Page 2 of 2

Re: Comparing the Septuagint and King James Bibles

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 5:57 am
by wmfinck
marc4liberty wrote:As a side note, you said in your response that the authors of the chart did not cite even one ancient Greek manuscript to support their assertions concerning Antioch. However, at the top of the chart, under "APOSTLES" is an item "ORIGINAL N.T. Manuscripts 30-90 A.D."


Where the authors of your chart (unfairly) lumped together SPECIFIC manuscripts on one side of their equation (Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus) they only offered an ASSERTION on the other side of their equation ("ORIGINAL N.T. Manuscripts 30-90 A.D.")

They cited nothing, but only offered an assertion, because nobody has the manuscripts they refer to. They are making a CLAIM for the origination of the manuscripts which gave us the King James Version, and that claim has no true provenance.

In other words, they are full of shit. The chart is propaganda.

Mark's answer is good. As I tried to relate in "What is the Bible?", my "Bible" is a stack of books.

Re: Comparing the Septuagint and King James Bibles

PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 4:27 pm
by wmfinck
A random page scanned from my copy of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, just so people can see what it looks like:
http://forum.christogenea.org/_files/NA27_170-171.jpg

Re: Comparing the Septuagint and King James Bibles

PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:58 pm
by ElleJay
Oh ... to be able to read and understand such a work. Thanks. :)