3rdAngel
Well-Known Member
1. I'm sure you do the same thing. Are you saying you read every word I say, slowly and carefully, taking great care to completely understand it? I just don't think you are.
Actually generally no. I take the time to read and respond to your posts and questions section by section and scripture by scripture. Otherwise I could not understand what you are talking about or could I by God's grace respond to what you are telling me.
2. I'm sorry, but I'm going to skip your preaching parts. Any time you attack me personally or try to convert me (such as when you repeatedly tell me that I don't understand what the scripture says), I'm going to just skip those parts. That's what I mean by skimming. Such parts are irrelevant to our conversation.
Well this is simply more of that hand waiving I was talking about with you earlier. I have only provided scripture in support of what I am sharing with you from the Old Testament prophets in support of the claims I am making which are from the very scriptures you claim to follow and believe and you call this preaching? I would call this 'hand-waving', or outright dismissal and a good example of what I was sharing with you earlier about how you address my posts and the scriptures shared with you. You are free to do and believe as you wish. Using scripture as proof to the statments and claims shared with you is not preaching but supplying suppoting documented evidence to support what is being shared with you. Hand waiving and outright denial and dismissal of the scriptures do not make them dissappear.
Simply put, the Septuagint was never quoted until Christians began quoting it. Also, the differences in meaning mysteriously support their mythos. Third, it is basically the Christian scholars that yell for an earlier date -- it is important for their credibility that the Septuagint exist prior to their movement, as it gives legitimacy to their quotes.
Once again you have not stated any facts to support your claims and opinions. I asked you how do you know what you are saying is true when even the hisotrical scholars do not even agree on the timelines. You just provided your opinion to support what you believe. Now if the scholars cannot agree how do you know for sure that what you are claiming is true? Also, as posted earlier if ISRAEL having the correct interpretation of the scripture could not understand God's Word and follow it what makes you think only having a correct interpretation is all that is required to understand Gods' Word? Let me ask you my friend, Can you have a correct translation and not understand God's Word? Also, can you have a mostly correct translation and have a correct understanding of God's Word? If you answer yes than what is the difference as to how a person comes to an understanding of Gods' Word? Now please do not hide or hand waive this one. I can provide you with many scriptures showing that those who had Gods' Word (Nation of ISRAEL) had God's Word but did not follow or understand it which I have not provided here so please honestly consider these questions and let me know your answers.
Your response...3rdAngel said: ↑ Your simply stating that the translation from the Hebrew to the Greek is inferior because it is not the original. God's promise to his people is that if they seek him and believe his Word they will know the truth if it is of God or not. Spiritual things are Spiritually discerned. If you do not have God's Spirit even if you have a perfect version of the scritptures and do not believe and follow God's Word you will still walk contrary to God's Word. This is what your fathers did and why they rejected the coming of the Messiah and the very scriptures that fortold of his coming.
What does that have to do with the superiority of the original language manuscripts? Look, no scholar, NO real scholar debates that translations are inferior to originals. Something is always lost. You don't even have to be a scholar to know this -- anyone who has had experience translating knows this.
I look forward to hearing from you again!
I feel I am getting another hand waiving here again my friend. How does your response respond to what you are quoting from? Your simply ignoring what is posted and shared with you to talk about something no one is talking about. Where did I ever say to you or where have a claimed that a translation of an original language is superior to the original language? If I never made such claims why do you pretend that I have? Now even if somethings are lost in some sections of a translation, it does not mean that everything is lost and not true to the original meaning and language. For me personally I prayerfully use many translations considering both context and both the Hebrew and Greek (as I believe the Messiah has come in JESUS and the new testament/Covenant *JEREMIAH 31:31-34). Are you really trying to argue that if I sincerely want to seek and follow and believe God's Word I am not able to because I do not understand Hebrew yet I have the very Hebrew Torah and God's Word translated into my language so I can read it and prayerfully seek God through it everyday as opposed to someone who has the original manuscripts but does not seek to know or follow God's Word as your fathers have done for 1000's of years already? I say this with all kindness and respect. You know I have the supporting scriptures to prove what I am sharing with you here.