I believe Noah’s flood was 5,000 years ago, not 4,400.

[Lees]

Post 130 explains nothing. All you said is “it’s correct, it’s correct, it’s correct.”


Ok? But HOW is it correct? Luke 3:36 includes the extra Canaan, but Genesis 10 and 11 exclude the extra Canaan. Why? Does the extra Canaan belong or doesn’t it?
Explain.

Yes, that is what I said. It is correct in that it was correctly translated. It was not mistakenly placed there.

Why it is in the New Testament account and not in the Old Testament account, I don't know. But just because I don't know doesn't mean it shouldn't be there. There are lots of things in the Bible I don't know and have no explanation for.

There is a reason it is there. It behooves one to seek that out instead of saying it is a mistake.

So, again (Gen. 10:24) is correct. (Gen. 11:12) is correct. (Luke 3:36) is correct.

Lees

 

[NathanH83]

Yes, that is what I said. It is correct in that it was correctly translated. It was not mistakenly placed there.

Why it is in the New Testament account and not in the Old Testament account, I don't know. But just because I don't know doesn't mean it shouldn't be there. There are lots of things in the Bible I don't know and have no explanation for.

There is a reason it is there. It behooves one to seek that out instead of saying it is a mistake.

So, again (Gen. 10:24) is correct. (Gen. 11:12) is correct. (Luke 3:36) is correct.

Lees

Eusebius, Africanus, Theophilus were all church fathers from the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries. They all agreed with the numbers in the Greek Septuagint and disagreed with the numbers in the Hebrew Masoretic. But they didn’t include the extra Cainan, because their copies of Genesis and their copies of Luke didn’t have that extra Cainan. It was added in sometime later. This is a mistake in newer copies of the Septuagint. And that mistake has also bled over to newer copies of Luke, which also made its way into your precious King James Bible.

 

[Lees]

Eusebius, Africanus, Theophilus were all church fathers from the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries. They all agreed with the numbers in the Greek Septuagint and disagreed with the numbers in the Hebrew Masoretic. But they didn’t include the extra Cainan, because their copies of Genesis and their copies of Luke didn’t have that extra Cainan. It was added in sometime later. This is a mistake in newer copies of the Septuagint. And that mistake has also bled over to newer copies of Luke, which also made its way into your precious King James Bible.

If that is your answer to satisfy your problem, that is up to you.

I have no problem with (Luke 3:36) as represented by the vast majority of manuscripts.

Lees

 

[Andrew]

If that is your answer to satisfy your problem, that is up to you.

I have no problem with (Luke 3:36) as represented by the vast majority of manuscripts.

Lees

This whole Sinaiticus bit you base your conclusions on.. I think I know where your bias comes from.

The King James does not use brackets like other versions nor does it exclude NT passages that are not found in Sinaiticus, thus, because the Sinaiticus contained apocrypha books and other books of the Septuagint, then the King James, having no part in Sinaiticus, justifies the rejection of all of the Septuagint... is that right?

The brenton Septuagint does not use Sinaiticus, however, when verses are missing it gives a little note at the bottom saying that it IS included the Alexandrian text, so clearly it is NOT using Sinaiticus.

If you believe that the Septuagint was the work of Origen, then his co-conspirators include Josephus, the Samaritan Pentateuch, The Talmud, the New Testament and a large number of 1rst, 2nd, 3rd and 4th century Church fathers.

The Septuagint we have today is not perfect, the Masoretic is not perfect, but I have no issue with the King James New Testament.

The Sinaiticus can bite me.

 

[NathanH83]

If that is your answer to satisfy your problem, that is up to you.

I have no problem with (Luke 3:36) as represented by the vast majority of manuscripts.

Lees

Yet you have no explanation for the extra Canaan.

 

[Lees]

Yet you have no explanation for the extra Canaan.

See again post #(141).

Lees

 

[Lees]

This whole Sinaiticus bit you base your conclusions on.. I think I know where your bias comes from.

The King James does not use brackets like other versions nor does it exclude NT passages that are not found in Sinaiticus, thus, because the Sinaiticus contained apocrypha books and other books of the Septuagint, then the King James, having no part in Sinaiticus, justifies the rejection of all of the Septuagint... is that right?

The brenton Septuagint does not use Sinaiticus, however, when verses are missing it gives a little note at the bottom saying that it IS included the Alexandrian text, so clearly it is NOT using Sinaiticus.

If you believe that the Septuagint was the work of Origen, then his co-conspirators include Josephus, the Samaritan Pentateuch, The Talmud, the New Testament and a large number of 1rst, 2nd, 3rd and 4th century Church fathers.

The Septuagint we have today is not perfect, the Masoretic is not perfect, but I have no issue with the King James New Testament.

The Sinaiticus can bite me.

My, my.

You ignore post #(140) which was addressed to you and reply to a post not addressed to you.

Your post is nothing but smoke.

Lees

 

[Andrew]

My, my.

You ignore post #(140) which was addressed to you and reply to a post not addressed to you.

Your post is nothing but smoke.

Lees

No, what I did was disprove your theory that a made up manuscript found in 18whatever had some connection to the Septuagint... that's silly... and saying "Egypt" and "Alexandria" over and over doesn't change anything.

Your whole argument is nothing but smoke.

 

[Lees]

No, what I did was disprove your theory that a made up manuscript found in 18whatever had some connection to the Septuagint... that's silly... and saying "Egypt" and "Alexandria" over and over doesn't change anything.

Your whole argument is nothing but smoke.

You haven't 'disproved' anything. What you haven't done is proved any so called 'Septuagint'. Because it doesn't exist.

Egypt and Alexandria play an important role in this facade. As I have showed.

Alexandria-the Minority Text-Hellinstic philosophy-fake letter of Aristeas-septuagint-Origen. Oh yeah...that is some credible stuff there....not.

Lees

 

[NathanH83]

See again post #(141).

Lees

I read it. You have no explanation.

When the KJV sides with the Greek Septuagint’s mistakes you just say, “Well, I can’t explain it, but I still believe it’s 100% perfect.”

 

[Lees]

I read it. You have no explanation.

When the KJV sides with the Greek Septuagint’s mistakes you just say, “Well, I can’t explain it, but I still believe it’s 100% perfect.”

The claim is yours that (Luke 3:36) is a mistake. Not mine. Whether the spurious Septuagint includes it is immaterial to me.

Yes, I believe (Luke 3:36) is translated as it should be from the Majority Text.

Lees

 

[Lees]

No, what I did was disprove your theory that a made up manuscript found in 18whatever had some connection to the Septuagint... that's silly... and saying "Egypt" and "Alexandria" over and over doesn't change anything.

Your whole argument is nothing but smoke.

Nice edit...moderator.

Here is some information to help in your research of the faith of Westcott and Hort.

https://www.jesus-is-lord.com/hort.htm

Lees

 

[Andrew]

Nice edit...moderator.

Here is some information to help in your research of the faith of Westcott and Hort.

https://www.jesus-is-lord.com/hort.htm

Lees

I don't care about them, they have nothing to do with the Septuagint, there is no Sinaiticus Bible

 

[Lees]

I don't care about them, they have nothing to do with the Septuagint, there is no Sinaiticus Bible

Of course you don't want to know. As also most Christians ignore it. Typical today.

Lees

 

[Andrew]

Of course you don't want to know. As also most Christians ignore it. Typical today.

Lees

I own several Adullam film DVDs, the biblical histories and the stuff about freemasons and the history of the dollar bill are great, so I have already know about these characters and that Sinaiticus was a forgery... never does the producer of these films refute the Greek Septuagint so I don't see any connection.
I don't care about biblical footnotes either and I'm not effected by it.

Fact is, Jesus and His apostles quote from the old Greek Septuagint sources and not from the modern Masoretic Hebrew, no getting around ir bud.. your King James Bible has a corrupted Old Testament Hebrew written by non Christian Rabbis after Christ's earthly ministry to discredit him in as the Messiah.

Also, Jews today are an offshoot religion called Rabbanic Judaism, it's a man made religion with man made laws and traditions, the belief of a Messiah to them is taken with a grain of salt, they have their man made laws and don't need a prophet... I've seen videos of Rabbis who say that when the world is at peace then we will know that the Messiah is here, ithers have said that God didn't send the Messiah due to Israels rebellion, THEY DONT CARE. The Hebrew today is to study the Torah and the Talmud, they totally bypass the prophets. Yet you trust that the same people who had Jesus crucified, would hand over their sacred Hebrew text to be translated to Latin out of the kindness of their hearts unaltered??

 

[NathanH83]

The claim is yours that (Luke 3:36) is a mistake. Not mine. Whether the spurious Septuagint includes it is immaterial to me.

Yes, I believe (Luke 3:36) is translated as it should be from the Majority Text.

Lees

But it contradicts Genesis 10, Genesis 11, and also 1 Chronicles 1:18.

 

[Lees]

I own several Adullam film DVDs, the biblical histories and the stuff about freemasons and the history of the dollar bill are great, so I have already know about these characters and that Sinaiticus was a forgery... never does the producer of these films refute the Greek Septuagint so I don't see any connection.
I don't care about biblical footnotes either and I'm not effected by it.

Fact is, Jesus and His apostles quote from the old Greek Septuagint sources and not from the modern Masoretic Hebrew, no getting around ir bud.. your King James Bible has a corrupted Old Testament Hebrew written by non Christian Rabbis after Christ's earthly ministry to discredit him in as the Messiah.

Also, Jews today are an offshoot religion called Rabbanic Judaism, it's a man made religion with man made laws and traditions, the belief of a Messiah to them is taken with a grain of salt, they have their man made laws and don't need a prophet... I've seen videos of Rabbis who say that when the world is at peace then we will know that the Messiah is here, ithers have said that God didn't send the Messiah due to Israels rebellion, THEY DONT CARE. The Hebrew today is to study the Torah and the Talmud, they totally bypass the prophets. Yet you trust that the same people who had Jesus crucified, would hand over their sacred Hebrew text to be translated to Latin out of the kindness of their hearts unaltered??

No. That Jesus quoted from the Septuagint is not a fact. It is a lie. As there is no Septuagint. And, it is a lie you and others are willing to accept. And, you are just saying, don't bother me with the facts. I don't care.

The Canon of the Old Testament was determined by Jews. Not Greeks. That the Jews were rebellious against God, never has changed God's view of them being His people. From them came the Scripture, and the Messiah. And God is not finished with them. So, yes, God entrusted the Jews with His Word.

Jesus affirmed this constantly in telling Jews to be obedient to the Mosaic Law. (Matt. 23:1-3) (Matt. 5:17-18) (Luke 5:14) (Luke 17:14)

So, Jesus trusted the Jews Mosaic Law. Not any Greek translation.

Lees

 

[Lees]

But it contradicts Genesis 10, Genesis 11, and also 1 Chronicles 1:18.

No it doesn't. It contradicts you. But then, your looking for the contradiction. You need the contradiction.

Where does it say in (Gen. 10:24), (Gen. 11:13), (1 Chron. 1:18) that Cainan was not of Arphaxad? Or that Sala was not of Cainan?

Lees

 

[NathanH83]

No it doesn't. It contradicts you. But then, your looking for the contradiction. You need the contradiction.

Where does it say in (Gen. 10:24), (Gen. 11:13), (1 Chron. 1:18) that Cainan was not of Arphaxad? Or that Sala was not of Cainan?

Lees

Canaan isn’t there. You wanna write it in?

 

[Andrew]

No. That Jesus quoted from the Septuagint is not a fact. It is a lie. As there is no Septuagint. And, it is a lie you and others are willing to accept. And, you are just saying, don't bother me with the facts. I don't care.

The Canon of the Old Testament was determined by Jews. Not Greeks. That the Jews were rebellious against God, never has changed God's view of them being His people. From them came the Scripture, and the Messiah. And God is not finished with them. So, yes, God entrusted the Jews with His Word.

Jesus affirmed this constantly in telling Jews to be obedient to the Mosaic Law. (Matt. 23:1-3) (Matt. 5:17-18) (Luke 5:14) (Luke 17:14)

So, Jesus trusted the Jews Mosaic Law. Not any Greek translation.

Lees

The Septuagint came from Hebrew, it was translated into Greek.. your King James is an English translation and guess what, it includes books that the Rabbis flat out reject and since it's not in hebrew it has no substance... right?

The Jews chose to translate Hebrew to Greek looooong before they chose to translate them into any other languages... but go on believing that they just adored Latin so much that they broke the rule of the scribes by giving the 4th century Church it's first Hebrew scriptures ever!