van Bruggen citation or let the claim drop. If a reference is provided then evaluate it like scholars and not like brawlers. General charges of lying will not be acceptable and will be dealt with. This thread can carry on if it remains behaved.:judge:
 

larryjf

Puritan Board Senior
I am more than happy to drop the claim as i do not remember the source.
I am sorry for bringing it up without the source...i should have anticipated that the source would be important to the discussion.

Tim, I ask your forgiveness for bringing up a claim that i was unable to validate. Please forgive me.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
The point is that, if the easier reading were original, there would be no reason to change it to the harder reading.

The "lectio difficilior potior" canon of criticism only concerns intentional changes; but the critic cannot prove that the change was intentional. This is what makes the application of the rule somewhat arbitrary, because one must assume intentional change in order to be able to enforce it. Pertinent to this particular case, it should be kept in mind that accidental change of pronouns is known to exist amongst ancient texts. In fact, one can read the Hebrew Bible and find instances where pronouns do not grammatically comport with the nouns to which they refer.
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
I am more than happy to drop the claim as i do not remember the source.
I am sorry for bringing it up without the source...i should have anticipated that the source would be important to the discussion.

Tim, I ask your forgiveness for bringing up a claim that i was unable to validate. Please forgive me.

Not a problem. But I was penalized again by the Moderators for defining what you wrote as a lie, so I'll let you and Steve post whatever you want.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Tim,
You were warned and given zero points. If truth be told
.:um:
I am more than happy to drop the claim as i do not remember the source.
I am sorry for bringing it up without the source...i should have anticipated that the source would be important to the discussion.

Tim, I ask your forgiveness for bringing up a claim that i was unable to validate. Please forgive me.
Not a problem. But I was penalized again by the Moderators for defining what you wrote as a lie, so I'll let you and Steve post whatever you want.
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
You were warned and given zero points. If truth be told.

I got sent another warning. I didn't look at the points. I was told never to do that again, even though a billion people were slandered. I call that a penalty.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Tim, the charge of lying will not be tolerated on this board. If you find that unacceptable; then maybe leaving this subject alone is best. If you have a problem with that, you can appeal to the moderators per the board rules; but we will not discuss it further here.

You were warned and given zero points. If truth be told.
I got sent another warning. I didn't look at the points. I was told never to do that again, even though a billion people were slandered. I call that a penalty.
 

ThomasCartwright

Puritan Board Freshman
Yes, but the fact that I am aware of the arguments majority text advocates make does not mean I agree with them. The problem with Majority text arguments is that one cannot reason from probability to the original text. The copying of manuscripts is not a matter of probability. If you have bad eyesight, and terrible lighting, I don't care how well you know Greek, you are going to have a terrible time copying a manuscript. Pickering also mentions persecution, which plays a very important role. You are not going to have great professional copies when you are in terrible conditions like this and running for your life. What is amazing is that, even given all of these factors, the Alexandrian text still differs from the Byzantine in less than two percent of the instances of the text!

As far as silly and stupid mistakes, the argument cuts both ways. For every Byzantine manuscript, there are at least six to ten variations per chapter for even the closest two Byzantine manuscripts we have. Yes, most of these are unintelligable, and hence, if this is an argument against p66, it is an argument against the Byzantine tradition too.

But that argument is self-refuting. The difference between the Alexandrian text type and the Byzantine text type is less than two percent of the text, and no major Christian doctrine hinges on that less than two percent! I would say that this is quite "adequate," don't you? Again, I know these things, but the fact that I know them does not mean I have to agree with them!

Perhaps, I could cite the leading contemporary textual critic Bart Ehrman (the guy you are all trusting to restore the lost Princeton Bible for CT advocates) who has a very different view of your opinion on percentages. This is what he replied to James White in his debate,

Despite the fact that scholars have been working diligently at these tasks for 300 years, there continues to be heated differences of opinion. There are some passages where serious and very smart scholars disagree about what the original text said, and there are some places where we will probably never know.

If James wants to insist that we have the original text, then I want to know: How does he know? In any given place, and I can cite dozens of them, he will have differences of opinion not only with me, who is an expert in this field, but with every other expert in the field. If God preserved the original text intact, where is it? Why don’t we have it, and doesn’t he know where it is? I don’t know the answer to that.

Where he disagrees is in the statement that the differences actually can matter a lot. He points out most of the differences don’t matter for much of anything, and that is something that I myself have said. My point here—now I’ll tell you my rhetorical point—I have nine theses in this book, and he agrees with eight and a half of them. So let’s deal with the half that he disagrees with, that these differences actually can matter a lot. Well, during the break, I just decided to jot a few things down, just off the top of my head, without knowing in advance what he’s going to say, or what I was going to say in response.

So, there’s one textual variant in the Gospel of Mark where Jesus got angry at a leper who wanted to be healed. In another variant in the same passage, it says that Jesus loved him. Is there a difference between loving him and getting angry? I say there’s a difference. Did Jesus feel anxiety going to His cross in the Gospel of Luke, or did He not? That’s a big difference. Is Jesus ever called “the Unique God” in the New Testament? It depends which manuscript you read and it’s a big difference. Is the doctrine of the Trinity explicitly taught in the New Testament? It depends which manuscript you read, and it’s a big difference. Did Jesus pray for those killing Him, “Father, forgive them for they don’t know what they’re doing?” It’s a big difference whether He did or not. Did the voice at the baptism indicate that it was on that day that Jesus became the Son of God? It depends which manuscript you read. These differences matter. Don’t let James’ assurances otherwise lull you into thinking that in fact there’s not a big deal here. There is a big deal here. These differences matter. Yes, most of the hundred thousand—hundreds of thousands—don’t matter, but many of them do matter. There are places where we don’t know what the text originally said.

Let me respond to a couple of specific comments that he made. This is difficult to do because we are getting into the realm of scholarship and it’s hard to simplify what this is about in my five minutes and forty three seconds. At one point he pointed out that we have an early manuscript, P75, from the late 2nd century, early 3rd century, and Codex Vaticanus that would be 150 years later that are very similar to one another. So he claims, therefore, because there’s accurate copying between P75 and B, we know that there are no primitive corruptions. This is a completely bogus argument. You can take other
manuscripts from the same vein as P75 and put them up against Codex Vaticanus, and they differ a lot. He put a manuscript on the screen that was the oldest manuscript that he says that he had studied; I actually looked at this manuscript, held it in my hand for two hours one afternoon two summers ago, P52. And he pointed out that this is very similar to the wording that you find in the trial of John before Pilate in John’s Gospel—the trial of Jesus before Pilate in John’s Gospel—in later manuscripts. He doesn’t point out that there is a significant textual variant even in this credit card sized fragment of a manuscript: A significant textual variant involving the addition and subtraction of certain words.

We don’t know how often the earliest scribes changed their text. Let me bring up one datum that has not been brought up yet. The later scribes of the Middle Ages don’t disagree from one another very much because they’re trained scribes. The earliest copyists were not trained scribes. The fact that later manuscripts agree a lot don’t tell you what the early manuscripts did. Did the earliest manuscripts agree a lot, with themselves or with the originals? As it turns out, most of the variants that we have in our textual tradition are from the earliest manuscripts. That means that the earliest copies were the least— copyists—were the least qualified copyists. What about the copyists who were copying earlier than the surviving copyists? Are we to believe that all of a sudden they were virtually perfect? I don’t think so. I think that in fact, they probably changed their manuscripts a lot. What’s the evidence? The surviving early manuscripts differ a lot.

James came up with a very strange statistic that I don’t understand where he said that there’s some kind of 95% agreement at different ends of the spectrum. So that virtually we’re certain about the entire text of the New Testament. I don’t know if James has ever actually looked at manuscripts before, but I can tell you that it isn’t that simple. When people try to classify manuscripts, to group them together, so that you’ve got—say that you’ve got a thousand manuscripts and you want to know which manuscripts are most like other manuscripts, you compare them all with one another. If manuscripts agree in 70% of their variations, you count that as extremely high, because it doesn’t happen very often. So, I don’t know where this 95% figure came from, but you shouldn’t rest assured that these manuscripts are all like one another, because they’re not all like one another.

Let me end my final two minutes and twenty seconds with the issue that he really does want to talk about: The issue of preservation. He thinks that the point of my book Misquoting Jesus is that God did not preserve the text, therefore God did not inspire the text. That is not the point of my book, it is not the point of any of the major chapters in my book, it is simply the point that I begin and end the book with to explain why this matters to me, personally. It matters to me personally. It matters to me personally. There are scholars that disagree, but it’s not the main point of the book at all; as you’ll see if
you simply read the chapters where I don’t even mention the issue.

I found his discussion of preservation to be convoluted and obscure and I didn’t really understand it, so let me put it to you in simple terms and see if this makes sense. This is the way I look at it: If God did inspire the words of the Bible to make sure that the human authors wrote what He wanted to be written (that’s the doctrine of inspiration), why did He not preserve the words of the Bible, making sure that the human scribes who copied the text wrote what He wanted to be written? James replied, “Well they didn’t have photocopy machines.” I know they didn’t have photocopy machines, but if God can inspire people to write His text, why can’t He inspire people to preserve His text? I don’t know the answer to that. If you want to say that God inspired the Bible, which Bible did He inspire? The one you read in English? The Greek manuscript on which it is based? Which Greek manuscript? All of them are different from one another, which ones did He inspire? Were they all inspired so that the different versions of Jesus’ words in all these manuscripts—even though they’re all different, they’re all inspired? How would you know which words are inspired if you don’t know which words are originally in the Bible? I don’t have good answers for that. These are the reasons I gave up my view of inspiration, but it’s not the point of Misquoting Jesus, and it’s not really the subject of this debate. The debate is, “Does the Bible Misquote Jesus?” And I’m afraid the answer is yes.

The truth is that every believer, using either Biblical or philosophical presuppositions, is led to some conclusion as to the content of the original autographs. The Scriptures do not simply promise the preservation of God’s “truth” or “message” but the Words. The church has historically held fast to these promises concerning the Words of God; not only in respect of divine inspiration, but also in regard to perfect providential preservation throughout the ages. However, since the Enlightenment, Protestantism has granted science increasingly independent authority and has surrendered the Bible’s authority whenever any supposed conflict arose between the two. The Enlightenment brought the age of the “sovereignty of reason” which attempted to verify everything in Scripture by modern critical methods of historical research. Just as in the case of creationism, until the eighteenth century the Church held to the historic doctrine of the perfect inspiration and preservation of the Words of God in all ages.

The zeitgeist of our contemporary apostate age now demands a “new and improved” version of everything including the Scriptures. Our places of worship have dropped the name “church,” reduced worship to entertainment, and promoted effeminate “preacher gurus” in Hawaii shirts to share the latest psychological fad. We have also now a marked subservience to scientism as the dominant cultural standard. Did the church make such a gross error in over 500 years of interpretation? What has primarily changed since the Reformation is the way man defines and uses science. Modern scientific opinion has been elevated to the status of general revelation giving it an absolute a priori veto over how we interpret Scripture. So much for singing, ‘Immortal, invisible, God only wise!’ Textual criticism is built on the intolerant foundation of prejudice against the promises of Scripture. Its motive is driven by the axiom that modern man always seeks out a way of removing His Creator from the source of truth, as autonomous man aspires to fill the vacancy.

Critical Text (CT) advocates, such as James White, have no ultimate and certain standard for determining objective truth. Without the Biblical doctrine of perfect providential preservation, we are left with non-answers in these areas. This is not a minor shift but one of seismic proportions. Fortunately, most CT advocates of the past were better believers than theologians and have been able to live with the inherent contradiction of their system by simply declaring the gospel from the Textus Receptus (TR). They were incapable of following their own premises out to the end of the road they were on. This has now been challenged by the belligerent approach of the new breed of CT adherents, the proliferation of translations, and the ever mutating latest edition of the evolutionary Greek Text.

The CT text position is a fallacy as it claims to reach conclusions that conform to the Bible, which are not derived from the Bible. It is true that some CT advocates talk about “preservation” but only by investing in their exegesis of preservation passages such as Matthew 5:18 entirely new meanings. In effect, they act like Humpty-Dumpty who retorted scornfully to Alice’s ignorance of his meaning, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less .” Their position is not some imaginative or honest attempt to follow the truth where it leads, but radical interpretations of biblical texts based on Enlightenment premises. However, the preservation promises are clear to those that are willing to accept their conclusions. These fundamentalist and evangelical “scholars” need correcting for when theologically educated men make absurd statements they are no less absurd than when the lay person make them. We reject their arguments because they are fundamentally illogical, and believers should not utilise unsound arguments nor appeal to unbelievers to place their confidence in them. The objections to the doctrine of perfect preservation are rooted in philosophical pre-commitments and not exegetical concerns. True fundamentalists, especially those of the Reformed faith, will not surrender our historic faith for the gods of Enlightenment thinking just to be seen as acceptable by “progressive Evangelicals.” Like Ezra we will prepare our hearts “to seek the law of the LORD, and to do it” (Ezra 7:10) whatever the cost.

It is axiomatic to even the most ardent critic of the KJV that the recovery of the “autograph text” is outside the possibility of recovery simply by a neutral Textual scientific methodology. Even the leading exponents of textual criticism candidly concede this. By eliminating God’s work of preservation, they have left the church disarmed, vulnerable and in total confusion. They are like those of old of whom God says in the last verse of the book of Judges “In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judg 21:25). These multi-versionists have no final authority, save for their own reasoning or outsourcing to a scholar to tell them what God probably said. They are attempting to compartmentalize their faith and their scholarship into separate worlds. However, since no one is viewpoint neutral and everyone has presuppositions, why do the CT advocates want to exclude Biblical presuppositions on the issue of the text?
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
We have also now a marked subservience to scientism as the dominant cultural standard.

Regrettably, yes. Hopefully infidel "scientists" will keep correcting the misguided claims of evangelical "scholars" to the point that they drive the evangelicals back to the self-attesting revelation of God as the only sure ground on which to stand.
 

CDM

Puritan Board Junior
It may be useful to readers of this thread to have a list of the major verses that teach the doctrine of preservation of all of God's words. :2cents:
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
The Scriptures do not simply promise the preservation of God’s “truth” or “message” but the Words. The church has historically held fast to these promises concerning the Words of God; not only in respect of divine inspiration, but also in regard to perfect providential preservation throughout the ages.

Repeating a statement over and over doesn't make it true. The fact of the matter is that the Church has historically taught that adding to, subtracting from and changing words and phrases in the Bible is THE NORM.

In speaking of Matt. 27:9 Augustine says


"Now, if any one finds a difficulty in the circumstance that this passage is not found in the writings of the prophet Jeremiah, and thinks that damage is thus done to the veracity of the evangelist, let him first take notice of the fact that this ascription of the passage to Jeremiah is not contained in all the codices of the Gospels, and that some of them state simply that it was spoken “by the prophet.” It is possible, therefore, to affirm that those codices deserve rather to be followed which do not contain the name of Jeremiah.

So we find Augustine DIFFERING from what got into the TR and KJV. Which isn't to say that he was right. But it is to say that comparing varying readings of existing manuscripts was the NORM. And that includes the Puritans, who did the same thing all the time.

As I've shown, Christ Himself quoted from both the Hebrew and Greek Old Testament, and there is more differences between these two traditions than between the TR, MT and CT.

And to anticipate the argument that the Septuagint was part of a conspiracy and didn't exist, the number of scholars who think that the Septuagint was part of a conspiracy are the same percentage as the percentage of civil engineers who think 9-11 was a government conspiracy.
 

larryjf

Puritan Board Senior
The Scriptures do not simply promise the preservation of God’s “truth” or “message” but the Words. The church has historically held fast to these promises concerning the Words of God; not only in respect of divine inspiration, but also in regard to perfect providential preservation throughout the ages.

Repeating a statement over and over doesn't make it true. The fact of the matter is that the Church has historically taught that adding to, subtracting from and changing words and phrases in the Bible is THE NORM.

In speaking of Matt. 27:9 Augustine says


"Now, if any one finds a difficulty in the circumstance that this passage is not found in the writings of the prophet Jeremiah, and thinks that damage is thus done to the veracity of the evangelist, let him first take notice of the fact that this ascription of the passage to Jeremiah is not contained in all the codices of the Gospels, and that some of them state simply that it was spoken “by the prophet.” It is possible, therefore, to affirm that those codices deserve rather to be followed which do not contain the name of Jeremiah.
How does this show that adding and subtracting from the Bible is the norm? That's a much different statement than saying that comparing varying readings was the norm as you do later.

As I've shown, Christ Himself quoted from both the Hebrew and Greek Old Testament, and there is more differences between these two traditions than between the TR, MT and CT.
Where the OT is quoted in the NT, whether by Christ or the apostles, it is inspired Scripture. This can't be compared equally to how we quote Scripture as uninspired individuals.

And to anticipate the argument that the Septuagint was part of a conspiracy and didn't exist, the number of scholars who think that the Septuagint was part of a conspiracy are the same percentage as the percentage of civil engineers who think 9-11 was a government conspiracy.

That's quite a statistic to throw out there. Please show some facts to back you up on this.
% of engineers who think 9-11 was a conspiracy?
% of scholars who think the Septuagint was a conspiracy?
The % of both of the above being the same?

It is my understanding that the only proof of a pre-Christian Septuagint comes from the Letter of Aristeas. Are you aware of evidence that goes beyond that letter?
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
Where the OT is quoted in the NT, whether by Christ or the apostles, it is inspired Scripture. This can't be compared equally to how we quote Scripture as uninspired individuals.

You could not possibly be more wrong. The argument of the extreme AVers is what Ferguson said above, namely that the exact words were preserved in all ages, and available to the church. During the time of Christ there were two main textual schools, just like today, and the FACT that Christ and some authors of the New Testament chose from BOTH traditions shows clearly as daylight that the promises God made to preserve His Word COULD NOT have mean that an exact, word for word rendering of the Old Testament was generally available to the Church.

That's quite a statistic to throw out there. Please show some facts to back you up on this.
% of engineers who think 9-11 was a conspiracy?
% of scholars who think the Septuagint was a conspiracy?
The % of both of the above being the same?

No, it's really easy, since in both cases it's a small handful who reject the overwhelming testimony of expert in their fields.
 

larryjf

Puritan Board Senior
Tim,

If it's real easy then please tell me what % of scholars think the Septuagint is a pre-Christian document.

If it's not pre-Christian then your point about quotes in the NT coming from the Septuagint is moot.
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
If it's real easy then please tell me what % of scholars think the Septuagint is a pre-Christian document.

99%

If you go back and look through these type of threads it all comes out.
 

larryjf

Puritan Board Senior
If it's real easy then please tell me what % of scholars think the Septuagint is a pre-Christian document.

99%

If you go back and look through these type of threads it all comes out.

I was hoping that you would cite a reference rather than just throwing a number out there. What reference do you have for the 99% number?
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
I was hoping that you would cite a reference rather than just throwing a number out there. What reference do you have for the 99% number?

Larry, the reason so few people post on these threads is that they are usually a re-hash of things written before, time and time again. 99 percent is a low figure. The simple fact of the matter is that the extreme AVer theory represents a teeny, tiny minority opinion, since it's based on, well, we've covered that.

Why don't you make a list of 10 people who have studied this issue, with degrees from accredited institutes of higher education, who think that the Septuagint is a post-Christian document. Then for every one you name, I'll name 100 who hold to what every single main Christian denomination has always held to.

You can save yourself a bit of time and use the search function of this forum and type in Edersheim and Keil and Delitzsch. Two people used by Steve to show that the universal Christian view of the Septuagint is a myth. Unfortunately for him, both say the exact opposite, with Edersheim in particular calling the Septuagint the equivalent of the KJV version during the last century in the time of Christ. Yes, the common man's Bible. During the time of Christ.

A word of advice; don't pick that hill to die on.
 

larryjf

Puritan Board Senior
I was hoping that you would cite a reference rather than just throwing a number out there. What reference do you have for the 99% number?

Larry, the reason so few people post on these threads is that they are usually a re-hash of things written before, time and time again. 99 percent is a low figure. The simple fact of the matter is that the extreme AVer theory represents a teeny, tiny minority opinion, since it's based on, well, we've covered that.
Tim, i made a statement earlier in this post that you asked for a reference to, which i was unable to provide. I did the appropriate thing and retracted my statement because i could not find the reference to back it up.

Based on your requiring references from me i would think that you would be glad to list your references...but, alas, you are not. I'm not speaking of referencing threads in the discussion board but from outside sources. Perhaps you don't cite your sources because you have none.


Why don't you make a list of 10 people who have studied this issue, with degrees from accredited institutes of higher education, who think that the Septuagint is a post-Christian document. Then for every one you name, I'll name 100 who hold to what every single main Christian denomination has always held to.
Because i'm not the one who started spouting off figures relating to the Septuagint...you did. If you're unwilling to provide any references to back up your statistics then you should be willing to recant your statements as unverifiable.
Further, your statistic above (100/110) is not 99%, but closer to 90...so again, this brings even more suspicion to the legitimacy of your numbers.
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
Tim, i made a statement earlier in this post that you asked for a reference to, which i was unable to provide. I did the appropriate thing and retracted my statement because i could not find the reference to back it up.

You couldn't back it up because it was fantastic; the kind of thing you'd hear from Rush Limbaugh but not from an historian.

Based on your requiring references from me i would think that you would be glad to list your references...but, alas, you are not. I'm not speaking of referencing threads in the discussion board but from outside sources. Perhaps you don't cite your sources because you have none.

That's also fallacious, since the burden of proof is on the person making an extraordinary claim.

But I'll meet you half way. Please name an institute of higher learning that you respect, and I will contact the relevant School there and get an opinion.

So please don't say I won't back up my claim. I am now anxious to do so. And the institute can be either Christian or secular; it will be your choice. Or, name 10 institutes, and I'll contact all of them.

I do it all the time on these threads. Another pillar this people need to support their theory is that Aramaic is a form of Hebrew. It isn't of course, and everyone who is familiar with the subject knows, but Steve does what he normally does in these situations and works from reverse, In other words, working backwards, picking through reams of information and picking out what fits into his theory rather than TRYING TO DISPROVE IT, which is the only real way to test an hypothesis.

I posted the comments of three leading, living scholars, one of whom is at the University of Tel Aviv, who's probably the greatest living expert on Aramaic, and like all of them, he said that Aramaic isn't a form of Hebrew.

So please be aware, I'm game.
 

larryjf

Puritan Board Senior
You can save yourself a bit of time and use the search function of this forum and type in Edersheim and Keil and Delitzsch. Two people used by Steve to show that the universal Christian view of the Septuagint is a myth. Unfortunately for him, both say the exact opposite, with Edersheim in particular calling the Septuagint the equivalent of the KJV version during the last century in the time of Christ. Yes, the common man's Bible. During the time of Christ.

A word of advice; don't pick that hill to die on.

Please don't misrepresent me in this way.
To the best of my recollection I never said the Septuagint was a myth, nor did i say that it wasn't pre-Christian...i simply want references to the statistics that you have thrown into this thread.
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
Please don't misrepresent me in this way.
To the best of my recollection I never said the Septuagint was a myth, nor did i say that it wasn't pre-Christian...i simply want references to the statistics that you have thrown into this thread.

Sorry! I may (and probably am) being too touchy. The extreme AVers need that sort of historical revisionism to keep their theory floating, and I assumed you were contesting rather than asking. It's just that these threads take on a pattern, and lately I've been trying to cut to the point.
 

larryjf

Puritan Board Senior
Tim, i made a statement earlier in this post that you asked for a reference to, which i was unable to provide. I did the appropriate thing and retracted my statement because i could not find the reference to back it up.

You couldn't back it up because it was fantastic; the kind of thing you'd hear from Rush Limbaugh but not from an historian.

Based on your requiring references from me i would think that you would be glad to list your references...but, alas, you are not. I'm not speaking of referencing threads in the discussion board but from outside sources. Perhaps you don't cite your sources because you have none.

That's also fallacious, since the burden of proof is on the person making an extraordinary claim.
Your 99% is an extraordinary claim. The one who cites statistics is the one with the burden of proof to also cite the references.
And what does Rush Limbaugh have to do with it?

But I'll meet you half way. Please name an institute of higher learning that you respect, and I will contact the relevant School there and get an opinion.
You're the one who made the statistical claims...now you're wanting to get references? The references should come before making the claims.
And why would i help to find references for you? I'm not the one who made statistical claims about the Septuagint.

-----Added 5/6/2009 at 11:05:20 EST-----

Please don't misrepresent me in this way.
To the best of my recollection I never said the Septuagint was a myth, nor did i say that it wasn't pre-Christian...i simply want references to the statistics that you have thrown into this thread.

Sorry! I may (and probably am) being too touchy. The extreme AVers need that sort of historical revisionism to keep their theory floating, and I assumed you were contesting rather than asking. It's just that these threads take on a pattern, and lately I've been trying to cut to the point.
I forgive you.
Let's just be careful that we act in Christian charity while discussing this matter.
I am by no stretch of the means an "extreme AVer"
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
You're the one who made the statistical claims...now you're wanting to get references? The references should come before making the claims.
And why would i help to find references for you? I'm not the one who made statistical claims about the Septuagint.

Fine. Give me an institute of higher learning that you trust, and I'll get the reference from an expert rather than troll the net.
 

larryjf

Puritan Board Senior
You're the one who made the statistical claims...now you're wanting to get references? The references should come before making the claims.
And why would i help to find references for you? I'm not the one who made statistical claims about the Septuagint.

Fine. Give me an institute of higher learning that you trust, and I'll get the reference from an expert rather than troll the net.

I feel like your getting a bit irritated again.

You are missing the main point. You should have references to cite BEFORE you post statistics.
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
I posted the comments of three leading, living scholars, one of whom is at the University of Tel Aviv, who's probably the greatest living expert on Aramaic, and like all of them, he said that Aramaic isn't a form of Hebrew.

So please be aware, I'm game.

Tim,

Just let me remind you that numbers are not always the proof in the pudding. A majority of scholars today may hold to one view over an older view based upon some skewed belief that science has supposedly uncovered. For example my kids have had Evolution crammed down their throats because it has become a majority view in the scientific community. For every 1 museum that holds to the biblical view of Creation their are thousands (and I am being generous here because the number of evolutionistic museums is probably much higher) that don't. So numbers in scholarship can be a farce.

And Hebrew Aramaic dialects have adopted to each other. Some even use the Hebrew alphabet.
 

larryjf

Puritan Board Senior
F. F. Bruce tells us that "The Jews might have gone on at a later time to authorize a standard text of the rest of the Septuagint, but . . . lost interest in the Septuagint altogether. With but few exceptions, every manuscript of the Septuagint which has come down to our day was copied and preserved in Christian, not Jewish, circles." (The Books and the Parchments, p.150).

Add to this that the LXX manuscripts that we have are from the 3rd century AD, and they are not in substantial agreement with each other. These would be the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus - 4th and 5th century AD.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Let's dial back the frustration level and while it may have been done before simply list your sources and deal dispassionately with them on this matter of the Septuagint.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top