Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)

From Textus Receptus

Revision as of 15:45, 29 April 2012

it didn't matter that the LXX was drieffent from the Masoretic, since small differences are OK. Now you say that's not what you were saying even though it's what you said.Michael, at this point, I have absolutely no idea what you are saying. I'm getting a bit frustrated.OK, let's go slow. You made a couple of statements that I was responding to, specifically:1. the LXX does not agree with the Masoretic texts 2. the apostles quoted the LXX frequently in the New Testament My response to #1 was to go to the official Septuagint web page and paste their official statement concerning the differences, since I don't read Hebrew or Greek and would not know if your statement was true or not.My response to #2 was to suggest that perhaps this statement is not true since we don't know if they did or not. The Apostles could have:a. quoted the LXXb. interpreted the Hebrew and got the same results as the LXXc. interpreted the Hebrew and got drieffent resultsRemember that the LXX and the NT were both written in Greek but the difference is one was inspired by the Holy Spirit. So, if you see a difference between the LXX and the NT, you have to go with the NT as the correct version.You seem to be hung up on the premise that if the KJV differs from the Masoretic, the Septuagint, the Textus Receptus, the Byzentine mss, etc. then it can't be a perfect English translation of God's Word.The translators themselves acknowledged that they had a multitude of sources from which to draw from: Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch. The Greek editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were all accessible, as were the Complutensian and Antwerp Polyglots, and the Latin translations of Pagninus, Termellius, and Beza. They did not accept one single document as being the perfect Word of God but instead took the whole collection and said, Herein is the perfect Word of God. Now, can I (personally) prove 100%, without a doubt, that the KJV is the perfect Word of God? Absolutely not. Can I look at the fact that God has blessed the KJV above every other version and conclude that it has God's stamp of approval ? Yes, I can. Should I use what God has approved or some other version? You know the answer to that. You wrote concerning the link I provided about Logsdon renouncing the NASV:please don't rely on urban legends to make your case.I have quoted the testimony of Franklin Logsdon who had nothing to lose in making his statements. You have quoted a group of business people that stand to lose money if Logsdon testimony is believed. You quoted:Mr. Logsdon was never a member of the Board of Directors, nor was he an employee of The Lockman Foundation. Mr. Logsdon had no authority to hire employees or translators for the Foundation, to set policy, to vote, to hold office, to incur expenses, etc. He cannot be considered co-founder of the NASB, nor part of The Lockman Foundation, nor part of the NASB translation team, nor did he write the forward of the NASB.I don't believe he said he was a board member, an employee of the foundation, that he hired anyone (he said he interviewed some), that he translated or was part of the translation team. He does claim to have written the foreword.You mentioned David Cloud, perhaps you will want to read what concerning this subject.Hopefully, this clarifies my position a little better.  :smile:Michael