Which Bible?

[trofimus]

Ok, one more attemp here lol. Post the Genesis 46 verse in LXX that gives the total number of people who came with Jacob to Egypt.

Please, not again

But we can stay with our favourite Stephen and see what else does he have to say:

"Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon."
(KJV, Acts 7:43)

"But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves."
(KJV, Amos 5:26)

"You have lifted up the shrine of your king, the pedestal of your idols, the star of your god -- which you made for yourselves." (NIV, Amos 5:26)

"You also carried along Sikkuth your king and Kiyyun, your images, the star of your gods which you made for yourselves."
(NASB, Amos 5:26)

"Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Raephan, the images of them which y made for yourselves."
(LXX, Amos 5:26)

Do you see some differences? Which OT source is the closest one?

 

[Grace777x70]

I think some peope would do anythng to discount the KJV lol. Below proves that Holy Ghost TRULY is found 90 times. That's basically an insult on my integrity suggesting that I make stuff up and post it.

View attachment 161986

I didn't say anything about the "Holy Ghost" usage - I said the number of times the Holy Spirit is mentioned in both the New and Old Testaments.

Would you agree that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God? In that case there are many more times He is mentioned than the 7 times. I believe you are looking at the term "Holy Spirit" together in that same sequence. The sequence is just the way the translators used those words together.

Here is my exact quote:

I just counted where the KJV says the Holy and Spirit 13 times in that version in both the Old and New Testaments and many other times where it says Spirit of God which we all know is the Holy Spirit or a "Ghost" to 1611 vernacular.

 

[truth-seeker]

I have two different bibles at this time. The NIV and a Life Application Study Bible. I like using the study bible because it has all sorts of notes and cross references listed and book overviews. I was wondering does it matter the kind of Bible you use, or is it more of a preference thing?

when I am asked this question my reply is always the same. the best version to have is the one you will read! I have 14 different translations on my desk, and use all of them for reference and understanding when I have questions.

 

[Grace777x70]

The real truth is that the Holy Spirit and the Holy Ghost of the KJ "version" translation of the scriptures is the same Spirit of God. He is the exact same God. To use a term like "ghost" in our modern language that has a totally different meaning is complete foolishness and actually defeats the purpose of scripture.

Words are made to covey thoughts to people in their own language. The Elizabethan English of the 1600's is NOT inspired of God. It's a language that has evolved and we should be using modern words to speak the truth of Christ to people.

Here is a quote from gotquestions.org

With recent Scripture translations, "Spirit" has replaced "Ghost" in most instances. Some of this came about because words don't always hold their meanings.

In the days of Shakespeare or King James, ghost meant the living essence of a person. Looking back, we see that "breath" or "soul" were often used as synonyms of "ghost."

During these times, spirit normally meant the essence of a departed person or a demonic or paranormal apparition. As language evolved, people started saying "ghost" when speaking of the vision of a dead person while "spirit" became the standard term for life or living essence, often also for "soul." With slight exceptions, "ghost" and "spirit" changed places over some 300 years.

Unquote:

We also do not use the word "succour" anymore either. We may as well be speaking a foreign language to people. There are many words that are in the exact same boat.

Let's speak "sound words" as Paul says so that we can accurately speak of the truths of Christ to people in a way to help them to understand what is being said to them.

 

[KJV1611]

Please, not again

But we can stay with our favourite Stephen and see what else does he have to say:

"Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon."
(KJV, Acts 7:43)

"But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves."
(KJV, Amos 5:26)

"You have lifted up the shrine of your king, the pedestal of your idols, the star of your god -- which you made for yourselves." (NIV, Amos 5:26)

"You also carried along Sikkuth your king and Kiyyun, your images, the star of your gods which you made for yourselves."
(NASB, Amos 5:26)

"Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Raephan, the images of them which y made for yourselves."
(LXX, Amos 5:26)

Do you see some differences? Which OT source is the closest one?

Yes again lol. Because every time I ask you to post the Genesis verse you never do.... because it doesn't exist. Your argument for Stephens 75 does not exist.

 

[John146]

The real truth is that the Holy Spirit and the Holy Ghost of the KJ "version" translation of the scriptures is the same Spirit of God. He is the exact same God. To use a term like "ghost" in our modern language that has a totally different meaning is complete foolishness and actually defeats the purpose of scripture.

Somewhere down the road, if the word "spirit" is altered by our up to date language, then we change the word spirit in our Bible to fit the "modern" language of that day. Is that what you are saying? As our language evolves, or dissolves, we change the word of God to fit us?

 

[trofimus]

Yes again lol. Because every time I ask you to post the Genesis verse you never do.... because it doesn't exist. Your argument for Stephens 75 does not exist.

I do not understand... I gave you LXX already. You can find it yourself: Google 'Septuagint online' and then click to the place you want.

For example there: Septuagint Genesis, Ch. 46 - Part 3

And can you respond which version of OT is the closest to the Stephen's quoting Amos 5:26?

 

[KJV1611]

I didn't say anything about the "Holy Ghost" usage - I said the number of times the Holy Spirit is mentioned in both the New and Old Testaments.

Would you agree that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God? In that case there are many more times He is mentioned than the 7 times. I believe you are looking at the term "Holy Spirit" together in that same sequence. The sequence is just the way the translators used those words together.

Here is my exact quote:

I just counted where the KJV says the Holy and Spirit 13 times in that version in both the Old and New Testaments and many other times where it says Spirit of God which we all know is the Holy Spirit or a "Ghost" to 1611 vernacular.

Below is the rest of your quote, this is the part that I took offence to. You basically said the number codes only exist in my head... pretty much calling me a liar. I shouldn't have taken offence and I appoligize for that.

But the codes do exist on paper, that's how I found out about them. Do you think the KJV translators were capable of doing this without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

we look at numbers in our version and then "see" things with our minds that are not really there to begin with. Just my thoughts on this

.

 

[trofimus]

For KJV1611 or John146:

Can you explain me this? (I know you must like me very much lol)

"They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes."
(KJV Romans 3:12-18)

"They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one." [Psalm ends]
(Psalm 14:3 – KJV)

"They are all gone out of the way, they are together become good for nothing, there is none that does good, no not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood: destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace they have not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes."
(Psalm 14:3 – LXX)

Which OT version is Paul using?

 

[John146]

For KJV1611 or John146:

Can you explain me this? (I know you must like me very much lol)

Before I even read the rest, let me say that your a brother in Christ to me. I love our discussions.

 

[Grace777x70]

Somewhere down the road, if the word "spirit" is altered by our up to date language, then we change the word spirit in our Bible to fit the "modern" language of that day. Is that what you are saying? As our language evolves, or dissolves, we change the word of God to fit us?

What it means is that we do not use an old archaic word to describe something that people will not get the proper understanding of in their own language. Words are used to convey meanings and if the meaning of a word is skewed - so will be the understanding of people.

The word of God is NOT 16th century English - no matter how much we try to make it to be in order to justify our stance on a particular translation which was made by men at a particular time in history. To even have to say this truth is disturbing to say the least...

 

[John146]

Let me post something a buddy of mine wrote concerning the LXX. It's a bit lengthy but good stuff:

First, let's define what the LXX is supposed to be. An ancient document called "The Letter of Aristeas" revealed a plan to make an OFFICIAL translation of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) in Greek. This translation was to be accepted as the official Bible of the Jews and was to replace the Hebrew Bible. Supposedly this translation work would be performed by 72 Jewish scholars (?), six from each of the twelve tribes of Israel. The supposed location of the work was to be Alexandria, Egypt. The alleged date of translation was supposedly around 250 BC, during the 400 years of silence between the close of the Old Testament in 397 BC and the birth of Christ in approximately 4 BC (due to a four year error in the calendar).

It has become known as the Septuagint, "The Interpretation of the 70 Elders". Also it is represented by the Roman (?) numerals whose combined value is 70, hence L-50, X-10, X-10. Why it isn't called the LXXII I'll never know.


This so called "Letter of Aristeas" is the sole evidence for the existence of this mystical document. There are absolutely NO Greek Old Testament manuscripts existent with a date of 250 BC or anywhere near it. Neither is there any record in Jewish history of such a work being contemplated or performed.


When pressed to produce hard evidence of the existence of such a document, scholars quickly point to Origen's Hexapla written around 200 AD, or approximately 450 years later than the LXX was supposedly penned, and more than 100 years after the New Testament was completed. The second column of Origen's Hexapla contains his own (hardly 72 Jewish scholars) Greek translation of the Old Testament including spurious books such as "Bel and the Dragon", "Judith" and "Tobit" and other apocryphal books accepted as authoritative only by the Roman Catholic Church.


Proponents of the invisible LXX will try to claim that Origen didn't translate the Hebrew into Greek, but only copied the LXX into the second column of his Hexapla. Can this argument be correct? No. If it were, then that would mean that those astute 72 Jewish scholars added the Apocryphal books to their work before they were ever written. (!) Or else, Origen took the liberty to add these spurious writings to God's Holy Word (Rev. 22:18).


Thus we see that the second column of the Hexapla is Origen's personal, unveilable translation of the Old Testament into Greek and nothing more.


Eusebius and Philo, both of questionable character, make mention of a Greek Pentateuch. Hardly the entire Old Testament and not mentioned as any kind of an officially accepted translation.


Is there ANY Greek manuscript of the Old Testament written BEFORE the time of Christ? Yes. There is one minute scrap dated at 150 BC, the Ryland's Papyrus, #458. It contains Deuteronomy chapters 23-28. No more. No less. If fact, it may be the existence of this fragment that led Eusebius and Philo to assume that the entire Pentateuch had been translated by some scribe in an effort to interest Gentiles in the history of the Jews. It most certainly cannot be a portion of any pretended official Old Testament translation into Greek. We can rest assured that those 72 Jewish scholars supposedly chosen for the work in 250 BC would be just a mite feeble by 150 BC.


Besides the non-existence of any reason to believe such a translation was ever produced are several hurtles which the "Letter of Aristeas", Origen's Hexapla, Ryland's #458, and Eusebius and Philo just cannot clear.


The first one is the "Letter of Aristeas" itself. There is little doubt amongst scholars today that it was not written by anyone named Aristeas. In fact, some believe its true author is Philo. This would give it an A.D. date. If this were true, then its REAL intention would be to deceive believers into thinking that Origen's second column is a copy of the LXX. A feat that it has apparently accomplished "in spades".


If there was an Aristeas, he was faced with two insurmountable problems.


First, how did he ever locate the twelve tribes in order to pick his six representative scholars from each. Having been thoroughly scattered by their many defeats and captivities, the tribal lines of the 12 tribes had long since dissolved into virtual non-existence. It was impossible for anyone to distinctly identify the 12 individual tribes.


Secondly, if the 12 tribes had been identified, they would not have undertaken such a translation for two compelling reasons.


(1) Every Jew knew that the official caretaker of Scripture was the tribe of Levi as evidenced in Deuteronomy 17:18, 31:25,26 and Malachi 2:7. Thus, NOJew of any of the eleven other tribes would dare join such a forbidden enterprise.
(2) It is obvious to any reader of the Bible that the Jews were to be distinctly different from the Gentile nations around them. Unto them was given such distinct practices as circumcision, Sabbath worship, sundry laws of cleansing and their own homeland. Added to this is the heritage of the Hebrew language. Even today, practicing Jews in China and India refuse to teach their children any language but Hebrew. The Falasha Jews of Ethiopia were distinct among the many tribes of their country by the fact that they jealously retained the Hebrew language as an evidence of their Jewish heritage.


Are we to be so naive as to believe that the Jews who considered Gentiles nothing more than dogs, would willingly forsake their heritage, the Hebrew language, for a Gentile language into which would be translated the holiest possession of all, their Bible? Such a supposition is as insane as it is absurd.


"What then," one might ask, "of the numerous quotes in the New Testament of the Old Testament that are ascribed to the LXX?" The LXX they speak of is nothing more than the second column of Origen's Hexapia. The New Testament quotations are not quotes of any LXX or the Hexapla. They are the author, the Holy Spirit, taking the liberty of quoting His work in the Old Testament in whatever manner He wishes. And we can rest assured that He certainly is not quoting any non-existent Septuagint.


Only one more question arises. Then why are scholars so quick to accept the existence of this LXX in the face of such irrefutable arguments against it? The answer is sad and simple.


Hebrew is an extremely difficult language to learn. It takes years of study to attain a passing knowledge of it. And many more to be well enough versed to use it as a vehicle of study. By comparison a working knowledge of Greek is easily attainable. Thus, IF THERE WAS an official translation of the Old Testament into Greek, Bible critics could triple the field of influence overnight without a painstaking study of biblical Hebrew. Unfortunately, the acceptance of the existence of the Septuagint on such thin evidence is based solely on pride and voracity.


But stop and think. Even if such a spurious document as the LXX really did exist, how could a Bible critic, who, in reference to the King James Bible, say that "No translation has the authority of the original language, " claim in the same breath that his pet LXX has equal authority with the Hebrew Original? This scholarly double-talk is nothing more than a self exalting authority striving to keep his scholarly position above those "unschooled in the original languages."


If you accept such an argument, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn!

 

[John146]

What it means is that we do not use an old archaic word to describe something that people will not get the proper understanding of in their own language. Words are used to convey meanings and if the meaning of a word is skewed - so will be the understanding of people.

The word of God is NOT 16th century English - no matter how much we try to make it to be in order to justify our stance on a particular translation which was made by men at a particular time in history. To even have to say this truth is disturbing to say the least...

If words are skewed, then we messed up, not the word.

With your mentality, why didn't the new versions update the word dung? Instead, many use rubbish. First of all, that's not even the same type of word and second, what's rubbish? Who uses rubbish? There are several modern four letter words for dung.

So we should change the word "spirit" in the future if need be?

 

[Grace777x70]

Below is the rest of your quote, this is the part that I took offence to. You basically said the number codes only exist in my head... pretty much calling me a liar. I shouldn't have taken offence and I appoligize for that.

But the codes do exist on paper, that's how I found out about them. Do you think the KJV translators were capable of doing this without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

.

I apologize if it seemed I was saying you made it up in your head. I was making a general observation that we can as humans all do. We can "see" things within our own minds that are not really there - but we want them to be. I could have been more articulate in what I said.


Do you agree that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God? In that case than the Holy Spirit "Himself" is mentioned way more times than 7.

I have no idea what these "codes" are that exist on paper. Perhaps the terminology is throwing me of?

 

[KJV1611]

I do not understand... I gave you LXX already. You can find it yourself: Google 'Septuagint online' and then click to the place you want.

For example there: Septuagint Genesis, Ch. 46 - Part 3

And can you respond which version of OT is the closest to the Stephen's quoting Amos 5:26?

I copied this from the link you posted. This is the only place in Genesis 46 where is says "all the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt". Notice it says 66, not 75.

26 And all the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, who came out of his loins, besides the wives of the sons of Jacob, [even] all the souls were sixty-six

You're trying to make the verse below be your proof because it matches the 75 in Acts. But what you're not understanding is that the 75 in the verse below includes the 66 who came with Jacob PLUS the sons of Jacob that were already in Egypt.

27 And the sons of Joseph, who were born to him in the land of Egypt, were nine souls; all the souls of the house of Jacob who came with Joseph into Egypt, were seventy-five souls.

 

[Grace777x70]

If words are skewed, then we messed up, not the word.

With your mentality, why didn't the new versions update the word dung? Instead, many use rubbish. First of all, that's not even the same type of word and second, what's rubbish? Who uses rubbish? There are several modern four letter words for dung.

So we should change the word "spirit" in the future if need be?

Again 16th century Elizabethan English is NOT the word of God. They use rubbish because it is aesthetically more pleasing..lol

What about this one in the KJV. Modern translations have cleaned that verse up a bit.

2 Kings 18:27 (KJV)
[SUP]27 [/SUP] But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?


In some circles in our modern world - this is not a very good saying...can you imagine people telling others to go drink their own piss?....selah

( I have to apologize if this offends anyone - just saying those words bothered me... )

 

[trofimus]

I copied this from the link you posted. This is the only place in Genesis 46 where is says "all the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt". Notice it says 66, not 75.
[FONT=&]

You're trying to make the verse below be your proof because it matches the 75 in Acts. But what you're not understanding is that the 75 in the verse below includes the 66 who came with Jacob PLUS the sons of Jacob that were already in Egypt.
[/FONT][FONT=&] [/FONT][FONT=&]

[/FONT]

You said there is not 75 in Genesis 46... and there is, in the same verse. You must realize that Stephen was quoting from his memory, he did not read from some book. Its very natural he made some kind of a shortcut and did not quote every word after word.

But whatever, let us move to other differences

 

[trofimus]

Let me post something a buddy of mine wrote concerning the LXX. It's a bit lengthy but good stuff

And who is that buddy of yours? And why is he an authority?

 

[KJV1611]

I apologize if it seemed I was saying you made it up in your head. I was making a general observation that we can as humans all do. We can "see" things within our own minds that are not really there - but we want them to be. I could have been more articulate in what I said.


Do you agree that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God? In that case than the Holy Spirit "Himself" is mentioned way more times than 7.

I have no idea what these "codes" are that exist on paper. Perhaps the terminology is throwing me of?

Yes I agree the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, I also know that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of God. Some of us may not like the term Holy Ghost but Ghost means exactly the same thing as pneuma or spirit.

ghost (n.) Old English gast "breath; good or bad spirit, angel, demon; person, man, human being," in Biblical use "soul, spirit, life," from Proto-Germanic *gaistaz (source also of Old Saxon gest, Old Frisian jest, Middle Dutch gheest, Dutch geest, German Geist"spirit, ghost"). This is conjectured to be from a PIE root *gheis-, used in forming words involving the notions of excitement, amazement, or fear (source also of Sanskrit hedah "wrath;" Avestan zaesha- "horrible, frightful;" Gothic usgaisjan, Old English gæstan "to frighten").

Here is what I mean by number codes. You should agree that the number 7 in the bible represents purity or completeness. Well God doesn't only use the number 7 in that manner, he uses all numbers in that manner.

The number 9 in the bible represents fruit bearing... human gestation is 9 months, there are 9 fruits of the spirit and so on. The KJV translators PURPOSELY translated pneuma Holy Spirit 7 times and Holy Ghost 90 times so that the number of occurences of each would equal their respective numbers. i.e. the Holy Ghost causes the believer to produce fruit hence Holy Ghost is found 90 times in the KJV. My question is does this come from the Holy Spirit or were the KJV translator so smart that they made this happen on their own?

 

[Grace777x70]

Yes I agree the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, I also know that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of God. Some of us may not like the term Holy Ghost but Ghost means exactly the same thing as pneuma or spirit.

ghost (n.) Old English gast "breath; good or bad spirit, angel, demon; person, man, human being," in Biblical use "soul, spirit, life," from Proto-Germanic *gaistaz (source also of Old Saxon gest, Old Frisian jest, Middle Dutch gheest, Dutch geest, German Geist"spirit, ghost"). This is conjectured to be from a PIE root *gheis-, used in forming words involving the notions of excitement, amazement, or fear (source also of Sanskrit hedah "wrath;" Avestan zaesha- "horrible, frightful;" Gothic usgaisjan, Old English gæstan "to frighten").

Here is what I mean by number codes. You should agree that the number 7 in the bible represents purity or completeness. Well God doesn't only use the number 7 in that manner, he uses all numbers in that manner.

The number 9 in the bible represents fruit bearing... human gestation is 9 months, there are 9 fruits of the spirit and so on. The KJV translators PURPOSELY translated pneuma Holy Spirit 7 timesand Holy Ghost 90 times so that the number of occurences of each would equal their respective numbers. i.e. the Holy Ghost causes the believer to produce fruit hence Holy Ghost is found 90 times in the KJV. My question is does this come from the Holy Spirit or were the KJV translator so smart that they made this happen on their own?

Post #1144 addresses the 16th century usage of the word ghost and how it has evolved in our modern day vernacular to have a different meaning and so modern translations use modern understandings of words in order to convey the meaning.

I am not catching your drift on the Ghost thing. Where does the 90 times enter into things? I understand there are 9 manifestations of the fruit of the spirit. The word "fruit" in Gal. 5 is singular not plural - not sure if that means anything in this discussion but I do agree to the number 9.

The Holy Spirit is the same "One" that is producing fruit in a believer. Why does calling Him a ghost make that special?

I have no idea what this sentence means " i.e. the Holy Ghost causes the believer to produce fruit hence Holy Ghost is found 90 times in the KJV. ""

Are you saying that 90 equates to 9 somehow? I don't get the relationship between 9 and 90.