|Join Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New|
Stats: 2,163,336 members, 4,713,708 topics. Date: Wednesday, 23 January 2019 at 11:10 AM
|Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ihedinobi3: 6:26pm On Nov 09, 2018|
PastorAIO:Incredible. So, shall we also say that because the Lord Jesus had not been born into the human race from Genesis to Malachi, nothing written in those books applied to Him either?
You are so weird.
Shall we also say that because none of those books referred to Him as Jesus, they don't apply to Him?
You are really really weird.
|Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by PastorAIO: 6:37pm On Nov 09, 2018|
Your argument is that because of the Greeting "Grace from God to You" Therefore the bible is from God.
If you agree that the Grace of God is already established in the lives of the Christian recipients of the Letter and that all the apostle is doing is affirming that Grace of God in their lives then your whole Argument has fallen on it's ass. That you feel that it doesn't change your argument just demonstrates that you are pig-headed.
You continue to lie that the Bible makes a claim about itself when in fact it is the Letter to Timothy that makes the claim about those writings revered as Scripture. The Bible did not even exist at the time that the letter was written.
I don't know why you raised all these failed arguments when you then claim that it doesn't matter whether or not there is a claim to divine authorship in the Bible, but your belief is based on something else.
It is God's spirit in me that informs me so categorically that you are a fraud. Call it an ad hominem if you like but the Holy Spirit denounces your words in my heart. And furthermore it is done with evidence.
|Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by PastorAIO: 6:39pm On Nov 09, 2018|
Okay o, it wasn't a refutation according to you. In your scholarly opinion I agreed with you totally. Carry on!
|Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by PastorAIO: 6:42pm On Nov 09, 2018|
Hah! Your ego knows no bounds. I would rather discuss your words and your fake arguments. It was the Holy Spirit that denounces you as a fraudulent fellow. I'm only faithfully conveying what is revealed to me. Even you admit that we all have Natural Revelation.
|Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ihedinobi3: 6:46pm On Nov 09, 2018|
PastorAIO:I said this:
And then there is this thread of yours too:
Suffice to say that your post history is riddled with this low opinion of Christians and their intelligence. The fact that you think some Christians are exempt does not faze me specifically because you treat them like the exception, not the rule.
Now, go on and accuse me again of sophistry. I can't see you actually doing anything more.
|Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ihedinobi3: 7:16pm On Nov 09, 2018|
PastorAIO:There's this post I made as follow-up to my first response to Ubenedictus:
Then there's this too:
"I already told Ubenedictus how the Bible said so. Of course it did say so in many ways. Whenever Paul or Peter said "Grace to you (and peace) from [God]", they were essentially saying that they were writing for God. In each book of the Bible, this sort of thing occurs in one form or another. It may be by implication when a given book simply makes very authoritative statements about things that only God could really say. Or it may be more obvious as in the example I gave. Still, as I said to Ubenedictus too, this is neither here nor there. Any book may claim anything or prefer to make no claim. A claim does not make a writing Scripture. The absence of one does not make it NOT Scripture."
And I'm the libelous cretin?
PastorAIO:So, let's see...
1. This letter to Timothy is not Scripture. Is that what you mean? Because if it isn't, that would be Scripture referring to "all Scripture".
2. As I already argued, we can always say "Scripture" instead of "Bible" if that makes you happy. Unless you want to argue that because the sacred writings were bound together into one volume, they ceased to be Scripture. Would you like to argue that? Or perhaps you would prefer to argue that Paul and Timothy had a unique understanding of the word "Scripture" that need not be universal.
PastorAIO:To begin, my argument was that, first, yes, the Bible claims to be the Very Word of God and that is a very big claim to make but still, second, that claim only matters if in fact, the book that makes it shows that it was God Who wrote it in the same exact way that you can tell that I wrote something because you see my personality in it.
Any book can claim to be God's Production, but only the book that mirrors God's Personality lives up to such a claim.
The Bible makes that claim. The Bible mirrors God's Personality. Therefore, the Bible is right to claim to be the Word of God.
This is what my argument is in a nutshell.
PastorAIO:I don't believe I have said anything one way or another about whether it is the Holy Spirit Who informed you of anything. I just observed that this seems to be the whole interest of your argument: ME. That is the classical meaning of ad hominem.
|Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ihedinobi3: 7:22pm On Nov 09, 2018|
PastorAIO:You are wild with the straw men today, aren't you?
I did not offer an opinion. I expressed a confusion, even an incredulity, if you will. I cannot see how that was a refutation. I did say that I couldn't the first time. And I did tell you that you were only repeating what I had said, unless I'm mixing things up right now.
|Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ihedinobi3: 7:28pm On Nov 09, 2018|
PastorAIO:Well, why don't you then? What's with the constant personal attacks? You want to prove to me that you can insult someone with more sophisticated words than "idiot"?
I have not countered your claim about the Holy Spirit. What He reveals to you is entirely between you and him. It has nothing to do with me.
I don't see what Natural Revelation has to do with anything you are saying here. Explain?
|Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by PastorAIO: 7:30pm On Nov 09, 2018|
I) 7 pairs of animals does not contradict One pair of animals each. This is Sophistry.
II) I brought it up in the context of your saying this:
Now, how do you want to reconcile the different reports of the number of animals in the Ark? And how would you want to deny the Jehovah Witness from reconciling their own discrepancies in the same way?
I really want to see how you intend to be good for the Goose yet not be good for the gander.
III) I anticipate your attempt to use sophistry to reconcile the different reports. Of course you may just decide to avoid the matter entirely much like you avoided showing how Isaiah was talking about Virgin when in actual fact he was talking about a young woman. A young woman had a baby and before the baby grew up to make moral decisions the enemies of Israel had been scattered. How does that imply that the woman was a Virgin?
IV) I never said you made any arguments that were hard to take apart. You're hallucinating. I do think you are unintelligent enough to think that you can convince me that Hebrew Almah is a reference to a Virgin because the Israel's enemies were dispersed before the Child grew up to the age of making moral decisions. You arrange your words in such a way as if you're making a point when in fact you are making no point at all.
I'll quote you again here to show where you tried to use sophistry to pull wool over your own eyes.
Why could it not be a sign that a young woman has a child and before the child is grown up Israel's enemies are dispersed? Why does the woman have to be a virgin for it to be a sign? Are you not disgusted with yourself that you can present such an argument.
V) You are lying by conflating the Bible with the Scriptures mentioned in the Bible. It is the very same text that the NT calls Scriptures that you've charged into this thread to try and disavow. That text read throughout Christendom and Judaism was the LXX, aka Septuagint. Why have you come here and tried to discredit it.
Yet you present something else (even though it overlaps with the LXX) and then insist that that is the Scripture by the authority of whatever fanciful notion you are deceiving yourself with.
|Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by PastorAIO: 7:47pm On Nov 09, 2018|
What do you find incredible/unbelievable? That Paul was not talking about Scriptures in that passage but rather about his words that he spoke/preached to the Corinthians? What is so unbelievable about that? That is what Paul himself says:
1And I, when I came to you, brothers,a did not come proclaiming to you the testimonyb of God with lofty speech or wisdom. 2For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, 4and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of menc but in the power of God.
|Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by PastorAIO: 8:03pm On Nov 09, 2018|
Please you have to quote the part where I said that Christians are stupid o.
In the first thread I was making a report of the state of affairs in the forum. The Atheists were the most dominant at the time followed by the protestant Christians. The Muslims had run away to get away from the oppression of the Christians so the protestants were attacking the Catholics instead. Nowhere in that thread did I mention that Christians were unintelligent. More Lies from Ihedinobi, straight from his father of Lies.
In the second thread I suggested that People who attack Christianity or Israel could be messengers from God as such had happened often in the Bible. E.g Nebuchadnezzar was called a servant of God and King Cyrus of Persia was actually called a Messiah.
So this is again more sophistry.
noun plural -ries
a method of argument that is seemingly plausible though actually invalid and misleading
the art of using such arguments
subtle but unsound or fallacious reasoning
You structure your words as if you are building up to a point but there is hardly ever any point made. A common technique you use is to build the entire argument stage by stage on Perhapses and Maybes and Possibilities.
"Mary could have come to see us this afternoon. It's possible abi?
Therefore, Mary could be the Thief who stole our spoon.
Therefore, The missing spoon could possibly be in Mary's pocket.
So if Mary sits down to eat rice it makes sense that she would use the spoon within grasp, the spoon in her pocket.
Conclusion: The Rice was irrefutably eaten by Mary using the spoon she stole from us. QED."
|Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by PastorAIO: 8:10pm On Nov 09, 2018|
If as you claim this your argument has no bearing on whether the Bible is written by God or from God then why oh why did you bring it up and present it as an argument to demonstrate that. The reason you brought it up is because you thought that it would impress us and when you realised that I recognised it justly as a nonsense argument you want to retract it but without actually retracting it for ego's sake.
The fact of the matter is that that your argument fails woefully because it is clear in the bible that Grace to you from God is a salutation that is a declaration of something that is already established. Paul didn't bring them a new Grace from God with that letter.
|Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by PastorAIO: 8:14pm On Nov 09, 2018|
I have already seen through your technique. Your technique is to try and Conflate the Bible with the Scriptures of the Earliest Christians (the Septuagint). And at the same time to try and dismiss the Septuagint completely as being nothing special while your other Vaguely defined Scripture is the Truly special text.
2. As I already argued, we can always say "Scripture" instead of "Bible" if that makes you happy.
Hahahahaha, you are too clever by half. So you want to complete the Conflation but slip it by me as if it is a concession of some sort. When in actual fact I knew that this is what you were gunning for from the start.
|Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ihedinobi3: 8:17pm On Nov 09, 2018|
PastorAIO:The way the Bible works is this: "believe and then you'll understand". You won't understand it first, then believe. This is because of the very Scripture you tried to twist in 1 Cor 2. That is just fair warning.
I am answering you not for your sake but for the sake of weak believers who for any reason find their way here.
These are the two accounts that you spoke of:
And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female.
Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive.
You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female;
also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth.
The first passage in Genesis 6 said that Noah was to take the animals in pairs of male and female.
The second told him how many pairs of clean and unclean animals he was to take.
PastorAIO:Well, it is your choice what to call it and whether or not to even bother about proofing it. Like I said, I didn't answer for you. If this were a private conversation between us two (a gross unlikelihood), chances are that I wouldn't have bothered to explain it at all.
Are you really saying that I avoided showing how Isaiah meant virgin when in your very next argument you repeat the argument I made?
As I said in that argument, why would it be a sign if it was a married woman having a baby? What's the big deal in that?
PastorAIO:You called my arguments sophistries. That means that you consider them clever but false. That was what I called your OP as well. But where I have gone on to show why I believe your OP to be false, you have been more interested in my person and somehow that helps you prove that my arguments are false?
The woman had to be a virgin because then the timing within which she had to get married, then have the baby, then name the baby specifically, then have the child grow up to the point spoken of would make it a pure miracle. If she was already married, then what would be the big deal about her having a baby who grows up to that point?
No, I am not disgusted with myself. The argument looks fine to me.
PastorAIO:Where does the NT call whatever it is you are referring to (I think you mean the Apocrypha, but if you don't, please clarify) Scripture?
As I said, the Septuagint was popular for Gentiles and Jews who could not read Hebrew. Teachers like the Lord Jesus and the Apostles used it for convenience whenever it was not in error. Otherwise, they translated straight from the Hebrew.
Finally, what is the difference between the Bible and the Scriptures? I have explained more than once why the two are the same to me. You should return the favor so that it is clear exactly how I am lying.
|Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by PastorAIO: 8:17pm On Nov 09, 2018|
Perhaps you don't know what a Refutation is:
verb: refute; 3rd person present: refutes; past tense: refuted; past participle: refuted; gerund or present participle: refuting
prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
"these claims have not been convincingly refuted"
synonyms: disprove, prove wrong/false, show/prove to be wrong/false, rebut, confute, give the lie to, demolish, explode, debunk, drive a coach and horses through, discredit, invalidate;
deny or contradict (a statement or accusation).
|Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ihedinobi3: 8:23pm On Nov 09, 2018|
PastorAIO:This is the entire chapter:
1 Corinthians 2:1-16
And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God.
For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.
I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling,
and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,
so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.
Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away;
but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory;
the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory;
but just as it is written, "Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard, And which have not entered the heart of man, All that God has prepared for those who love Him."
For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.
For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,
which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.
For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.
Even if we were to accept that Paul was only speaking of what he taught the Corinthians (and the context suggests a far more general view than that), this passage does not say that he didn't teach them the whole Scripture.
Having said that, "the things of the Spirit of God" clearly does not refer only to what Paul was saying in vv.1-4. If it did, it would have made more sense for Paul to go on saying "my message and preaching" than the more general "the things of the Spirit of God".
|Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ihedinobi3: 8:28pm On Nov 09, 2018|
LOL. So, now it is that I said that you said that Christians are stupid.
Your analogy is funny. Well done. You made me laugh.
All right. That's it for that. You have been having plenty of fun calling me all sorts of names in your "arguments". I don't see any point in trying to stop you.
The evidence can be interpreted any way you please. At least, I can't be accused of writing or editing it in any way, only of being too much of an idiot to know what I was reading...which is what you have been having a lot of fun saying anyway.
So, carry on with this. I'm not discussing this any further.
|Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ihedinobi3: 8:34pm On Nov 09, 2018|
PastorAIO:I did say that you were grasping at straws. Any little thing that looks like a victory to you you'll milk for all it is worth.
I never offered the "Grace to You" bit as an argument. It was an illustration for an argument. I did my own further research before Ubenedictus attacked it and decided that it was a bad illustration so when he did, I acquiesced. That was well before you even deigned to respond on it today. I was only confirming to you that I had already yielded the point to Ubenedictus and now you have it in your head that I lost the whole argument to you?
I don't think I need to explain my argument any further. Believe what you will. That is your free will action.
|Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by PastorAIO: 8:38pm On Nov 09, 2018|
I'm sure that you have some acrobatics that you can do to demonstrate that 'not very intelligent' or 'lower intellectual ability' is not the same as Stupid and you never accused me of saying that Christians are stupid.
|Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ihedinobi3: 8:59pm On Nov 09, 2018|
PastorAIO:Considering that you are the king of mystery, I would have considered it a great compliment to be told that I played it like that if I thought that that was a good thing. But I don't make up words in Latin and Greek and try to pass it off as some clear term anybody would understand. That's you. I try to explain my arguments and be clear no matter how smart or dumb the person who reads them. That is me, not you.
My argument was this: the Septuagint had problems in translation. Most translations do. This is why it is never very wise to exalt a translation over the original. You claim that all the originals are lost and the problematic Septuagint which received a divine reputation through your legend is what Christianity is rooted in.
That is not true. The original OT was preserved in the Masoretic Text. The original NT was preserved in manuscripts like the Sinaiticus. Anyone who learns Ancient Greek and Hebrew can access the Word of God in its purest form in them.
Now, I didn't bother to say all that because even those who cannot for some reason learn Ancient Greek and Hebrew can still hear God's Word even if they read the Septuagint for the self-same reason that I have been presenting in my arguments: the Word of God is inspired by God and is thus recognizable to anyone looking for it. So, even in poor translations like the Septuagint, those whose hearts are seeking the Truth will find it and still recognize in such translations what is NOT the God's Word. That is why I could tell what was wrong with the JW Bible and the Apocrypha. However, my experience is mine. I don't offer it as any sort of argument. Each person has a free will and a conscience and the witness of creation, so each person can decide for themselves what is and what is not God's Word.
Is that clear enough for you?
PastorAIO:I am just a bit tired. It's been a long day for me...in a good way though, so I am rather willing to make reasonable concessions.
You do like to draw an issue out for no discernible reason. Now we are fighting over terms. I call it the Bible. You have a problem with that. I explain that Bible is only a word that describes the collection of Christian Scriptures but you still ignore that and talk about a conflation. All this because you want to argue about lists.
I don't care what list you favor. The point is just that if it is the Word of God, that is, if it is Scripture and truly belongs in the Bible, no matter whether it is the Gospel of John, the Wisdom of Sirach or the Book of Enoch, the only way we can know for sure is that that writing has the Spirit of God in it. And if it does, then it can only be understood if the reader has the Spirit of God in them.
If you want to argue that some people who lived two thousand years ago called the books of the Maccabees Scripture and treated them as such (if, in fact, they did; and that is debatable) and therefore so should we, I would ask you why. Why should I treat anything as Scripture just because they did? Scripture is God-breathed. Therefore, I will only treat a writing as Scripture if it is God-breathed even if they didn't.
It's exhausting having to repeat the same thing so many times, PastorAIO. And I'm supposed to be the unintelligent one here, according to you. Why do I have to repeat my argument so many times only for you to accuse me of trying to slip this and that past you? Weird.
|Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ihedinobi3: 9:17pm On Nov 09, 2018|
PastorAIO:And I did say that you were only repeating what I said. Definitely not denying or contradicting what I said. So, what are you saying exactly?
|Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by PastorAIO: 8:36pm On Nov 10, 2018|
You said that Paul's greeting of 'Grace of God be on you' is evidence that He was speaking for God and those were God's words. I refuted that. There is nothing I said that repeated what you said.
If I have agreed with you, or repeated your words, on this matter then show me where I agreed with you.
|Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by PastorAIO: 8:41pm On Nov 10, 2018|
Bibliolatry (from the Greek βιβλίον biblion, "book" and the suffix -λατρία -latria, "worship" is the worship of a book or the description of a deity found in a book. In Christianity, bibliolatry is used to describe extreme devotion to the Bible or to biblical inerrancy. Supporters of biblical inerrancy point to passages (such as 2 Timothy 3:16–17) interpreted to say that the Bible, as received, is a complete source of what must be known about God. -Wikipedia
Even though I thought I was making up the word, if you were a true seeker after Truth and applied due diligence you would not have a problem.
However you are obviously not someone who is concerned with the Truth. And so you see that even though I was not aware of it, you were being exposed by the holy Spirit.
|Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by PastorAIO: 8:45pm On Nov 10, 2018|
You are a liar!! Flesh and blood are not revealing these lies to you , but your Father of Lies.
The Masoretic Text (MT or �) is the authoritative Hebrew and Aramaic text of the Tanakh for Rabbinic Judaism. It is not the original text (Urtext) of the Hebrew Bible. It was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries CE. - Wikipedia
|Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by PastorAIO: 8:52pm On Nov 10, 2018|
it is not a matter of terms. It is a matter of facts. The Scriptures of the Jews was the Septuagint at the origin of Christianity. The Bible did not exist at that time.
The Bible as a whole is a different object entirely from the LXX even though the LXX is contained in the early bibles. Using the same terms to conflate these two things is disingenuous.
As disingenuous as saying 2 is equal to 7, as per the Animals in Noah's Ark.
|Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by PastorAIO: 9:09pm On Nov 10, 2018|
HMMMM.... An illustration for an argument but not an argument in itself. So what you wrote above is not an argument or an attempt to make a point, either by illustration, by Singing, by writing or drawing. Even Dancing sef.
|Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by PastorAIO: 2:29am On Nov 12, 2018|
So recognizing God's word because you have the spirit that others don't have is not your argument. 'You don't offer it as any sort of argument.'
Also, Claiming that Grace to You from God means that the bible was authored by God is not the argument you presented, only an illustration of an argument (lol).
So which one is actually the argument you came here to make. You just entered and declared the OP as false and the went on to write at considerable length on absolutely nothing. Which part of anything you've been writing since is your argument to buttress your point that the OP was false?
|Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ihedinobi3: 10:38am On Nov 12, 2018|
PastorAIO:As I said, you are now practically a dog with a bone with this issue, so much so that you've lost the thread of thought in the conversation.
This is what you were talking about:
Ihedinobi3: 'About whether or not God preserved His Witness, here are some other things I said:
|"Regardless of this desire on the part of the majority of human beings to distort God's Truth, God's Truth is still preserved in the world because of others who not only want to know it in its pure form but want to keep it accessible to others who may come to seek it. This is how God counteracts the power of the Lie. So, in every generation, there have been true believers equipped with the abilities and resources required to either reclaim the Truth from increasingly elaborate distortions that the Enemy and his agents have tried to mire it in."
"Why did God not prevent anyone from corrupting the Scriptures though? It is a fair question because obviously God can and He loves us and wants us to know the Truth or else the Bible is lying about Him, that is, He would be lying about Himself if the Bible is truly His Testimony. The answer to that question is that we have a free will. All sane human beings (the overwhelming majority of human beings) do. Therefore, each of us has a God-given right to decide what to do with God's Testimony. We can receive it in humility. We can ignore it. Or we can actively try to destroy it like King Jehoiakim of Judah tried to do in Jeremiah 36:21-26. Active physical destruction of the Bible has been attempted multiple times in human history but it is not the only way that people have actively attempted to destroy the Scriptures. They have tried too to add or remove or change material in them so that those who read their production will be misled into believing lies masked as Truth. This is hardly novel since Satan himself has been doing that since the beginning of human history, that is, presenting the lie as the truth to try to deceive those who want to be listening to God.
God allows this to make sure that every human choice about him is clearly demonstrated in the eyes of men and angels. But He is also God and He does have people who love His Truth and He commits Himself to helping them to preserve it, covering their weaknesses with His Strength so that His Testimony is preserved pure in the earth. There has never been a time in human history when such people did not exist. Nor has there ever been a time in human history when their opposite didn't either. So at all times throughout human history, both the pure Testimony of God and the adulteration, distortions and outright invented alternatives have always existed together so that everyone can choose what side they want to be on."'
PastorAIO: "I believe you haven't really given much thought to the idea of Free Will in your entire life.
There are a variety of bibles and they are different enough from each other to be able to facilitate the development of quite contrary doctrines in the many different types of Christian churches.
I never tire for marveling at how people like you take it upon yourself to speak for God and tell us the inner workings of God's mind."
That was what we were talking about.
PastorAIO:LOL. Now I'm supposed to research your own arguments too? You told me that you made up the title of the thread and it became my duty as a seeker of the Truth to go and determine whether you did in fact or not? Because it matters to me why?
PastorAIO:First off, how reliable is Wikipedia as an academic resource, PastorAIO?
Regardless, did I claim that the MT was the original text? Is this not rather what I said:
"The original OT was preserved in the Masoretic Text"?
If it was copied and edited from faulty or otherwise imperfect manuscripts in order to regain the original rendering, would the original OT not be preserved in it?
Now, here is Encyclopedia Britannica which while not being recommended as an academic source, mind the word, is very admissible as a resource. Its information is not as comprehensive and detailed as a source would be but it is generally an excellent summary of the research out there:
Textual criticism is concerned with the basic task of establishing, as far as possible, the original text of the documents on the basis of the available materials. For the Old Testament, until 1947, these materials consisted principally of: (1) Hebrew manuscripts dated from the 9th century AD onward, the Masoretic text, the traditional Jewish text with its vocalization and punctuation marks as recorded by the editors called Masoretes (Hebrew masora, “tradition”) from the 6th century to the end of the 10th; (2) Hebrew manuscripts of medieval date preserving the Samaritan edition of the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible); (3) Greek manuscripts, mainly from the 3rd and 4th centuries AD onward, preserving the text of the pre-Christian Greek version of the Hebrew Bible together with most of the apocryphal books (the Septuagint); and (4) manuscripts of the Syriac (Peshitta) and Latin (Vulgate) versions, both of which were based directly on the Hebrew. Since 1947 the discovery of Hebrew biblical texts at Qumrān (then Jordan) and other places west of the Dead Sea has made it possible to trace the history of the Hebrew Bible back to the 2nd century BC and to recognize, among the manuscripts circulating in the closing generations of the Second Jewish Commonwealth (c. 450 BC–c. AD 135), at least three types of Hebrew text: (1) the ancestor of the Masoretic text, (2) the Hebrew basis of the Septuagint version, and (3) a popular text of the Pentateuch akin to the Samaritan edition. A comparative examination of these three indicates that the ancestor of the Masoretic text is in the main the most reliable; the translators of the Revised Standard Version (1952) and the New English Bible (1970) have continued to use the Masoretic text as their Old Testament basis."
PastorAIO:Again, rather obviously from even Ubenedictus's reference to the Qumran Caves not to mention your own narration in your OP your first paragraph is false. The Septuagint was made for those who could not read Hebrew. You know too that there were Hebrew texts in existence at the time as there have always been. It was those Jews and Gentile believers who could not access the Hebrew text who had to make do with the Septuagint. You are the one who knows what you mean when you say "bible". Until now, you have only asserted the existence of a difference. You are not big on definitions, are you? Maintaining confusion seems to be a real thing with you.
As for the existence of the Bible, again, you are weird. The Bible is what we call the collection of Christian sacred writings. It has always existed for as long as there have been Christian sacred writings. It was only completed by the Apostles and their associates. But it has always existed as long as there have been inspired writings.
So, this is your rebuttal to the explanation you asked for about Genesis 6 and 7: a straw man. So I said that two is equal to seven? Where did I say so, pray tell?
PastorAIO:At this point, I'm rather convinced that you are thoroughly confused in this discussion. You pick and choose what arguments you will respond to, unilaterally declining response wherever you want without much explanation (in two cases, you decided the arguments were off-topic, otherwise, you offered no explanation). You keep sneaking around in the conversation sneering and hurling insults. But to actually sustain an argument or a rebuttal is just hard for you.
I will explain one last time:
My argument is that Scripture claims to be God-breathed. That means that anyone who reads it will be able to tell, if they want to, that it is God's Own Thought because - as you yourself agreed - one can tell that something was written by someone if one already knows what that person is like. Every human being has access to Natural Revelation, that is the witness of creation around them and their own conscience and can therefore tell whether something is the Word of God or not.
To illustrate the claim that the Bible makes to be Scripture, I provided Paul's benediction. I decided later that it was a bad example and retracted it when Ubenedictus countered it. A bad example is only a bad example, not a bad argument. You accomplish nothing by harping ceaselessly on it. After all, you cannot deny that Scripture claims to be God-breathed without deciding that Paul's letter to Timothy is not Scripture.
I will give you yet another to think about:
For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
If, therefore, it is truly the Word of God, it will be alive and active. So, again, if you can detect life (incidentally, God breathed into Adam and he came to life, so if Scripture is God-breathed, then it must be living) in any writing, then you have the Word of God on your hands, regardless of claims or the absence of them
Those are my arguments. Perhaps at some point, you will actually bother to answer them rather than look for things to sneer at and insults to throw.
|Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by JMAN05: 1:52am On Nov 13, 2018|
Are you saying that those bible books in that quote aren't there or what?
he lists the books he considered canonical 22 of them, he listed another 7 he considered ecclesiastical to be read by the authority of the church for edification and he also calls those books scripture... It is the others who do not make either list that are apocryphal.
If you had read the write up where he favored 22 books, you will understand that from context, he never viewed those books as inspired. You will also note that when he used apocryphal, he meant those books you class as deuterocanonicals. I dont know on what he was over ruled, what I know from his writings, is that he doesnt view these books as inspired. Jerome's writing in that paragraph leaves no doubt as to what he meant. read it ursef.
Where is this list in the bold faced words? Is it part where he mentioned the 22 books?
For Jerome the deuterocanon wasn't apocrypha, it was ecclesiatical, it was scripture just placed below the Hebrew canon in authority.... For the church who has the authority, it is both scripture, and canonical.
Jerome all through his life consistently accepted the Hebrew texts as been the best even though the church didn't. But in the letter to rufinus he wrote clearly that he didn't translate Daniel by the Hebrew text but instead by the greek because THAT IS THE JUDGMENT OF THE CHURCH.
You are still quoting Jerome out of context. Jerome was stating the church views the Septuagint as inspired, yet when they read the book of Daniel, they port to the translation by Theodotion. Theodotion and the Hebrew Bible didnt add the book of Daniel as a prophetic book. they added Daniel as among the Writtings, not Prophets. This angered Rufinus, but Jerome was following what was already in place. It wasnt his invention. That was the judgment of the churches he followed. But he however, ridiculed the double standard, asked Rufinus why they would prefer a translation by a Jew and discard his own, a christian.
In his reference on the apocryphals, he highlighted a story told by a certain Jewish Teacher mocking the writings of those apocryphals. It is this writings that Rufinus charged against him, but Jerome saw it as laughable why Rufinus will charge such against him. He was not renoucing his view of the apocryphals.
In one of his writings he stated this:
"...[b]from the Old Testament which is not found in our manuscripts. For example, `Out of Egypt have I called my Son' (Matt 2:15): `For he shall be called a Nazarene' (Ibid. 23): and `They shall look on him whom they pierced' (John 19:37): and `Rivers of living water shall flow out of his belly' (John 7:38): and `Things which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man, which God hath prepared for them that love him' (I. Cor. 2:9), and many other passages which lack their proper context. Let us ask our opponents then where these things are written, and when they are unable to tell, let us produce them from the Hebrew. The first passage is in Hosea, (11:1), the second in Isaiah (11:1), the third in Zechariah (12:10), the fourth in Proverbs (18:4), the fifth also in Isaiah (64:4). Being ignorant of all this many follow the ravings of the Apocrypha, and prefer to the inspired books the melancholy trash which comes to us from Spain"[/b]
This is just one example of how he view those books.
|Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by PastorAIO: 12:52pm On Nov 16, 2018|
LOL! You spout so much rubbish here that even your 2 supporters that have been liking everything you've posted so far have given up. Obviously they felt you needed the moral support.
|Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by PastorAIO: 12:59pm On Nov 16, 2018|
I asked you a question: You said I agreed with you on the matter, I asked you where I agreed with you and you responded with copious amounts of trash. All you have to do is show me where you said one thing and I responded in agreement. It's an easy request. I haven't lost any thread of the conversation. You are the one trying to make everything as convoluted as possible in the hope that the thread will be lost.
|Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by PastorAIO: 1:17pm On Nov 16, 2018|
Nope! Stop being a dunce. I told you that I have a penchant for making up words. I thought I was making up a word - Bibliolatry. I make up words by deriving them from greek or latin, as a lot of english words are derived this way anyway.
It turns out that the word I thought I was making up actually already existed and it is used in the same way that intended for it to be used. obviously because I was using the same rules that determines how a lot of english words are formed.
If you had simply googled the word you would have found its meaning to be exactly as I had intended it.
And by the way, it is just a word, not an 'argument'. Bibliolatry is not an 'argument'. You really don't know what an argument is, do you?
a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory.
"there is a strong argument for submitting a formal appeal"
So when you say:
What I see here is a point that you are trying to make, which is that God is the Author of the Bible. And a reason in support of the point which I put in bold but I'll repeat here again:
The difference here is that it is put at the beginning of the letter to tell the readers that, yes indeed, this letter is coming from God through our agency.
According to any dictionary definition of an argument what you attempted to do what make an argument. A very stupid lame argument. And when you realise that just how stupid your argument it (kudos to you though for recognizing your stupidity) you tried to back track by saying it is not an argument but an illustration. Only Illustration? Why not Portrait too? Or Caricature sef?
|Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health |
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket
Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2019 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 812