|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Critique of AIG on the Grand Canyon | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2423 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
What about the differing dates of the pre 100 BCE Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Dead Sea Scrolls? Not to mention the later Massorah.
The King James translation was based on an eclectic composite (especially the New Testament). The New Testament characters prefered the Septuagint or LXX. The LXX can support a date pre-3000 BCE for the flood if you all 400 years in Egypt for the chronology. EDIT these 3 (above mentioned )texts were over 1500 years older than the King James Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Faith writes: You prefer extrabiblical information and judge me by it, which is utterly irrelevant since I consider the Bible to be the standard for all historical judgments it can be applied to. And that is exactly why you will continue to be absolutely totally and completely wrong about science and reality.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
There is every reason to believe that the KJV is based on the oldest and best texts. I've studied the issues involved, and came to a conclusion different from yours. Is that OK with you?
abe: Here's a good source. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2423 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: The problem is that the quotations of New Testament authors match the LXX a lot more than they do the King James text of the Old Testament. Something like 300 out of 350 New Testament quotations of the Old Testament better match the Septuagint. (something like that anyway) You have a King James version that contradicts itself because it uses a Hebrew text of the Old Testament that the New Testament authors didn't use. That is just a fact. It seems ignorant for somebody to claim to be a Christian fundamentalist who values the most accurate translation possible, then to turn around and use the King James Old Testament. Granted, all translations (except actual LXX English Bibles) use the flawed Hebrew text for the Old Testament. But newer translations have the advantage of up-to-date scholarship (however theological dishonesty creeps into many newer translations and weakens the advantage though)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The problem is that the quotations of New Testament authors match the LXX a lot more than they do the King James text of the Old Testament. But if the KJV is translated from texts that were copied from the original NT documents then whatever was in those NT documents got preserved in the KJV, unless there was good reason not to stick to the Septuagint, so what's the problem? In any case how could you have some other source of quotations of New Testament authors than through the texts that were copied from them? The originals are long gone and all that exist are copies. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2423 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2
|
I think I understood your question but I'm not sure.
The King James has New Testament humans quoting from the Old Testament about 350 (?) times. So one can argue that our New Testament translations are good because they do have accurate quotes (most of the time anyway) of the New Testament text (which has Old Testament quotations embedded in them). Its not the embedded (O.T. quotations) text of the New Testament books that are the problem. The problem comes when the translations then use a non-Septuagint based Old Testament translation (which is completely isolated from the New Testament naturally). You then have completely different versions of the same text in an English "Holy Bible" when the New Testament has accurate translations of the Septuagint based Old Testament quotations, but then the Old Testament itself is not based on the Septuagint as its source for translation. The Old Testament verse will say one thing in the actual Old Testament, but then there will be a Septuagint-like text of that same Old Testament verse (quoted) in the New Testament. The quotes will be completely segregated from the Old Testament (one verse will be in the Old Testament while the quote will be in the New testament) (this is actually quite a ways more complicated than I have simply put it as even the Septuagint rarely 100% matches the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament. There seems to have been a textual "family" - of Old Testament books - that the New Testament individuals used that we no longer have. This "family" - if one even allows it to be considered a single larger recension as opposed to many different variations still - is considerably closer to the Septuagint than the Masorah (which the KJV Old Testament is based on) ) (scholars do say that the majority of the Old Testament text in the masorah is more likely to be the original work and the Septuagint represents a more edited Bible , with exceptions for sure. That is why translators rely heavily on the Masorah in every translation EXCEPT dedicated English translations of the Septuagint (as one would naturally expect) ) Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
The Old Testament verse will say one thing in the actual Old Testament, but then there will be a Septuagint-like text of that same Old Testament verse (quoted) in the New Testament. The quotes will be completely segregated from the Old Testament (one verse will be in the Old Testament while the quote will be in the New testament) I find what you say here to be completely fascinating. Would you mind providing one or two examples of NT quotations of text that don't match their old testament versions very well? My goal would be to take a few such examples and compare them to the Septuagint. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes I'm aware of that problem but don't see that the KJV is a worse case of it than other translations, and it's better than the others on plenty of other grounds.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It would be good to get back to the topic. I've been reading through the comments on the book the thread is about, it's clearly a compendium of the usual arguments, most of which are just alternative interpretations of the evidence that are no better than the Flood interpretations they claim to answer.
I've also been looking at Lyell's Principles of Geology, where in Chapter 3 he sketches out the many silly as well as some reasonable theories about the fossils that preceded the current nonsensical theory. Hope to find some information about former interpretations of the strata but so far the strata are mentioned only in relation to their fossil contents.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2423 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2
|
Example 1 of the New Testament authors using (a text similar to the Greek text of) the (c. 200 BCE) Septuagint as opposed to the much later Masorah (which didn't actually exist during the time of the New testament authors).
Examples taken from Table of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, in English translation and I found it using this google link quote: Septuagint ( LXX )
quote: quote: .................................................................................................... example 2 ..................................................... quote: LXX text
quote: Then the Masorah
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
Example 1 of the New Testament authors using (a text similar to the Greek text of) the (c. 200 BCE) Septuagint as opposed to the much later Masorah (which didn't actually exist during the time of the New testament authors). This is not true. The Masoretic text did exist and can be traced at least to 200 BC, and is the text of today's Jewish Bibles. It is virtually identical to the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls. It wasn't used in the synagogues in Jesus' time because Greek had become the language spoken by most Jews since the conquest of Alexander the Great. The Septuagint was the Greek translation of the Hebrew texts made in order to accommodate this historical fact. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
Shouldn't be in "Links and Information", and badly off-topic.
Adminnemooseus Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed summation mode activation time from end of day to 24 hours.Or something like that. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2423 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
Faith wrote this:
quote: The Dead Sea Scrolls had a great deal of variety. I put relevant terms into a google search to see what came up. The terms were "dead sea scrolls match lxx type masorah" Google Here was the first hit
quote: That's my closing comment/response. A suggestion to follow the evidence, wherever it leads.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2423 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
It needs to be pointed out that Jesus could very well have spoken in the Semitic (infact most scholars say that) and quoted from what he knew (by memory or he could have had the text in some physical form) of the Semitic Old Testament texts that the Septuagint translators used a few centuries earlier to make their text. He might not have used the Septuagint at all really. It could have been the same Semitic Old Testament that the Septuagint translators used.
The Dead Sea Scrolls (seem to) show us that the most widely used Old Testament(Semitic or Greek) texts seem to have been the ones Jesus used (ones that matched the Septuagint/LXX better than the later Massorah). The Dead Sea Scrolls match up with the New Testament quotations of Jesus, James, Paul, etc. and do not match up with the Old Testament Hebrew text (and especially the English translation) the 17th century King James translators used.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
As Moose said this thread should not have been in Links and Information, it should have been moved to a debate forum, and it's been badly off topic for some time too.
I actually ordered the book that launched the thread and have been reading it over the last week, am into Chapter 4. It's too bad it didn't become the subject of the debate. It's got the usual annoying anti-creationist canards (such as that creationists are anti-science, instead of that the historical sciences are inevitably untrustworthy), but is basically a clear presentation of the Old Earth interpretations, including a few observations that do pose problems for the Flood view (though I anticipate finding solutions to them as soon as I can put time in on them). And although it's hard on my eyes I find the pictures and illustrations to be very helpful in providing more context than I usually find in presentations of the Grand Canyon. One thing it makes all too clear is the lack of consensus among creationists about different areas of the debate. Where are we to locate the phases of the Flood in the strata for instance? If early geologists attributed all the strata to the Flood, today's creationist geologists don't. This is no doubt due to recognizing the Great Unconformity at the base of the canyon, so that the Flood strata are considered to begin above that. I don't know any creationists who are willing to attribute the Supergroup strata to the Flood. Except me. (cue laughter) And I continue to see it that way. The book also imputes to a majority of leading creationists the view that the Mesozoic strata above the Grand Canyon in the Grand Staircase, were built during the receding phase of the Flood. Which makes no sense to me although they apparently have some explanation for it. The only reasonable idea it seems to me is to attribute ALL of the strata to the 150 days of the rising phase of the Flood, all those from the Supergroup up through the Cenozoic, which apparently climb much higher in some places than the Claron formation, which is the uppermost layer represented in the GC-GS area. It's a very stimulating book and I'm getting a lot out of it. But I'm so sick of the debate here I don't think I'll want to use any of it here. In fact I just went and registered at Evolution Fairytale hoping I might find creationists who are into the Flood enough to discuss what this book has to say. It doesn't look too promising though, I must say. Oh well. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024