Steven,

Now let me comment on your comments. I don't see how the KJV can be held as the Word of God in the equivalent sense of the canon, but it can only be considered a translation. There is no biblical record that the prophets made translations of what they wrote and put those in the Ark of the Covenant to serve as Scripture. I believe they put in what they first wrote in Hebrew. In like manner, there is no indication that the writings of the apostles used substitute translation as canon.

You seem to be attributing the Catholic postion on including the Apocrapha as my own. That is not accurate. I was noting that to make the KJV the equivalent of canon, it would seem an arugument similar to what the Catholics use on the Apocripha has to be employed. I asked Will to expand on that.

Basically you seem to be saying that I am confusing, that I don't know how the canon is established, that I don't know what the Catholic position is on the Apocrapha. Well, I did start off assuming the Protestant position was known. Sorry for the confusion that may have created.

I believe the KJV has an anointing as no other English translation does. It is extremely powerful and not necerssarily easy to understand. But an anointing is not infallible inspiration. I think arguing that the KJV is the equivalent of canon distracts from people understanding the truth about its powerful anointing and promotes attacking this translation.

Just my opinion.

M Paul

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by M Paul

Greek speaking Christians used a translation of the OT made in the mid-third century B.C.

If such a full translation circulated at such an early time, then why did Josephus indicate the need to translate the history scripture books ? (Or write Antiquities, which he took as the alternative choice.)

Originally Posted by M Paul

the Septuagint...contains the Apocrypha.

There is no standard in the early Greek texts.

Originally Posted by M Paul

from the earliest times, Greek speaking Jews regarded the LXX as having the same status as the original Hebrew.

Very untrue, in ancient times and today. And this cuts in multiple directions. e.g. There is a quote in the Talmud about how it was a dark day when the Greek was translated. Also there are Jewish indications of deliberately mistranslating the Greek OT, as we know was also done by alexandrian 'Christian' scribes, e.g. Psalm 14.

Originally Posted by M Paul

The Christians also accepted the translation as inspired.,,

Jerome essentially straightened this out when he rejected the Greek OT as his base (too corrupt) and, living in Bethlehem and using the library in Caesarea and studying with Jews he translated the Tanach directly from Hebrew to Latin.

For his excellent stance on this Jerome got flak from Augustine and others. It is one reason why I believe King James Bible folks should be careful just painting Jerome only negatively.

None of this relates to your mistaken idea that the Protestant canon is based on original languages only.

Shalom,
Steven

Steven,

I noted in my post that in reality we cannot tell what the Septuagint was. However, the Catholics say the Septuagint is identifiable, and a main argument they use for the Apocrapha (and all the Septuagint then in any manner they identify it, as represented by my Augustine quote, but they like Vaticannus) being a part of the canon is, that Scripture quotes from the Septuagint in the NT. In reality, a comparison of NT quotes of the OT do not support they all came from the same source, and many of these probably were not associated with the Septuagint. I have noted there is a problem with how the Catholics represent the Septuagint, but their position is not my position. I asked Will to distinguish how upholding the KJV as the equivalent of canon had a basis different than what the Catholics use for establishing the Apocrapha, or the entire Septuagint as they identify it, as canon.

So you are not having a discussion with what I have said or asked. You are changing what I am saying around. So what's the point of having a conversation then??

M Paul

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by M Paul

...I asked Will to distinguish how upholding the KJV as the equivalent of canon had a basis different than what the Catholics use for establishing the Apocrapha ... So what's the point of having a conversation then??

Probably none, your whole concept is far too convoluted, so Will should, imho, simply pass it bye.

On top of that you misunderstand the RCC position - once again, they support the Apocrypha as some sort of special status, in any language, but they do not support the Greek OT (socalled Septuagint) since they have the Vulgate OT from Jerome as their text. It is groups like the Greek Orthodox who support the Greek OT as scripture over the Masoretic Text, not the RCC, nor any Jews. And the RCC official support of Apocrypha was largely a Council of Trent happenstance.

Plus you misunderstand the Reformation position by thinking that the Reformation canon is connected with the languages, thereby confusing discussions of inspiration (which talks of both the original languages and translation) with canon (which is totally 100% language-independent).

Most importantly you never say anything about your basic thesis, wrongly stated as Protestant fact, that canon is only in original languages. So overall you are about two levels removed from really having a dialog. You would do well to try to grasp the basic concepts a bit better rather than throwing out disjointed factoids.

If this sounds harsh, there is little I can say. Nothing personal meant, and I do hope you move more to understanding the purity and perfection of the Bible in our hand, as expressed and defended by Will and others. I saw your original post and was a bit perplexed about the mish-mosh. The problems have not been alleviated with your piled-up explanations, where you bury real solid understanding underneath factoid city.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Just to be clearer on one point, Whitaker back in 1588 mentioned that the analogy attempted here by M Paul fails for the RCC and the Greek OT.

Whitaker was answering the papists arguments of Bellarmine. Whitaker mentions the Augustine reference, as above, and how this does not fit the RCC perspective.

http://books.google.com/books?id=PhYXAAAAIAAJ
A Disputation on Holy Scripture By William Whitaker p. 137 (1588)

Jerome himself adjusted his version by the standard of the originals, and wished it to be judged of by that same standard. Augustine, as we have previously shewn, passes a long encomium upon that translation which the Seventy published. Will our adversaries thence conclude that that translation is authentic? On the contrary, they now esteem it very slightly.

This is rather basic textual history. The RCC never embraced the Greek OT (Septuagint). When you weave a complex (or convoluted analogy in this case) argument, it is helpful to have the foundational facts straight.

Oh, and even on Augustine, Whitaker adds : (p. 138)

For Augustine, who allowed most to the authority of the Septuagint version, yet thought that it should be corrected by the originals.

Thus there is no full authority to the Greek OT given by the early writer Augustine, and the RCC is especially totally distanced from the Greek OT.

Shalom,
Steven

Steve, you are a fine debater, and know your stuff. how old are you?

[chette777]

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

First replies over at FFF

.

etc.

Will K

what I see Brother Will showing us here in this set of quotes is something that the Enemy has ben setting forth for the one world church. First they destroy your confidence in the authority of the Bible by making people think that no Bible is inerrant, secondly, They tell you the one that is whole an complete (the KJV) is the worse translation. then confere to mens common sense that we have no Word of God we can trust.

this leaves man with only one choice. If we don't have an authoritative Bible what or who do we turn to for Spiritual Authority? Well for now itis the Scholars, and when the Body of Christ disappears (along with most Scholars) it will be the Anti-Christ.

That is exactly how it is going to come down. The main stream church has not only been an hinderance to the gospel but now it has become the problem.

[Will Kinney]

Another man who calls himself Greek Tim was a bit indignant that I told him he did not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. I had written to him these words: “Sorry, Tim, but it is central to this discussion; not a rabbit trail at all. Since you do not have nor believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, then all you have left are your mere personal opinions, and your personal opinions don't count for much of anything.”

To which Greek Tim responded: “I must disagree. I don't see what your argument here has anything to do w/ a textual criticism issue. And I would please ask you to stop telling me what I do or do not believe. I am a full inerrantist. You don't have to be KJVO to hold to inerrancy.

I am somewhat frustrated that you would hurl such accusations against me. First of all, you barely know me. Second of all, you have never asked me my view of inerrancy so you couldn't know my view. Third, Will Kinney is not the plumline of orthodoxy. If we don't agree on a subject does not mean that I am in complete doctrinal aberation. I am a hardline inerrantist. In fact, that is a hill I am willing to die on. So I ask that you would keep to respectful discussions without attacking people. Stick to attacking views and ideas.” (end of Tim’s quotes)

I then wrote back:”Tim, I don't need to know you at all to make the statements that I did. I simply go by what you yourself have said. You SAY you are a hardline inerrantist, yet it is clear as the noon-day sun that you do not believe The Bible (any bible in any language) IS NOW the inerrant words of God.

Here are your own self-contradictory words - "My inerrant Bible is the inspired originals which readings have been preserved in the copies."

First, the originals never did make up The Bible. Secondly, these inspired and inerrant originals are no where to be found and you have never seen one scrap of them in your whole life. In other words, you believe that IF the originals HAD BEEN put into a single book (which they never were), then that WOULD HAVE BEEN the inerrant Bible. As it is now, you believe something would have been inerrant if it had ever existed, but it never did, and certainly does not now.

I am not impressed with your 'hardline inerrantist" point of view. You are confessing a faith in something that never existed and does not exist now. You couldn't show a single person alive today an inspired and inerrant Bible if your life depended on it.

The ONLY way you can prove the King James Bible is NOT the complete and inerrant words of God would be IF you had a real and tangible inerrant Bible in front of you and could compare it to the King James Bible and show us the differences. In light of the FACT that you have no such Book, all your arguments are empty and utterly meaningless.

I have a real Bible in mind when I talk about the inerrancy of Scripture. You have nothing. An invisible Bible. A philosophical hypothesis. A figment of pure imagination.

I have no hopes of you seeing the absurdity of your own position, but perhaps some who might read these posts will see how phony your "hardline inerrantist" line is. "Something that does not exist is inerrant." OOOOOKaayyy.

Will K