[Gord]

Originally Posted by Diligent

Another way (without using the tabs) is to use the Library Table of Contents Tool (Search menu).

Thanks for pointing that out, shift-alt-t just became my new swordsearcher best friend.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by MDOC

He is talking about Acts 13:41, not 13:40. That's a partial quote of Hab. 1:5.

Hi MDOC, please read my post, and the verse section, more carefully, starting with my quoting Soph. And please note that you make the exact same error as Soph, since Paul never says he is quoting Habakkuk. Clearly Habakkuk is a good part of the reference.

In Acts 13:40 you learn that the quote to come, Acts 13:41, will be what "is spoken of in the prophets" (plural). The prophets are referenced, in much the same way that Mark quoted "As it is written in the prophets" in Mark 1:2, referencing referencing Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3.

Mark 1:1-3
The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ,
the Son of God;
As it is written in the prophets,
Behold, I send my messenger before thy face,
which shall prepare thy way before thee.
The voice of one crying in the wilderness,
Prepare ye the way of the Lord,
make his paths straight.

Malachi 3:1
Behold, I will send my messenger,
and he shall prepare the way before me:
and the Lord, whom ye seek,
shall suddenly come to his temple,
even the messenger of the covenant,
whom ye delight in:
behold, he shall come,
saith the LORD of hosts.

Isaiah 40:3
The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness,
Prepare ye the way of the LORD,
make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

=========================================

That is a very similar phrasing as in our verses:

Acts 13:40-41
Beware therefore, lest that come upon you,
which is spoken of in the prophets;
Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish:
for I work a work in your days,
a work which ye shall in no wise believe,
though a man declare it unto you.

Habakkuk and Isaiah verses above.

=============================================

This was a New Testament style of writing.
Here is another example, there are more.

John 6:45
It is written in the prophets,
And they shall be all taught of God.
Every man therefore that hath heard,
and hath learned of the Father,
cometh unto me.

Isaiah 54:13
And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD;
and great shall be the peace of thy children.

Jeremiah 31:34
And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour,
and every man his brother, saying,
Know the LORD:
for they shall all know me,
from the least of them unto the greatest of them,
saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity,
and I will remember their sin no more.

Micah 4:2
And many nations shall come, and say,
Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
and to the house of the God of Jacob;
and he will teach us of his ways,
and we will walk in his paths:
for the law shall go forth of Zion,
and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

======================================

Note: In Acts 13:40, the King James Bible does not err like some modern versions by putting the next verse in quotation marks.

And the modern versions err in Mark 1:2, speaking of only Malachi.

That is one of the beautiful aspects of the Bible, the interweaved purity of scripture, the Divine unity of scripture .. once impurity sets in (as in the modern versions) error begets error, nothing fits really right. Only in the pure and perfect Bible does each piece fit together perfectly.

Here is a little quote from Adolph Saphir:

The Divine Unity of Scripture
I do not say that the Bible contains the Word of God. I say that the Bible is the Word of God. I think it is a most erroneous and dangerous thing to say that the Bible contains the Word of God. The Bible with its history, with its laws, with its poetry, with its maxims, with its biographies, with its epistles, with everything that is in it, is the Word of God.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Thanks George. A couple of small notes.

Originally Posted by George

Just because the A.V. translators refer to the "Septuagint", doesn't mean that it is what the scholars claim it is.

The A.V. reference to the Greek O.T. read to me as politely, humorously dismissive, especially in light of their emphasis on translating from the Hebrew and Aramaic Tanach.

http://www.ccel.org/bible/kjv/preface/pref10.htm
THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER
Neither did we run over the work with that posting haste that the Septuagint did, if that be true which is reported of them, that they finished it in 72 days; [Joseph. Antiq. lib. 12.]... the work hath not been huddled up in 72 days, but hath cost the workmen, as light as it seemeth, the pains of twice seven times seventy two days and more:

Sounds like they were very away of the strangeness of the Aristeas fable.

The one area where the Greek OT was quite helpful to them (and the Vulgate and Peshitta and other versions would help on this as well) was to have the early language cross-reference translation understanding of difficult words, often animals and plants.

Here is another section from the preface.

"S. Jerome maketh no mention of the Greek tongue, wherein yet he did excel, because he translated not the old Testament out of Greek, but out of Hebrew... If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New. These are the two golden pipes, or rather conduits, where-through the olive branches empty themselves into the gold. Saint Augustine calleth them precedent, or original tongues; [S. August. 3. de doctr. c. 3. etc.] Saint Jerome, fountains. [S. Jerome. ad Suniam et Fretel.] The same Saint Jerome affirmeth, [S. Jerome. ad Lucinium, Dist. 9 ut veterum.] and Gratian hath not spared to put it into his Decree, That "as the credit of the old Books" (he meaneth of the Old Testament) "is to be tried by the Hebrew Volumes, so of the New by the Greek tongue," he meaneth by the original Greek. If truth be tried by these tongues, then whence should a Translation be made, but out of them?"

Shalom,
Steven

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Hi MDOC, please read my post, and the verse section, more carefully, starting with my quoting Soph. And please note that you make the exact same error as Soph, since Paul never says he is quoting Habakkuk. Clearly Habakkuk is a good part of the reference.
Shalom,
Steven

Well, we are talking semantics here, and I understand what you mean. But I didn't say Paul said he is quoting Habakkuk, I simply said he (Habakkuk) is being quoted. And you added Isaiah, which I hadn't noted before. Thank you, Steve, for the correction.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by MDOC9

Well, we are talking semantics here, and I understand what you mean. But I didn't say Paul said he is quoting Habakkuk, I simply said he (Habakkuk) is being quoted. And you added Isaiah, which I hadn't noted before. Thank you, Steve, for the correction.

Your welcome MDOC9. The problem was really Soph mistakenly thinking that those who believe and receive the pure word of God have nightmares, without himself thinking clearly and carefully about God's word. (Apparently he forgot to look closely at the verses before his strange nightmare assertion.) You were just trying to clarify the issues of the discussion, so I decided to take it a step further in explanation.

The pure word of God is a source of great rest and comfort. I do wonder how those with no pure Bible to read and study, who consider themselves as Christians, can be comfortable awake or asleep. I know that when I understood that God's word, the Holy Bible in my hands, the King James Bible, is 100% pure and perfect, inspired and preserved scripture (and that I didn't to flip around confusedly with multi-conflicting versions any more) this understanding, in line with God's perfection, has been a source of comfort and grace.

Shalom,
Steven

[Biblestudent]

Originally Posted by sophronismos

But the NT was written in the language of "dogs," i.e. Greek. You're not an Aramaic nut are you?

It's all right. The custodian of the New Testament is the CHURCH. But the custodian of the OT are the LEVITES (JEWS). No "dog" language allowed in the Jewish OT.

[Biblestudent]

Except for some of the "nut" languages, such as Aramaic.

What I was saying is, I think it's impossible that the Jews will want to translate and use as authority the OT in a Gentile language.

One point that was brought forth is pretty important: The OT is clear that the keepers of God's Word under the Law were the Levites.

That was then, this is now.

Yes - but if the Septuagint was pre-Christian, then those translators went against God's Word and principles in it in allowing other tribes to take over this job.

Deuteronomy 31:9 And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and unto all the elders of Israel.

Deuteronomy 31:24-26 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.