Search results

Gideon merely being aware something was possible is hardly the same thing knowing. Also the text never says he knew it was the angel of the Lord until verse 22 where is states: "Gideon perceived that he was the angel of the LORD."

First I never suggested anyone was playing mind game so your point is irrelevant. Second, how does that change anything I said? I said Gideon addresses the angel at first as "Lord" (v. 13), not LORD. And Gideon said to him, “Please, my lord (i.e. אָדוֹן = Lord), if the LORD is with us, why...

That is not correct. Gideon addresses the angel at first as "Lord" (v. 13), not LORD. And Gideon said to him, “Please, my lord (i.e. אָדוֹן = Lord), if the LORD is with us, why then has all this happened to us? And where are all his wonderful deeds that our fathers recounted to us, saying...

Yes you did, but there are a number of reasons why that won't work. For one John the Baptist was "not sawed in two." You are deflecting and avoiding the problems with your two claims. Again, I addressed two points you made. (1) Paul "was using hebrew scripture to provide examples of strong...

I find that very interesting. I addressed two claims you made: (1) Paul "was using hebrew scripture to provide examples of strong devotion and Faith." I asked for a source and you offered none. If your claim is correct concerning "hebrew scripture," then it follows you ought to be able to...

Since you state that Paul "was using hebrew scripture to provide examples of strong devotion and Faith" and "he does not use secular literature or poets" WHERE in Scripture does it states "they were sawn in two" (Hebrews 11:37)? Please provide the Hebrew Scripture source. But we do have...

Your overall point is moot in regard to what I wrote. I said, now applying the same methods that have been used in this thread to support 2 Maccabees, it follows that Ascension of Isaiah and Lives of the Prophets are Scripture as well. However, your claims regarding 2 Maccabees, Jannes and...

Not only but something very important has been over looked in Hebrews 11 which has a direct impact upon this discussion. In Hebrews 11:37 the first half of that text reads: "They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword." There is no record of something like that...

Since I did not make such a claim your point is moot and your comments does not refute what I said. A New Testament author may quote a source without accepting it as Scripture. That may be the only thing that matters to you, but that is not the case for others or myself. Which topics or...

The truth is almost every O.T quotation in the N.T. has at least some minor variants from the LXX (and in some cases major variations) and is rarely verbatim. Some quotations are closer to the LXX while others are closer to the Hebrew. A few others, however, do not conform to either the LXX or...

This is my sixth example. Mark 12:30 καὶ ἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου - and you shall love the Lord your God ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας σου - with all your heart καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ψυχῆς σου - and with all your soul καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς διανοίας σου - and with all your mind καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ἰσχύος σου - and...

You seem to be missing the overall point. A New Testament author may quote a source without accepting it as Scripture. Also it is unlikely that Paul is the author of the book of Hebrews for a number of reasons. A quick check of early church history will support that point. As Origen points...

That is exactly correct. In Acts 17:28 Paul states: “for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.'” The first part of that quote comes from Epimenides and the second part comes from Aratus. In 1 Cor. 15:33 Paul states: “Do not...

Hello and welcome

That's putting it mildly.

Thank you. ??? The O.T. is intact. There is no evidence to support such a claim. The fact is the books in codices varied especially when the whole of the codex is considered. Vaticanus is one of the oldest (if not the oldest) codices of the LXX. There are only fragments of the LXX that are...

Codex Vaticanus is dated to the 4th century. It did not take centuries to complete.

Only the New Testament is incomplete. It breaks off in Hebrews 9. The whole of the Old Testament is intact.

First I don't know where you get your information but we have the original Codex Vaticanus. You can look at it online. Scholars have examined it. http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_03 Second, one does not translate from Greek to Greek. Vaticanus is in Greek. All they would have had to...

That is not correct. In Codex Vaticanus Maccabees is missing. Codex Sinaiticus contains 1st Maccabees and 4th Maccabees but are missing 2nd and 3rd Maccabees. Codex Alexandrinus contains 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Maccabees.