Hi Will,
Quote:
|
No way Brian. I gave up on you guys over there.
|
But you just posted there on that board
after making this posting here. So why are you requiring this discussion carry on here, when you're still willing to post there?
Quote:
|
Here you have listed even a couple of JEWISH translations
|
Technically, you listed them, I was just quoting you. But I don't see your point, for the LXX is also a Jewish translation.
Quote:
|
This is not a matter of "following the LXX" at all, but rather is a legitimate translation from the Hebrew. By the way, your LXX does NOT say "storehouses" but rather "granaries" - sitoboloonas. Look it up for yourself.
|
I will when I get back home from traveling. However, the online tool I use indicates that the Hebrew doesn't have a word here at all. Again, I will look into this in more detail when I again have access to my library.
Quote:
|
Thank you for at least being up front about the fact that you do not believe in the inerrancy of the Holy Bible.
|
Thank you for saying thank about this for the second time. As I also said previously, my view of "errancy" is limited to the ink-on-paper. I do not believe that mistakes in ink equals mistakes in God's message. In other words, I agree with what the KJV translators said about the "King's speech". Correct understanding can come from incorrect text, and incorrect understanding can come from correct text. My view is consistent doctrinally and logically across church history, consistent with scripture, and does not require extra-Biblical sources of doctrine and advanced revelation.
Quote:
|
Brian, I gave you what I think is a pretty good answer to your questions. You just didn't like it.
|
You answered questions I didn't ask. Your answers dealt with
how you think God's word was preserved. I already know how you think it is preserved. My question deals with
why. Here are my WHY questions I have not yet seen an answer for yet:
- If Isa 34:16 is about "most likely just the book of Isaiah though it may have included other parts of the Old Testament",
why are you using it as a proof text in your articles that "He did promise to preserve His pure, complete and 100% true words in a Book somewhere on this earth"???
-
Why do you believe an extra-Biblical doctrine (re:1611) while claiming the Bible is the only source of doctrine?
-
Why should we accept your idea of secondary fulfillment of Psa 12:6-7, when scripture itself doesn't explain or indicate this secondary fulfillment, like it does with other passages that have secondary meaning?
-
Why does "purified seven times" have this mystical secondary meaning, but "in a furnace of earth" does not?
-
Why do you think Psa 12:6-7 is about preservation of his "word" (singular), when it clearly says "words" (plural)? Do you think God's "words" were ever unpure, needing purification?
-
WHY is my position a problem, when
it is the same as what you already believe happened for 80% of church history? WHY was this fine for the first 80% of the the church, but not fine for us? Since you said there was no complete and inerrant words of God in Book for the first 80% of church history, then what you are really opposing is not my position on no complete and inerrant translation, but rather my reluctance to accept the extra-Biblical unauthoritative idea that things changed doctrinally in 1611. I have explained why I don't accept this (or any extra-Biblical doctrine), and you have yet to explain
why I should (or
why you do). This is the fundamental problem with the KJV-only position, and the problem you are avoiding.
Brian