Ecclesiastes (1) Vanity of vanities

a reply to: Lazarus Short

They did know the difference between classical and Koine Greek.

The KJV does not limit me when it comes to ENGLISH, there are no KOINE GREEK words in the KJV English text. There are TRANSLITERATED KOINE GREEK words in the KJV. The knowledge of an unverified KOINE GREEK document is not an advantage over knowing the English Words. And many of the so called Koine Greek words found in Vine's and Zoiates Greek Dictionaries are actually Classical Greek meanings imposed on the Koine without any verification.

Do you have both volumes of J P Greens book "Unholy hands on the Bible"? I have did not read them I did have them in my library in the Mission field but gave them to the Pastor who took over our church plant there. I came to the conclusion the KJV was the preserved word of God after reading it through after 15 years as a Christian, during that first 15 years I read the NIV, NASB, The Amplified Version, the NKJV, the Good News for Modern Man, The RSV and the ASV. I am now 23 years a Christian

When I came to any version I asked God to show me truth I have not seen. I did not see anything new in any version until I read the KJV. When that happened I put down all other versions and have stuck to it ever since. I am not a KJV Only Cult Member, a Ruckmanite or a Riplingerite I unfortunately have been lumped in with them because of my belief of the KJV being the preserved words of God. But I can only conclude that it was the ignorance of those who don't like my stand on my belief to lump me in with them.

a reply to: IllumimasontruthI can't imagine the task of trying to properly translate original scriptures.

Just one problem we have NO ORIGINAL SCRIPTURES. Everything we have is copies and they are unverifiable as being accurate because of the fact we have NO ORIGINAL. But God did say

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

This means two things one, no man will be involved in that preservation (only its penning) and two, if he has done as he says he would, where he said it, then there is at least one English Bible that is his preservation out there today, I believe that to be the KJV. If the Lord tarry the Next preservation will be in Chinese. But I doubt it will ever happen because we are seeing peace peace concerning Israel.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Thank you for the clarification. Myself, I quit reading the NASB, got rid of my NIV, and other modern version go mostly unread, though I still keep several. Exceptions are the Ferrar Fenton version with all its brilliance and oddities, and I am currently reading "The Scriptures," a translation out of South Africa, and my copy was printed in China of all places. Long term, I want to find a good English version of the LXX and/or the Syrian/Aramaic version. Believe it or not, I consult the KJV often, and I have a copy of the KJV II, which, like the NKJV, was a disappointment.

Question: If we do not have the original documents, are we then subject to the same charges often made against the Mormons, whose Golden Tablets have gone "poof" many years ago?

a reply to: Lazarus Short

From my own search there is no proof of any LXX which is supposed to be a Greek Old Testament prior to 250AD. It would seem the writer of the LXX had to have a completed NT in front of them when it was written.

I do believe that Joe Smith pretty much made the whole thing up. There is no archeological evidence that Utah was the place of the lost tribes inhabited some 1300 years ago as the book of Mormon claims, that Bringham Young said the great salt lake was the place. Nor are their any finds in South and Central America as they claim.

Plus Historically no Jew ever recorded the names and lineage of their tribes on gold plates as Joe Smith claims, You would think that the Bible would have backed that up. But the Bible does have lineages in it. I have seen what the Mormons claim are copies of the gold plates but have never been able to actually view the supposed original gold plates. I spent 3 years in the States in the 1980's as a non-Christian, trying to catch up to them by following the supposed schedule of their viewing at different LDS Churches in different cities. And every time I would get to where they said they were on display I was told that I just missed them and they went to the next location.

Poof is a nice way of saying they are missing , but remember 12 plates large enough to have complete lineages of the Jews 12 tribes on them have got be a few ounces of gold. No one I have ever met and know of has ever seen them. From what I gather anyone who claimed to see them have been long dead.

ChesterJohn says: "From my own search there is no proof of any LXX which is supposed to be a Greek Old Testament prior to 250AD. It would seem the writer of the LXX had to have a completed NT in front of them when it was written."

Laz replies: Is that a problem? You excuse your position, saying that lack of autographs is not a problem. No, the writer of the LXX did not need to have a complete NT in front of them. A better way to look at it is that we just don't have any copies older than ~250 AD, but we know they must have existed because Jesus, and others, quoted from them.

You have a strange slant on evidence, evidently.

a reply to: Lazarus Short

When you compare the LXX to the New Testament it is word for word verses put back into the OT. There is no KNOWN copy of the LXX / Septuagint prior top 250AD. This means it did not exist before that date. And that is why when you read the LXX you come across verses that are exact word for word from a NT that had to be in front of them when they wrote the LXX sometime after 250AD.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Lazarus Short

When you compare the LXX to the New Testament it is word for word verses put back into the OT. There is no KNOWN copy of the LXX / Septuagint prior top 250AD. This means it did not exist before that date. And that is why when you read the LXX you come across verses that are exact word for word from a NT that had to be in front of them when they wrote the LXX sometime after 250AD.

OR...Jesus the Christ and His apostles were quoting from the LXX. What would you say if I constructed an argument along the same lines, but based it on there being no KNOWN copies of the KJV prior to 1611? You'd laugh, and you would be correct...and I laugh at "no LXX prior to 250 AD."

a reply to: Lazarus Short
I think you mean "If some accident had destroyed all copies of the AV printed before 1700, and someone argued that the AV did not exist before 1700". That's the stricter parallel.

a reply to: Lazarus Short

I have been trying to prove that Jesus did. But Jesus was not quoting as far as we know any LXX because the earliest copies known to exist 250AD that is one issue. Secondly a Jew in Jerusalem would be quoting from the a Hebrew OT the same that Paul and Timothy studied, they were just called Scriptures. When Jesus Read from Isaiah it was a Hebrew copy of the OT.

We do have the first 5 books of the Bible in Greek from the time of Alexander the Great. What is thought to have happened is that some 250AD scholar thought he could add the rest of the Bible into it and make it look as if it was a whole OT, it was literally a deception of early scholars in Alexandria Egypt. But like I said a whole OT in Greek never existed prior to 250AD

There literally is no proof that any Septuagint ever existed prior to 250AD. Get a copy of manuscript Evidence by PS Ruckman, one of the best works on the subject of the Mythological Septuagint.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I see now that there is a LOT more to you than I thought, as I first thought of you as a knee-jerk KJVO cultist. I think we can have better exchanges now...

originally posted by: Lazarus Short
a reply to: ChesterJohn

I see now that there is a LOT more to you than I thought, as I first thought of you as a knee-jerk KJVO cultist. I think we can have better exchanges now...

a reply to: Lazarus Short

If say if God is consistent, and He is, He would have mentioned Hell in the Creation, the Law, warnings to many and the fates of many more. We see, over and over, only simple death, with "hell" not mentioned.

Ezra the scribe has discussed hell in other literature and in Hebrew. Even though you have no regard for literature in that you have nothing of the original scriptures to verify your Greek rendition, I have much evidence to convince myself that the letters of the NT were originally Hebrew.

When The Creator "Word" created this world He made it good. That means that the earth was pure and without a curse. If this being true then the creator could not create a hell in Shoel before the creation of man or any form of life. If the Creator would have created a hell before any thing was formed to be placed in hell, then the world would not have been good. Hell therefore had to have been created after the earth was cursed. The same applies to law. Nothing can exist until it is formed. The law could not have existed till the law breakers were formed from the creation and the earth could not accept corruption till the earth was cursed. You have the cart pulling the horse.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

TextI have been trying to prove that Jesus did. But Jesus was not quoting as far as we know any LXX because the earliest copies known to exist 250AD that is one issue. Secondly a Jew in Jerusalem would be quoting from the a Hebrew OT the same that Paul and Timothy studied, they were just called Scriptures. When Jesus Read from Isaiah it was a Hebrew copy of the OT.

You are spot on.