WHO WROTE THE BIBLE?

[EddieRamos]

There are a lot of errors in these statements, so let's set the record straight.

1. Only the fools and apostates deny that Paul wrote the epistle to the Romans.

Romans 16:22 (KJV 1900)
I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord.

Your attempt to set the record straight (bring correction) is agreeing with everything I have said as a whole. (Not sure if you read the entire post). Clearly Paul was not the historical writer of the book of Romans, Tertius was......

[/QUOTE]2. Paul wrote by divine inspiration, not by turning to "outside sources". Peter confirms in His second epistle that ALL of Paul's epistles are to be regarded as Scripture, and puts them on the same level as the Hebrew Tanakh (OT).[/QUOTE]

Regarding this particular book which we are discussing, Paul did not write by divine inspiration, he spoke by it....

[/QUOTE]3. Using a scribe or amanuensis to write your thoughts does not negate the fact that you are the writer and he is simply your secretary. So Paul did use others in some instances to write his epistles.[/QUOTE]

We agree 100%. And this was the whole point of my last post. That, historically, while Paul was not the physical writer of the book of Romans, he is nonetheless given the credit for being the writer/author because he spoke those words. Tertius was just a pen man....

[/QUOTE]4. The Author of every book in the Bible is God. Therefore it is called "the Word of God". The apostles and prophets simply wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. The apostles and prophets would be viewed in the same light as Tertius the scribe because they did not write down their own words, but the words that were given to them from the mouth of God.

If I misunderstood your responses, then please let me know.

 

[EddieRamos]

Perhaps if you take the time to study logical fallacies, you will see them in your own arguments. I can't convince you of that which you refuse to learn.

Just because some verses, or even many verses, are the literal words of God, it does not mean that every verse is the literal words of God. You cannot make an exhaustive case out of a few examples. You have not made your case by a long shot.

Isaiah called himself a man of unclean lips. Was God calling Himself a man of unclean lips? Hardly. Your position is simply untenable.

The more you comment, the more I think I see where our miscommunication is. Correct me if I am wrong here, but you think I'm stating that since God spoke all of the words in the Bible to be recorded by men, that you think I'm suggesting that God is saying all these things about himself? In the past, you used the serpent's words as an example, "you shall not surely die" and now you're saying that when Isaiah said, "I am a man of unclean lips", that God must be saying this about himself since these are all God's words?

Well, that's not the case at all, and perhaps I didn't do a good enough job in being as clear as I wanted to be. But, by the multitude of passages that I provided to show that it is actually God speaking when he uses individuals to speak his words, that God isn't using those words to always speak of himself. For example, when Isaiah spoke those words, God was giving those words to Isaiah to speak about Isaiah himself. They were God's words, not Isaiah's own words, but this doesn't mean that God was referring to himself here.

When it comes to doctrines (such as this one), God, as he often does, rarely spells things out in his word in one location, but will often take us by the hand and show us a few times how he does things in many aspects of His word (as I demonstrated in previous posts). With regards to this subject, he has done it sufficient times for us to finally get it and realize that we don't need for there to be such examples, as the ones I have provided, in every single verse, regarding every single account, in order for us to be fully convinced that this is the way God has given us his word, by the very mouth of God.

God doesn't work that way throughout his word. He wrote it so that in order for us to find correct doctrine, we have to compare scripture with scripture. We have to go line upon line, here a little and there a little. And that's what I have tried to do with you in my comments.

Isaiah 28:9–10 (KJV 1900)
Whom shall he teach knowledge? And whom shall he make to understand doctrine? Them that are weaned from the milk, And drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; Line upon line, line upon line; Here a little, and there a little:

And because this is the word of God, he, in his wisdom, has developed this methodology of teaching knowledge and doctrine to also be a stumbling block and a snare to the wicked.

Isaiah 28:11–13 (KJV 1900)
For with stammering lips and another tongue Will he speak to this people.
12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; And this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
13 But the word of the Lord was unto them Precept upon precept, precept upon precept; Line upon line, line upon line; Here a little, and there a little; That they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, And snared, and taken.

 

[Dino246]

The more you comment, the more I think I see where our miscommunication is. Correct me if I am wrong here, but you think I'm stating that since God spoke all of the words in the Bible to be recorded by men, that you think I'm suggesting that God is saying all these things about himself?

No, that's not what I think.

In the past, you used the serpent's words as an example, "you shall not surely die" and now you're saying that when Isaiah said, "I am a man of unclean lips", that God must be saying this about himself since these are all God's words?

Well, that's not the case at all, and perhaps I didn't do a good enough job in being as clear as I wanted to be. But, by the multitude of passages that I provided to show that it is actually God speaking when he uses individuals to speak his words, that God isn't using those words to always speak of himself. For example, when Isaiah spoke those words, God was giving those words to Isaiah to speak about Isaiah himself. They were God's words, not Isaiah's own words, but this doesn't mean that God was referring to himself here.

I disagree completely. They were Isaiah's own words about himself.

When it comes to doctrines (such as this one), God, as he often does, rarely spells things out in his word in one location, but will often take us by the hand and show us a few times how he does things in many aspects of His word (as I demonstrated in previous posts). With regards to this subject, he has done it sufficient times for us to finally get it and realize that we don't need for there to be such examples, as the ones I have provided, in every single verse, regarding every single account, in order for us to be fully convinced that this is the way God has given us his word, by the very mouth of God.

No. Just... No.

As I stated, you cannot make an exhaustive case on the basis of a few examples, when there are counter-examples as I have given. It is beyond ridiculous to claim that God gave Isaiah those words to say of himself. He said them in response to seeing Jesus on the throne, and recognizing his own sinfulness. Similarly, God did not give the serpent the words he spoke to Eve. God did not give Haman the words he spoke to Ahasuerus. I could go on, but three examples are enough to refute your position.

God doesn't work that way throughout his word. He wrote it so that in order for us to find correct doctrine, we have to compare scripture with scripture. We have to go line upon line, here a little and there a little. And that's what I have tried to do with you in my comments.

Isaiah 28:9–10 (KJV 1900)
Whom shall he teach knowledge? And whom shall he make to understand doctrine? Them that are weaned from the milk, And drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; Line upon line, line upon line; Here a little, and there a little:

And because this is the word of God, he, in his wisdom, has developed this methodology of teaching knowledge and doctrine to also be a stumbling block and a snare to the wicked.

Isaiah 28:11–13 (KJV 1900)
For with stammering lips and another tongue Will he speak to this people.
12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; And this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
13 But the word of the Lord was unto them Precept upon precept, precept upon precept; Line upon line, line upon line; Here a little, and there a little; That they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, And snared, and taken.

I am not some persistently rebellious Jew, that God would have to resort to teaching me as such, that I might go and fall backward, and be broken, snared, and taken.

Though I might commend you on the attempt to base it on Scripture, you have grasped a few isolated verses and refused to allow the rest of Scripture to inform your conclusions. Because of that, your "doctrine" is wrong.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Paul did not write by divine inspiration, he spoke by it....

Quibbling over words? Peter said that he wrote it. Do you want to argue with Peter?

 

[EddieRamos]

Quibbling over words? Peter said that he wrote it. Do you want to argue with Peter?

Couldn't I ask you the same thing about Tertius? Do we just discard that verse? Of course not. Ultimately, God wrote the book of Romans as well as the whole Bible. It doesn't matter who penned it historically.

 

[fredoheaven]

It doesn't matter who penned it historically.

Well, it matters as to who wrote it. God used the human writers to complete his revelation to mankind. Without written words, we cannot know God, salvation, and other doctrines. In fact, we are not into these discussions here without it. God had men write down his words and this speaks of "inspiration". What I am saying in your post is that you are conflating "revelation" to "inspiration". So you are discarding human penmanship. When Paul says in 1 Cor. 7:12 “But to the rest speak I, not the Lord...: so not all that speak in the Bible is the Lord., yet when this has been written is called scripture and is given by inspiration.

 

[fredoheaven]

To begin with your fourth comment, I have italicized all scriptures I post for the sake of separating God's words from my own which are not italicized. It's just something I do as a form of habit. So, I think there is just a misunderstanding here regarding my use and purpose of italics.

Your initial remark is also a misunderstanding of what I said. I never said that I have read the original written parchments. I said that I don't need to. As many times as the original parchments were re-copied, I can be sure that God preserved his word pure forever as I stated with Psalm 12:6-7. It's his original words that he promised to preserve and not any translation. That is why each translation is translated from another source and not just written with words that came to the translators by inspiration of God. No, God already gave his word by inspiration in the Hebrew and Aramaic and Greek. You can doubt the validity of the received text based on what history books tell you, but I have no reason to doubt that God is the one who preserves his word.

In your first point, you have provided no scripture to demonstrate that a plural word is allowed to be translated as a singular word without ample biblical support. What you are doing is using basic "rules of grammar" (common sense) which doesn't go very far when it comes to the spiritual word of God. The translators came across the plural word "Sabaton" and let's just say that they had the same reasoning you stated above for doing so. That, "While the English word” week” is singular, however, it carries plurality being equivalent to 7 days.". What you are suggesting is inconsistent with the scriptures. If God wanted a word to be singular, he would have written it as such and vice versa. I provided Galatians 3:16 as my example which you did not take into consideration in your comments, but instead relied on rules of grammar to explain the mistake that has been made by the translators.

But this was not the only place where this mistake was made regarding the word "Sabbath". We can take a look at a few more.

Matthew 12:1 (KJV 1900)
At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.

Please look in your interlinear (which is the original Greek text of the Word of God, for those who are following along and may not know) and take a look at the word that was translated as "sabbath". You'll notice that this word is also plural in the original text. Yet the translators decided to translate it as a singular word, but not only did they do that, but they also added the word "day" into the text and did not italicize it like they should have to let us know that this word is found nowhere in the original text. So, as this verse read in the KJV, it seems to indicate that Jesus only did this on one occasion, when in fact, he did this on multiple Sabbaths.

Matthew 12:1 (KJV 1900)
At that time Jesus went on the SABBATHS through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.

Do you see how a correction in the translation can drastically change the meaning of a passage? I hope so. Let's take alook at another.

Luke 18:12 (KJV 1900)
I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

Here the translators came across the singular word for Sabbath and translated it as "week" (which is also singular). This shows an inconsistency in their translation, to use the word "week" whether they come across a singular or plural word in the original text. Nevertheless, had they properly translated it as "Sabbath", it teaches us that this Pharisee didn't say that he fasted 2 times in a 7 day period, but 2 times in the same day. And per the context, this would be a better understanding anyway, as he was trying to distinguish himself above his neighbor by his great sacrifice of fasting and many works.

Incidentally, the Greek word for "Sabbath" comes from the Hebrew word for "sabbath", so the rules of grammar you initially pointed out fall extremely short because the Hebrew word for "Sabbath" is not the same word for "seven" or for "week", they are all individual words. This is why our reasoning must be from the scriptures alone. This is one cohesive book from the mouth of God. The Hebrew word for "Sabbath" is only translated as "Sabbath" and the Hebrew word for "seven" and for "week" are never translated as "Sabbath". Therefore we can (with plenty of biblical support) say that if God wanted to write the word "week" in the New Testament, he would have done so. Likewise for the word "seven".

But when we let ourselves be led by what the inspired word of God declares, then we can arrive at correct biblical truths.

Your second comment is not relevant because you are assuming that the Greek word "“heis” is in the original text, but it is not. The translators even italicized it to make sure we didn't think it was.

And your third point, again, is faulty because you're placing grammatical rules over what the text is actually showing you it says. I don't know if you're doing this because you believe the KJV is infallible or what other reason. But to say, "the English has “in the end” pointing to a certain day not days hence, the Sabbath and not “Sabbaths”. By the way, the English word “Sabbath” has been translated in the KJB correctly and it is not necessary to change it to “SABBATHS”".

The word "end" can point to a day or days. It all depends on what God has written, right? And he has written that it's pointing to the end of SABBATHS. Therefore your determination that it need not be changed is done so without any biblical scriptural support. That is what we would all like to see here, this way we have something to compare to in order to make sure that what you're saying is so (Acts 17:11).

God made them both plural in Matthew 28:1, therefore, our job is not to side with the translators as "inspired men", and then try to come up with grammatical way to rationalize what they have done, but instead to ask, "why did God write it this way in his original word?". When you assume/believe that any translation is inspired and thus infallible, then you will never question it, and that is a huge mistake.

Yes, I haven’t misunderstood your purpose, thinking you are only giving an emphasis but just correcting your presentation if being honest in line with the thought of the KJB translators that you are trying to correct.

When actually by saying or quoting the “original text” as you insist, you must have seen it or read it, otherwise, we are not honest enough. The Textus Receptus or the Received Text may perhaps be the best representative of the “original text” but it is not the “original text”. As said, there were differing TR’s.

Taking "Sabaton" literally has the non-nonsensical translation, "In the end OF THE SABBATHS,” implies there were many Sabbaths occurred in the very night, and “as it began to dawn,” referring to a sabbath day toward another sabbath” or would imply there was no sabbaths before this one before Mary came to the tomb. We have to note that there was no Greek text variant here. UBS says the same thing as the TR yet many mainstream English Bible is the same as the KJB.

On another, putting the Greek Sabaton " the first of the sabbaths" is totally an absurd translation. Observe, 1 Corinthians 16:2 and how well you get your idea with the exact same Greek phrase μίαν σαββάτων (which here in Matthew 28:1 has as "the first of the Sabbaths") in BOTH 1 Corinthians 16:2 μίαν σαββάτων and in Acts 20:7 as "the FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK"- τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων

A literal translation may sound good but it has no sense in English. As far the plural form and singular form of the Greek word sabaton were used interchangeably as supported by many Greek Authorities including those Critical Greek lexicons, like Liddel and Scots, Vine, The Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, even Thayer.

Quoiting your statement on Galatian 3:16 here read: “Once again, the translators decided to take a plural word and translate it as singular. As a general rule, if God intends for a word to be singular or plural, we should not take it upon ourselves (unless we have ample biblical justification) to change a plural word to a singular word and vice versa. We learn this here:”

Who told you this general rule, “if God intends for a word to be singular or plural, we should not take it upon ourselves (unless we have ample biblical justification) to change a plural word to a singular word and vice versa.” I find no relevance after all this concept being promoted by your literal reading. Not even Galatians 3:16 supported yours but rather solidify my proposition that a Greek word in the plural form and singular form are interchangeable in many ways because the translation demands it so, otherwise it will be absurd in translation.

 

[fredoheaven]

EDDIE RAMOS you quoted and gave an out of context explanation: Galatians 3:16 (KJV 1900)
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

The only time I have seen ample biblical (not logical) justification was when it came to translating the word "Elohim" which is a plural word, but the scriptures make it abundantly clear that Elohim is ONE God."

============================================================================================================

When translating the Hebrew word “Elohim, the KJB translators did not ignorantly translate it the way you intended it. The plural form “Elohim” is also translated as “sons of God”, (plural) Job 38:7 “gods” (plural) Exodus 18:11 Psalms 97:7 Psalms 82:6 rulers, judges (plural) (Exo. 21:6), etc. The point is a Hebrew or a Greek word can be translated in many ways based on the context, The plural form does not affect the sense in English.

 

[Jocund]

But, for 1500 years, the Bible contained the Canon which included the apocryphal books'. Martin Luther decided to drop these 7 books from the Bible, he also wanted to drop the 'Epistle of Straw'. James Letter in the New Testament..

After 1500 years, what authority did Martin have to decide which books should stay in the Bible. Doesn't the Bible itself warn about changing the Bible?

Revelation 22:19, And if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

Good question and a great topic worth exploring. Some of the books are pretty innocuous, such as Bel and the Dragon, where a warrior of God kills a dragon by feeding it a concoction strangely similar to a type of Greek remedy for balancing the bodily humours. Surprisingly, looking at a wiki, the Greek Catholic church apparently still retains many apocryphal books within the main works. The Roman Catholic church retains a smaller set of books, and most protestant denominations segregate these books as lesser works that just aren't considered inspired text.

There are deeper concerns about accepting just any texts into the fold only on the basis of its age and location of origin. The texts of the Gospel of Judas are old and authentically from the correct location but the content seemingly irreconcilably contradicts parts of the New Testament. And while the Gospel of Judas makes clear contradictions, other texts might contain contradictions that aren't immediately apparent.

And the claim of old text on gold plates is what started the latter day saints movement.

The core Bible is something that most (all?) Christians agree on as a starting point. There are additional books that different denominations include, but the core remains the same.

If we were to explore apocryphal books, how would one determine what ought to be considered part of the main canon?

 

[Noah761]

I believe that those who criticize the King James Bible and tell us that the Hebrew Scriptures have been corrupted because of the example you stated, “And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, HE SAITH, AND LET ALL THE ANGLES OF GOD WORSHIP HIM.” are entirely missing the point.

The inspired writer to the Hebrews is NOT quoting from some mythical Greek Septuagint but rather is referring to something that has not yet happened that WILL BE SAID at the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Holy Ghost is not referring to a past event, but rather to the future and no specific quote from the Old Testament is in the mind of the writer of the book of Hebrews.

John, I had not meant my comment on Heb. 1:6 to be a criticism, just pointing out a place where the KJV seems to have a disconnect with the KJV OT passage. I just do not believe any translation is inspired as the originals were, so I do not have a 'one and only' translation that I use. For me, discussing these sort of issues helps me to think through such issues since we are dealing with God's word to us. I learned something just this morning about this Heb. 1:6 quote from Deut. 32:43 and I came across it in the Peter Pett commentary where he wrote:

"‘He says.’ Compare the use of the present tense with ‘He said’ (aorist - Heb 1:5), thus giving a differing emphasis. Heb 1:5 was referring to a once for all event. This refers to something that is to be said continually. Thus God’s command comes over continually, ‘let all the angels of God worship Him’.

“And let all the angels of God worship him.” This could be a paraphrase of Psa 97:7 where we read, ‘Worship Him all you heavenly beings (elohim - LXX ‘angels’)’, the Him referring to ‘the Lord’ Who ‘reigns’, and this would fit the quotation reasonably well.

But the almost (but not identical) exact phrase may be seen in Deu 32:43 LXX, where it is shown as an addition which is not found in the Hebrew text, (but is now actually confirmed as in a Hebrew text found at Qumran). The LXX version reads, ‘Rejoice, you heavens, with him, and let all the sons of God worship him; rejoice you Gentiles, with his people, and let all the angels of God strengthen themselves in him.’ This is spoken of the Lord Who comes to judge His people (Deu 32:36), and would therefore naturally be applied to Him Who is called Lord, and to Whom judgment has been committed (Joh 5:22; Joh 5:27)."

Does this mean that the Masoretic Hebrew Text behind the KJV OT may not be totally accurate in comparison to some older Hebrew texts? Years ago when I noticed that Jesus quoted Gen. 2:24 and used the word "twain' that was not in my KJV, but came from the Septuagint, I saw the danger of idolizing a particular translation. We know the Septuagint was not without error in all passages, but Jesus did not warn his disciples against the Septuagint. So, while accuracy is important in our translations, can't we go to extremes? Doesn't the Spirit within us guide us and illuminate his word to our edification; at least clearly so on key issues? I have several Greek-English Interlinear NTs and they do not always agree word for word. Is the Formal Equivalence translation truly better than the Dynamic Equivalence translation, and doesn't the distinction between the two become rather fuzzy in some areas? In our study don't we usually come at a verse from various perspectives, not just using a Hebrew/Greek -English Interlinear to study? I'm just a single, individual child of God and while I do study on my own, I am eager to learn from reputable men of God, especially those from centuries past who have stood the test of time. I doubt I have a larger influence of the Holy Spirit within me than the collective witness of the body of Christ has had to whom God has given the gift of teachers.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Couldn't I ask you the same thing about Tertius? Do we just discard that verse? Of course not. Ultimately, God wrote the book of Romans as well as the whole Bible. It doesn't matter who penned it historically.

You are the one who has been insisting all along that Paul did not write the epistle to the Romans, even though chapter 1 makes that abundantly clear. But now you have arrived at the conclusion that it is immaterial whether Tertius penned the epistle or someone else. We do not discard that verse, but interpret it properly. Which should have been your position all along. Peter said that Paul was the writer of all his epistles. And Paul too was simply a "scribe" for God since those are God's words through Paul. Yet in Paul's epistles, dictation is not even present, but divine inspiration is clearly there. And when Paul appears to present a personal opinion, it is really the Holy Spirit speaking through Paul.

 

[Noah761]

How did the early disciples decide what books or epistles were authenticate, truly inspired of God? I believe that was the purpose of the miracles in Scripture. When the inspired revelation stopped, the signs and miracles ceased. When I hear someone proclaim to have a vision, revelation or prophecy, I want to see documented evidence of the miracle of authentication, especially that of raising the dead, per Matt. 10:8 with 2 Cor. 12:12, one of the signs of an Apostle. But, the following is what I see as the evidences:

"AND Moses answered and said, But, behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice: for they will say, The LORD hath not appeared unto thee." (Exo 4:1 KJB Pure Cambridge Edition)

The LORD responded by giving Moses the miracles to authenticate himself and the message.

"And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived. And Elijah took the child, and brought him down out of the chamber into the house, and delivered him unto his mother: and Elijah said, See, thy son liveth.
And the woman said to Elijah, Now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of the LORD in thy mouth is truth."
(1Ki 17:22-24 KJB PCE)

"And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen." (Mar 16:20 KJB PCE)
compared with
"How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?"
(Heb 2:3-4 KJB PCE)

"MOREOVER, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep." (1Co 15:1-6 KJB PCE)

"If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son." (1Jn 5:9 KJB PCE)

I am not a "KJV Only" disciple, but my most prized Bible is the Cambridge KJV that includes the Apocrypha as the KJV Bibles used to include. It is the Pure Cambridge as seen in a key verse:

"The children of Ramah and Geba, six hundred twenty and one." (Ezr 2:26 KJB PCE)

Do any or all "KJV Only" believers use the KJV with the Apocrypha? It is available from Amazon -

https://www.amazon.com/Reference-Apocrypha-Calfskin-Leather-Red-letter/dp/1107608074/ref=sr_1_3?crid=K6MIMVEOPRJH&keywords=cambridge+kjv+with+apocrypha+leather&qid=1640633169&s=books&sprefix=Cambridge+KJV+with+apo,stripbooks,88&sr=1-3

 

[Dino246]

I believe that those who criticize the King James Bible and tell us that the Hebrew Scriptures have been corrupted because of the example you stated, “And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, HE SAITH, AND LET ALL THE ANGLES OF GOD WORSHIP HIM.” are entirely missing the point.

The inspired writer to the Hebrews is NOT quoting from some mythical Greek Septuagint but rather is referring to something that has not yet happened that WILL BE SAID at the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

You call the Septuagint "mythical" yet clearly you have not done the study yourself. Only someone who holds an a priori view about the Septuagint (or, in this case, about the KJV) is going to come up with such a ridiculous idea.

 

[John146]

Doesn't the Spirit within us guide us and illuminate his word to our edification; at least clearly so on key issues?

Yep, but you need the correct words. The Holy Spirit is to guide you unto truth from the words of God.

 

[fredoheaven]

You are the one who has been insisting all along that Paul did not write the epistle to the Romans, even though chapter 1 makes that abundantly clear. But now you have arrived at the conclusion that it is immaterial whether Tertius penned the epistle or someone else. We do not discard that verse, but interpret it properly. Which should have been your position all along. Peter said that Paul was the writer of all his epistles. And Paul too was simply a "scribe" for God since those are God's words through Paul. Yet in Paul's epistles, dictation is not even present, but divine inspiration is clearly there. And when Paul appears to present a personal opinion, it is really the Holy Spirit speaking through Paul.

Yea, sir, perhaps it is the only ending chapter that Tertius did the writing as secretary as Paul may have been struck with his eye problem (Gal. 6:11) but chapters 1-15 were written by Paul personally. This is evident when Paul himself says in Romans 15:15 “Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God,”

 

[Dino246]

Who were these people that recognized which books were from God and how do we know they made the right decision?

For that, I recommend that you read chapter 5 of James White's Scripture Alone.

 

[Dino246]

Yep, but you need the correct words. The Holy Spirit is to guide you unto truth from the words of God.

Where is that in Scripture?

It isn't. Rather, it is something you treat as Scripture to justify your view of guidance and of the KJV. In truth, the Holy Spirit can guide you with words that don't appear in Scripture at all, as He has done for me many times. He doesn't even speak in Elizabethan English!

 

[Nehemiah6]

You call the Septuagint "mythical" yet clearly you have not done the study yourself.

Well there is no question that the origin of the Septuagint is in fact mythical or legendary. But the LXX is simply a corrupt Greek translation of the Hebrew Tanakh. Alfred Edersheim -- a Hebrew Christian (who was a scholar in his own right) -- has commented on the origin and nature of the Septuagint in his book titled The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.

These circumstances will account for the different elements which we can trace in the Greek version of the Old Testament, and explain the historical, or rather legendary, notices which we have of its composition. To begin with the latter. Josephus has preserved what, no doubt in its present form, is a spurious letter from one Aristeas to his brother Philocrates, [1 Comp. Josephi Opera, ed. Havercamp, vol. ii. App. pp. 103-132. The best and most critical edition of this letter by Prof. M. Schmidt, in Merx' Archiv. i. pp. 252-310. The story is found in Jos. Ant. xii. 2. 2; Ag. Ap. ii. 4; Philo, de Vita Mosis, lib. ii. section 5-7. The extracts are most fully given in Euseb. Praepar. Evang. Some of the Fathers give the story, with additional embellishments.

It was first critically called in question by Hody (Contra Historiam Aristeae de L. X. interpret. dissert. Oxon. 1685), and has since been generally regarded as legendary. But its foundation in fact has of late been recognized by well nigh all critics, though the letter itself is pseudonymic, and full of fabulous details.] in which we are told how, by the advice of his librarian (?), Demetrius Phalereus, Ptolemy II. had sent by him (Aristeas) and another officer, a letter, with rich presents, to Eleazar, the High-Priest at Jerusalem; who in turn had selected seventy-two translators (six out of each tribe), and furnished them with a most valuable manuscript of the Old Testament.

The letter then gives further details of their splendid reception at the Egyptian court, and of their sojourn in the island of Pharos, where they accomplished their work in seventy-two days, when they returned to Jerusalem laden with rich presents, their translation having received the formal approval of the Jewish Sanhedrin at Alexandria.

From this account we may at least derive as historical these facts: that the Pentateuch, for to it only the testimony refers, was translated into Greek, at the suggestion of Demetrius Phalareus, in the reign and under the patronage, if not by direction, of Ptolemy II. (Philadelphus). [2 This is also otherwise attested. See Keil, Lehrb. d. hist. kr. Einl. d. A. T., p. 551, note 5.] With this the Jewish accounts agree, which describe the translation of the Pentateuch under Ptolemy, the Jerusalem Talmud [a Meg. i.] in a simpler narrative, the Babylonian [b Meg. 9 a.] with additions apparently derived from the Alexandrian legends; the former expressly noting thirteen, the latter marking fifteen, variations from the original text. [3 It is scarcely worth while to refute the view of Tychsen, Jost (Gesch. d. Judenth.), and others, that the Jewish writers only wrote down for Ptolemy the Hebrew words in Greek letters. But the word cannot possibly bear that meaning in this connection. Comp. also Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 31.]

 

[Dino246]

Well there is no question that the origin of the Septuagint is in fact mythical or legendary. But the LXX is simply a corrupt Greek translation of the Hebrew Tanakh. Alfred Edersheim -- a Hebrew Christian (who was a scholar in his own right) -- has commented on the origin and nature of the Septuagint in his book titled The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.

These circumstances will account for the different elements which we can trace in the Greek version of the Old Testament, and explain the historical, or rather legendary, notices which we have of its composition. To begin with the latter. Josephus has preserved what, no doubt in its present form, is a spurious letter from one Aristeas to his brother Philocrates, [1 Comp. Josephi Opera, ed. Havercamp, vol. ii. App. pp. 103-132. The best and most critical edition of this letter by Prof. M. Schmidt, in Merx' Archiv. i. pp. 252-310. The story is found in Jos. Ant. xii. 2. 2; Ag. Ap. ii. 4; Philo, de Vita Mosis, lib. ii. section 5-7. The extracts are most fully given in Euseb. Praepar. Evang. Some of the Fathers give the story, with additional embellishments.

It was first critically called in question by Hody (Contra Historiam Aristeae de L. X. interpret. dissert. Oxon. 1685), and has since been generally regarded as legendary. But its foundation in fact has of late been recognized by well nigh all critics, though the letter itself is pseudonymic, and full of fabulous details.] in which we are told how, by the advice of his librarian (?), Demetrius Phalereus, Ptolemy II. had sent by him (Aristeas) and another officer, a letter, with rich presents, to Eleazar, the High-Priest at Jerusalem; who in turn had selected seventy-two translators (six out of each tribe), and furnished them with a most valuable manuscript of the Old Testament.

The letter then gives further details of their splendid reception at the Egyptian court, and of their sojourn in the island of Pharos, where they accomplished their work in seventy-two days, when they returned to Jerusalem laden with rich presents, their translation having received the formal approval of the Jewish Sanhedrin at Alexandria.

From this account we may at least derive as historical these facts: that the Pentateuch, for to it only the testimony refers, was translated into Greek, at the suggestion of Demetrius Phalareus, in the reign and under the patronage, if not by direction, of Ptolemy II. (Philadelphus). [2 This is also otherwise attested. See Keil, Lehrb. d. hist. kr. Einl. d. A. T., p. 551, note 5.] With this the Jewish accounts agree, which describe the translation of the Pentateuch under Ptolemy, the Jerusalem Talmud [a Meg. i.] in a simpler narrative, the Babylonian [b Meg. 9 a.] with additions apparently derived from the Alexandrian legends; the former expressly noting thirteen, the latter marking fifteen, variations from the original text. [3 It is scarcely worth while to refute the view of Tychsen, Jost (Gesch. d. Judenth.), and others, that the Jewish writers only wrote down for Ptolemy the Hebrew words in Greek letters. But the word cannot possibly bear that meaning in this connection. Comp. also Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 31.]

Thanks for the info. Unfortunately, I don't think John146 was using "mythical" in the same sense described here. While the 72 translators is undoubtedly a made-up story (as ten of the tribes were already dispersed well before the 2nd century BC), it is verifiable that a Greek version of the OT existed at the time of Christ, as the biblical writers quote OT wordings not found in the Hebrew.

 

[EddieRamos]

Well, it matters as to who wrote it. God used the human writers to complete his revelation to mankind. Without written words, we cannot know God, salvation, and other doctrines. In fact, we are not into these discussions here without it. God had men write down his words and this speaks of "inspiration". What I am saying in your post is that you are conflating "revelation" to "inspiration". So you are discarding human penmanship. When Paul says in 1 Cor. 7:12 “But to the rest speak I, not the Lord...: so not all that speak in the Bible is the Lord., yet when this has been written is called scripture and is given by inspiration.

That's not what I meant when I said, "it doesn't matter who wrote the scriptures". I mean when we look at the grand scope and determine who ultimately is the writer of the Bible, it would be the one by whose mouth the words came. And when scripture tells us that "ALL (meaning "every") scripture is God breathed", then this helps us confirm all of the examples we are given of men bringing a message to the people, yet God tells us that it is actually His words in their mouth. I gave many examples in my previous posts.

Of course, the written words that these scribes penned are the finished result of God's purpose to give his word to mankind, so those words are of infinite value. But not because men wrote it, but because God gave it. So, if we are giving any credit to the penman, then we are giving credit to the wrong people. The Paul/Tertius "controversy" is given to show us this very thing.

But God often places stumbling blocks in His word for those who are trying to find a fault. For example, the Bible says that ALL (every) scripture is God breathed and the examples I gave in my previous posts of God putting his words in the mouth of the people to speak as if though they themselves were speaking, is how we are to understand the scriptures as a whole. Everything that Paul spoke is no different, and this particular verse you cited (1 Cor 7:12) is the test of whether you are looking for a "loophole" around every word coming from the mouth of God. This is what causes you to believe that "not all that speak in the Bible is the Lord", and that is the stumbling block.

1 Peter 2:8 (KJV 1900)
And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

The word translated as "disobedient" is actually the word "unbelieving". The bottom line is that one needs to have complete agreement with the scriptures before they can be certain they have arrived at truth. This means that the more "common sense" we apply to our interpretations, the farther away from truth we will be. But if we're led by what the scriptures declare and demonstrate as examples of how God's Word was given, then we have no doubt how to understand God when he tells us that every scripture came from his mouth (was God breathed), by whatever means it was given.