The Dueterocanonicals: Myths vs Facts

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
BreadOfLife said:
And living in denial of the truth is a pathetic debating tool . . .

As I educated you before - the Dead Sea Scrolls proved to the world that they existed back in the 1st century.
Whatever questions or doubts about the existence of the Septuagint were SQUASHED at Qumran with the discovery of the Scrolls. Oh, and the fact that they are quoted or referenced more than 150 times in the NT is pretty solid evidence of their existence as well.


Do me a favor - pull out your Protestant Bible and tell me where Paul got the idea about the "Armor of God."
Eph. 6:13-17 - The ENTIRE whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.

The only ones left who deny the authenticity of the Deuterocanonical and the Septuagint are the ignorant and the anti-Catholic.
Which group do YOU fall into, hmmmm??



YOU need to stop reading all those moronic Jack Chick tracts . . .
Understand this. I am not anti-Catholic. I am a Protestant Christian. I recognize there are many believers in the Catholic faith. I believe the Catholic faith, has many errors in doctrine. I also believe the Protestant faith has many errors in doctrine. And I contend with them also. So, don't try and label me as anti-Catholic.

You said the Dead Sea Scrolls proved 'they' existed. What are you calling 'they'?

That the supposed 'Septuagint' is quoted is an assumption on your part.

Paul got the idea of 'the armour of God', from God.

1972...Gulf of Tonkin...a sailor gave me two chick tracts called 'This is your life' and 'Holy Joe'. The Lord used those to bring me back to Jesus Christ. I don't get my doctrine from Chick Tracts, but I have a fondness for them.

Perhaps you can tell me. Where is the oldest copy of the Septuagint?

Stranger
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Stranger said:
Understand this. I am not anti-Catholic. I am a Protestant Christian. I recognize there are many believers in the Catholic faith. I believe the Catholic faith, has many errors in doctrine. I also believe the Protestant faith has many errors in doctrine. And I contend with them also. So, don't try and label me as anti-Catholic.

You said the Dead Sea Scrolls proved 'they' existed. What are you calling 'they'?

That the supposed 'Septuagint' is quoted is an assumption on your part.

Paul got the idea of 'the armour of God', from God.

1972...Gulf of Tonkin...a sailor gave me two chick tract called 'This is your life' and 'Holy Joe'. The Lord used that to bring me back to Jesus Christ. I don't get my doctrine from Chick Tracts, but I have a fondness for them.

Perhaps you can tell me. Where is the oldest copy of the Septuagint?

Stranger
I didn't call you an anti-Catholic. I said that you were EITHER an anti-Catholic or you were simply ignorant.

As for Jack Chick - I also read that tract and ALL of his other ones. He was not only a deranged charlatan who perverted the Gospel - but a virulent anti-Catholic who resorted to lies in his tracts. His "Alberto" series is probably the most debunked load of rubbish that was ever published.

Thirdly - the Dead Sea Scrolls contain the Deuterocanonical Books.

Finally - I won't answer ANY of your questions until YOU answer mine.
Why is Paul's example of the Armor of God almost a verbatim lift from Wis. 5:17-20??
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Stranger said:
kepha31

Where is the oldest copy of the Septuagint?

Stranger
Israel.

ISAIAH AND THE GREEK SEPTUAGINT

Great_Isaiah_Scroll.jpg


For centuries, Bible scholars examined two ancient texts to elucidate the original language of the Bible: the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint. The Masoretic Text is a traditional Hebrew text finalized by Jewish scholars around 1000 C.E. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Torah created by the Jews of Alexandria in the third century B.C.E. (The other books of the Hebrew Bible were translated over the course of the following century.) According to Septuagint tradition, at least 70 isolated ancient scholars came up with identical Greek translations of the Torah.

The “Original” Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls

201332473321773734_20.jpg


Doing critical research on line and sifting out the BS takes discernment. Don't accept everything just because you see it on the internet. I can spot a phony web site with credentials in the toilet. I've been doing this a long time.
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
BreadOfLife said:
I didn't call you an anti-Catholic. I said that you were EITHER an anti-Catholic or you were simply ignorant.
As for Jack Chick - I also read that tract and ALL of his other ones. He was not only a deranged charlatan who perverted the Gospel - but a virulent anti-Catholic who resorted to lies in his tracts. His "Alberto" series is probably the most debunked load of rubbish that was ever published.

Thirdly - the Dead Sea Scrolls contain the Deuterocanonical Books.

Finally - I won't answer ANY of your questions until YOU answer mine.
Why is Paul's example of the Armor of God almost a verbatim lift from Wis. 5:17-20??
I didn't say you did call me 'anti-Catholic'. I said, 'understand this'.

The Dead Sea Scrolls contain a lot of things. That doesn't make them Scripture.

Had Paul wanted to quote Wisdom, then he would have acknowledged that what he was saying came from the Old Testament Scripture. Didn't Satan use and manipulate Scripture to tempt Christ?

So, Where is the oldest copy of the Septuagint?

Stranger
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
kepha31

Your pictures prove nothing. Nor do your remarks. Those can be said by anyone.

Again, where is the oldest Septuagint that these quotes in the New Testament supposedly come from?

Stranger
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Stranger said:
I didn't say you did call me 'anti-Catholic'. I said, 'understand this'.

The Dead Sea Scrolls contain a lot of things. That doesn't make them Scripture.

Had Paul wanted to quote Wisdom, then he would have acknowledged that what he was saying came from the Old Testament Scripture. Didn't Satan use and manipulate Scripture to tempt Christ?

So, Where is the oldest copy of the Septuagint?

Stranger
I think Kepha31 already answered that question in post #43.
the fact that YOU won't acknowledge this speaks volumes . . .

As for Paul not stating that he was referring to Scripture - this isn't always the case anyway.
Does Paul explain that he is referring to Scripture when he speaks of the martyrdom of the mother and her sons (Heb 11:35) described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42??
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Stranger said:
kepha31

Your pictures prove nothing. Nor do your remarks. Those can be said by anyone.

Again, where is the oldest Septuagint that these quotes in the New Testament supposedly come from?

Stranger
Sooooo, your entire argument is denial based on the "wisdom" of Jack Chick??
YIKES!!
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Stranger said:
The story of the Septuagint is based only on the 'letter of Aristeas'. It has been proved a fraud.

Eusbeius, and Irenaeus among many others believed it. But they are several hundred years later.

Where do you find the oldest copy of the Septuagint?

Stranger
Please provide documented evidence that the letter of Aristeas is a fraud. All I have is your assertion, which carries no research weight.

I provided you with the documentation from Irenaeus that the church of his time was using the Greek translation by the 70. This is what we know at the LXX (Septuagint). I provide evidence; you give me your opinion without documented research.

But you are more interested in following the conspiracy theorists against the Septuagint.

As for finding the oldest copy of the LXX: Early LXX material is included in the Rylands Papyrus 458, which dates back to 150 BC (source).

This research found that it 'is possible that at least some of them [Qumran community] knew Greek, since fragments of Greek Scripture were found in caves 4 and 7' (The Greek biblical texts from the Judean desert).

Oz
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
BreadOfLife said:
I think Kepha31 already answered that question in post #43.
the fact that YOU won't acknowledge this speaks volumes . . .

As for Paul not stating that he was referring to Scripture - this isn't always the case anyway.
Does Paul explain that he is referring to Scripture when he speaks of the martyrdom of the mother and her sons (Heb 11:35) described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42??
Not hardly. Showing me pictures and then giving remarks is not proof.

Hebrews 11:35 doesn't say that.

Stranger
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
OzSpen said:
Please provide documented evidence that the letter of Aristeas is a fraud. All I have is your assertion, which carries no research weight.

I provided you with the documentation from Irenaeus that the church of his time was using the Greek translation by the 70. This is what we know at the LXX (Septuagint). I provide evidence; you give me your opinion without documented research.

But you are more interested in following the conspiracy theorists against the Septuagint.

As for finding the oldest copy of the LXX: Early LXX material is included in the Rylands Papyrus 458, which dates back to 150 BC (source).

This research found that it 'is possible that at least some of them [Qumran community] knew Greek, since fragments of Greek Scripture were found in caves 4 and 7' (The Greek biblical texts from the Judean desert).

Oz
First tell me, do you believe the letter of Aristeas is not a fraud? Is this the first time you have heard of it?

Yes, I know, everyone is a conspiratorialist who disagrees. Perhaps you are following the conspiratorialsts.

There is nothing to show Rylands Papyrus 458 is proof of any Septuagint.

As I said, plenty of documents were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Some were Scripture, some were not. Of course, anything is possible.

So where is the oldest copy of the Septuagint?

Stranger
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Stranger said:
First tell me, do you believe the letter of Aristeas is not a fraud? Is this the first time you have heard of it?

Yes, I know, everyone is a conspiratorialist who disagrees. Perhaps you are following the conspiratorialsts.

There is nothing to show Rylands Papyrus 458 is proof of any Septuagint.

As I said, plenty of documents were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Some were Scripture, some were not. Of course, anything is possible.

So where is the oldest copy of the Septuagint?

Stranger
You are ducking and weaving again.

I asked you to provide documented evidence that the Letter of Aristeas is a fraud. No evidence came from you, so I'll left with the conclusion that you don't want to provide that evidence. What a joke that you want to charge me with not knowing of the Letter of Aristeas. I have a PhD in historical Jesus studies so am well aware of this Letter. Please don't treat me as an idiot. I'm waiting for your evidence that this Letter is a fraud.

Why do you promote this red herring: 'everyone is a conspiratorialist who disagrees'? You are the one promoting the conspiracy theory of the LXX being a fraud. Historical evidence refutes you and I provided some of that evidence from Irenaeus and Eusebius.

What did I state? 'Early LXX material is included in the Rylands Papyrus 458, which dates back to 150 BC (source)' and you have the audacity to state 'There is nothing to show Rylands Papyrus 458 is proof of any Septuagint'. This is false. Scholars have isolated the LXX in Rylands Papyrus 458, which dates to the 2nd century BC, and is the oldest known portion of the LXX from the Pentateuch.

You are whistling in the wind if you want to find a full LXX manuscript that is dated as far back at the Rylands Papyrus 458. You don't know your scholarship if you want to claim that Rylands Papyrus 458 is NOT proof of any LXX.

We can't have a serious discussion when you are into this kind of denial.

Oz
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Stranger said:
Not hardly. Showing me pictures and then giving remarks is not proof.

Hebrews 11:35 doesn't say that.

Stranger
Hebrews 11:35
New International Version
Women received back their dead, raised to life again. There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection. it doesn't say that

New Living Translation
Women received their loved ones back again from death. But others were tortured, refusing to turn from God in order to be set free. They placed their hope in a better life after the resurrection. it doesn't say that

English Standard Version
Women received back their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life. it doesn't say that

Berean Literal Bible
Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not having accepted release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection. it doesn't say that

New American Standard Bible
Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection; it doesn't say that

King James Bible
Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: it doesn't say that

2 Maccabees 7 Wycliffe Bible (there's a guy we all know and love!!!)
but it doesn't say that



35226fceeed9544cd31500d5128837dd.jpg
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
OzSpen said:
You are ducking and weaving again.

I asked you to provide documented evidence that the Letter of Aristeas is a fraud. No evidence came from you, so I'll left with the conclusion that you don't want to provide that evidence. What a joke that you want to charge me with not knowing of the Letter of Aristeas. I have a PhD in historical Jesus studies so am well aware of this Letter. Please don't treat me as an idiot. I'm waiting for your evidence that this Letter is a fraud.

Why do you promote this red herring: 'everyone is a conspiratorialist who disagrees'? You are the one promoting the conspiracy theory of the LXX being a fraud. Historical evidence refutes you and I provided some of that evidence from Irenaeus and Eusebius.

What did I state? 'Early LXX material is included in the Rylands Papyrus 458, which dates back to 150 BC (source)' and you have the audacity to state 'There is nothing to show Rylands Papyrus 458 is proof of any Septuagint'. This is false. Scholars have isolated the LXX in Rylands Papyrus 458, which dates to the 2nd century BC, and is the oldest known portion of the LXX from the Pentateuch.

You are whistling in the wind if you want to find a full LXX manuscript that is dated as far back at the Rylands Papyrus 458. You don't know your scholarship if you want to claim that Rylands Papyrus 458 is NOT proof of any LXX.

We can't have a serious discussion when you are into this kind of denial.

Oz
And I asked you to tell me where is the oldest copy of the Septuagint.

If you believe the letter of Aristeas is true, then your the first one I've come across. The sad thing is that those who recognize it as a fraud, still hold to the existence of a 'Septuagint'.

(The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, Douglas, 1981, p.897) " In the Letter of Aristeas (second century B.C.), it is alleged that seventy-two Jewish translators sent from Jerusalem produced the version for Ptolemy II...for his library. This cannot be accepted as historically true, but it contains reliable indications...."

(A General Introduction to the Bible, Geisler and Nix, 1976, p.307-308) "The Letter of Aristeas relates that the librarian at Alexandria persuaded Ptolemy Philadelphus to translate the Torah into Greek for use by Alexandrian Jews. As a result, six translators were selected from each of the twelve tribes, and the translation was completed in just seventy-two days. The details of this story are undoubtedly fictitious, but the letter does relate the authentic fact that the LXX was translated for the use of Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria."

(The Canon of Scripture, F.F. Bruce, 1988, p.44) " In the course of time a legend attached itself to this Greek version of the law, telling how it was the work of seventy or rather seventy-two elders of Israel who were brought to Alexandria for the purpose. It is because of this legend that the term Septuagint...came to be attached to the version."


So, you see. The idea of a Septuagint is based on a fraudulent letter. As to why these men want to still hold to a Septuagint is beyond me. Rylands Papyrus 458 is no proof of a Septuagint. It is certainly a Greek translation of a small portion of Deuteronomy. But that in no way indicates it came from a 'Septuagint'.

Im not asking for a full manuscript dating back to 2nd century B.C. Im asking where is the oldest copy of the Septuagint?

Stranger
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
kepha31

I know what Heb. 11:35 says. You said it speaks of the martyrdom of 'the mother and her sons'. And it doesn't. It speaks of martyrdom, and torture of women and others.

Stranger
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Stranger said:
Not hardly. Showing me pictures and then giving remarks is not proof.

Hebrews 11:35 doesn't say that.

Stranger
Not only DOES it refer to the woman and her sons - you STILL haven't been able to tell me where Paul got his example of the "Armor of God", if NOT from Wis. 5:17-20.
Paul was extremely educated in the Old Testament Scriptures. He learned from the very best teacher of his time (Gamaliel).

Your flat denials speak VOLUMES about your ignorance of Scripture, history and linguistics . . .
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
BreadOfLife said:
Not only DOES it refer to the woman and her sons - you STILL haven't been able to tell me where Paul got his example of the "Armor of God", if NOT from Wis. 5:17-20.
Paul was extremely educated in the Old Testament Scriptures. He learned from the very best teacher of his time (Gamaliel).

Your flat denials speak VOLUMES about your ignorance of Scripture, history and linguistics . . .
Heb. 11:35 doesn't say anything of 'the woman and her sons'.

Yes Paul was educated in the Old Testament Scriptures. But He got his doctrine from Jesus Christ. (Gal. 1:11-12) "But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

So Paul's example of the 'Armor of God' comes from Christ.

Stranger
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Stranger said:
Heb. 11:35 doesn't say anything of 'the woman and her sons'.

Yes Paul was educated in the Old Testament Scriptures. But He got his doctrine from Jesus Christ. (Gal. 1:11-12) "But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

So Paul's example of the 'Armor of God' comes from Christ.

Stranger
Ahhhh, so when Paul speaks of the great "Hall of Faith" in, Hebrews 11 - He DIDN'T rely on the Old Testament??
In Romans 3:10-18, Paul WASN'T quoting from the Psalms??

YOUR problem is that you think Jesus and the Scriptures are 2 separate entities.
Jesus IS the Word (John 1:1). When you deny the Deuterocanonicals - you deny JESUS.
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
BreadOfLife said:
Ahhhh, so when Paul speaks of the great "Hall of Faith" in, Hebrews 11 - He DIDN'T rely on the Old Testament??
In Romans 3:10-18, Paul WASN'T quoting from the Psalms??

YOUR problem is that you think Jesus and the Scriptures are 2 separate entities.
Jesus IS the Word (John 1:1). When you deny the Deuterocanonicals - you deny JESUS.
Of course Paul relied on and quoted the Old Testament throughout his epistles.

Well, as to my denying the Apocryphal books as Scripture is denying Jesus, I disagree.

Stranger
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
BreadOfLife said:
Just like he did when he got the Armor of God reference in Eph. 6:13-17 from Wis. 5:17-20.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt . . .
I said Old Testament. Wisdom is an apocryphal work.

By the way, where is the oldest copy of the Septuagint?

Stranger