[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

I told you above about a paper at SBL. If you do not know, that is the Society of Biblical Literature. Are they up to your standards and requirements ? That is for you to decide. You can probably simply put the name "Ken Penner" (with an add-on like SBL, Hebrew, Bible, etc) into Google and find some solid information. While you are at it you might want to read Alan Millard on literacy at the time of Jesus, but that is auxiliary to our discussion. If that is not enough for you, ask respectfully and I will be happy to dig up some urls.

Your hositility is getting a bit tiring and off-putting. I share some solid, significant, new information on the topics you raise and now you try to accuse me this way and that.

My one fluent langauge is English, never claimed otherwise anywhere at any time. Went to Hebrew school as a child and a bit of refresher reading here and there. I try to learn to ask good questions, when necessary, which on the languages is rather rare these days.

As I tried to tell you, "orthodox scholarship" has had a bit of a paradigm shift the last years on the Hebrew question. It actually began more-or-less back with the DSS discovery (Qumran) of letters in Hebrew on non-religious matters, especially Bar Kochba on mundane and military matters. Professor Lawrence Schiffman speaks on that at times. However Ken Penner brought the issue to the fore by reexamining the whole NT question of Hebrew and Aramaic and the translation and meaning and usage of Hebraisti (compared to Chaldee and Syriac) and concluding quite strongly that the New Testament usage is the Hebrew language, which really should not be too much of a surprise.

You are apparently a bit out-of-date. You need to catch up. Start with the King James Bible.

(Oh, in this case, Hebrew, the Geneva will probably be right, as well.)

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[MC1171611]

And since when has "Orthodox Scholarship" been right about anything?? Jesus went against "orthodox scholarship," as did Paul, Justin Martyr, Erasmus, Luther, Wycliffe, Huss, Tyndale and more! NEVER has "orthodox scholarship" been Biblically accurate or correct: with them it's about their own importance when it comes to the Scriptures, just like the Catholic Whore. It's the SAME ARGUMENT: unless you're learned in the old languages (which only priests and monks could achieve), you can't understand the Bible.

You're no better than a Dark Age monk or priest, dolling out the "words of God" in portions for your own importance and gain! Woe unto you, scribes, pharisees, hypocrites!!

[bibleprotector]

Originally Posted by BrianT

Whether the LXX (or something akin to it, or something else) is the source of Luke's words is secondary. The bigger point is that the words Luke says were "written", the words Jesus called "scripture" (written, by definition), are different than what the Hebrew and KJV have in Isa 61.

Numerous people claim that God's promise of preservation is in regards to the original langauges specifically. If Isaiah 61 was being preserved in Hebrew, how is it that Jesus goes against this (according to the hypothesis that Jesus used a different non-Hebrew version)? If Jesus acted against the Hebrew by going to a Greek translation, why should Christians today believe that the true Old Testament is preserved in the Hebrew, and that the true sense is there? If Jesus used a Greek translation as authority, can we not use an English one today as authoritative?

Hi bibleprotector,

Numerous people claim that God's promise of preservation is in regards to the original langauges specifically.

I am not one of those people, and I don't see what your comments have to do with the fact that the words that Luke says were "written" and "scripture" differ from what the KJV and Masoretic Hebrew has.

God bless,
Brian

[bibleprotector]

I can tell you of many things which are written Scripture which is different to what the KJV has. This is called "Sufficiency". The Word of God in some manuscript or the Bishops' Version etc. is the Scripture. Of course, they might exhibit signs of the scattering (i.e. that no individual extant Greek or Hebrew copy is perfect), nevertheless, they are Scripture. And even if Jesus used the LXX, is the LXX not Scripture? (Especially when God uses it specifically, or when a passage of it is being written down by Luke in inspiration?)

So, just as Jesus used the LXX as well as Hebrew, does that mean that multiple English versions should be yet alright to use today? Consider: the LXX was the standard translation of the OT in Greek, the common tongue. This signifies that having an English translation today of the entire Bible in the common tongue must be good. Especially since the KJB is perfect, unlike the LXX, which God was still able to use. And if the KJB is perfect, why would God want His people to stay away from it? While He is able to use other English translations today, these are really going against Him and His perfection.

This is because God is able to raise up a final standard and perfection DESPITE the existence of error, corruption and sin. A strong God can do that. A weak God would only be stuck with sufficient forms of the Scripture, and never be able to have at this time a final standard which is perfect.

The King James Bible is supersuccessionary to other forms of Scripture, while modern versions pretend to be improving upon the KJB. If God is really behind having more modern versions, and varying readings and translations all the more, He would be the author of confusion, and the author of additions and subtractions. But as the changeless God, He has outworked providentially to manifest the perfect Bible, so that eventually it would be the one for all. He did this in the furnace of earth, and God is not weaker than the furnace!

As for those other forms of Scripture, they are not as Scripture anymore, in the sense that they are not current, that is, because they have been laid behind in the supersuccession. Currency is not dictated by man, devils or sin. Currency is under the control of the providence of God and through the sanctuary of the Word, the Church. The Scripture is not in a state of flux, but having come to appear in its fixed form, is now final. The God of the past (who originally gave the Word perfectly) is also the God of the present (who has raised up the very pure presentation of His Word perfectly) and so for the future. The future is not getting another Bible. They are getting this one: "King James Bible". The present may yet have sufficiency in currency, but that is temporal: "I will spue thee out of my mouth." (Rev. 3:16b).

P.S. Jesus never calls Scripture or uses it and gives errors, or says that errors in manuscripts are Scripture, etc. It is clear that the quotations of Scripture within Scripture are perfect, and that in those places those words were perfect in the sources they were using. Also the Holy Ghost was there, so He would be able to ensure this.

[Tmonk]

Originally Posted by TimV

And you have studied the issue? Could you point me to anyone who's been printed in a respected academic journal who claims this? Or are you assuming this for some reason? When Christ's direct words were translated by the narrator writing in Greek, the narrator specified Talitha cumi in the TR:

και κρατησας της χειρος του παιδιου λεγει αυτη ταλιθα κουμι

If I can get a straight answer from you, do you know any other language than English? Any Koine Greek? Hebrew? Anything?

Is it exilarating for you to stand against all of orthodox scholarship? Do you feel God's blessing on you for doing this?

Mark 5:41?

Wow, bibleprotector, it's amazing how you can turn every discussion into a plug for your PCE theory and bury the original topic in a plethora of presumptuous side issues. It's also amazing how if I had brought up the idea of a pre-Christ LXX, I'd be facing a fire storm on this forum, but you do it and nary a peep.

[bibleprotector]

bury the original topic

facing a fire storm

"Thine heart shall meditate terror. Where is the scribe? where is the receiver? where is he that counted the towers?" (Isaiah 33:18).

[Will Kinney]

Originally Posted by TimV

And you have studied the issue? Could you point me to anyone who's been printed in a respected academic journal who claims this? ...do you know any other language than English? Any Koine Greek? Hebrew? Anything?

Is it exilarating for you to stand against all of orthodox scholarship? Do you feel God's blessing on you for doing this?

And your "respected academic" journals and your "orthodox $cholar$hip" are leading the way into apostasy and not a single one of you guys believes in the inerrancy of any complete Bible in any language. Seminaries always end up in apostasy. Tim and Brian are both Bible Agnostics trying to get us Bible believers to abandon our faith in the inerrant Book of the LORD.

By the way, Steve, your posts about Edhersheim (sp) were quite interesting.

Thanks for all the research you do.

Will K

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by BrianT

bibleprotector ... the idea of a pre-Christ LXX ... nary a peep.

Matthew and I have had some very sharp and intense discussions on Greek OT issues. Personally I think it is a weak spot is his understanding, and it relates to a particular individual involved in King James Bible editions. As far as I can tell, the PCE theory would be identical if Matthew saw the Greek OT issues similarly to myself.

Shalom,
Steven