Search results

Trying to change the subject again I see. Let's see what was I discussing? OH, I know. Cite the primary source which claims "the disciples personally accepted these extra books as scripture." Cite the primary source which state the "tradition was passed on." Provide the manuscript evidence.

You made the claim. All you have to do is cite the primary sources. Cite the primary source which claims "the disciples personally accepted these extra books as scripture." Cite the primary source which state the "tradition was passed on." Provide the manuscript evidence. You must not have...

Your comment could not be more clear. In other words YOU have NO primary source or manuscript evidence to support your claims.

Thank you. He seems to believe it is always someone else's responsibility and not his to support his claims.

Yes. Then by all means feel free cite the primary source which claims "the disciples personally accepted these extra books as scripture." Cite the primary source which stated the "tradition was passed on." Provde the manuscript evidence. Then cite the primary source which claims "the...

First, I never stated a preference one way or the other. My goal was to point out you have no primary sources or manuscript evidence to support your claims. Which I did many times, and you still don't (see your comment below). Second, just because you love something does not mean you have to...

I know. I never claimed they were. I was discussing a point regarding Septuagint quotes. I was pointing out every O.T quotation in the N.T. has some variants from the LXX (and in many cases major variations like the one above) and is rarely verbatim. And nothing in your post changes that fact.

Because in Greek one can actually see the actual differences in the Greek text. An English translation cannot do that Matthew 2:6 Καὶ σύ Βηθλέεμ γῆ Ἰούδα, οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη εἶ ἐν τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν Ἰούδα ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ ἐξελεύσεται ἡγούμενος ὅστις ποιμανεῖ τὸν λαόν μου τὸν...

You see this is where you misunderstand me. I love the Septuagint. I look at the evidence collectively. I don't pit one thing against the other but try and understand how it all fits together. I would agree with the majority of scholars who consider both to be important and helpful sources...

Thanks

Not always verbatim? That's a joke. Let's look at an example. Matthew 2:6 Καὶ σύ Βηθλέεμ γῆ Ἰούδα, οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη εἶ ἐν τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν Ἰούδα ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ ἐξελεύσεται ἡγούμενος ὅστις ποιμανεῖ τὸν λαόν μου τὸν Ἰσραήλ Micah 5:2 Καὶ σύ Βηθλέεμ οἶκος Ἐφράθα...

The truth is almost every O.T quotation in the N.T. has some variants from the LXX (and in many cases major variations like the one above) and is rarely verbatim.

No evidence. Yet some of those quotes agree with the Hebrew text against Septuagint. That claim demonstrably false. Matt 2:15 ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἐκάλεσα τὸν υἱόν μου out of Egypt I called my son Hosea 11:1 (LXX) ἐξ Αἰγύπτου μετεκάλεσα τὰ τέκνα αὐτοῦ out of Egypt I called his children MT...

Evidently you don't know that would be only a very small faction of the total number of Christ. How many thousands of Christians were there? 10,000? 100,000? 500,000? Even if that were true, how does that prove Bercot knows what the "vast majority of Christians around the world" believed? It...

Empty claims with no evidence. We can examine the Latin text and compare with both the Greek and Hebrew texts and see which one the Latin follows. This Sophronius to whom Jerome writes was out classed by some Hebrew. He wanted Jerome to translate "a new edition in the Latin language." Sound...

Really? Bercot knows what the "vast majority of Christians around the world" believed? I sincerely doubt he has such knowledge. However if you provide the evidence Bercot knows what the "vast majority of Christians around the world" believed on this topic I will being more than willing to...

Yes, he did use the word "virgin." Can you provide any objective evidence as to why? Yes he did. The point being that he made a separate translation of the Hebrew text. Your source proves my point. It states Jerome made "a new translation of the Hebrew Masoretic text."

I never said you did. I was merely pointing out your vocabulary can be misleading. Alas, poor poor Jerome was just too stupid to know any better. How sad! That is if you could provide primary sources to support your claims. Jerome knew Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. If what you claim were true...

He wouldn't know what a Proto-Masoretic text was either. He had no conception of text types.

Yes, I know.