Question...
- Thread starter CharliRenee
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
In the verse 10:6-8 is not any LXX sign.
LXX means it can be found only in the LXX.
The greatest thing we can know is that we know nothing even when we know something. When we are open to that, then we can be taught.My friend, I never said the bibles I read are any better or from a different source. However, I am not the one who is rejecting the ability to take doctrine from Acts.
14-17 But don’t let it faze you. Stick with what you learned and believed, sure of the integrity of your teachers—why, you took in the sacred Scriptures with your mother’s milk! There’s nothing like the written Word of God for showing you the way to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. Every part of Scripture is God-breathed and useful one way or another—showing us truth, exposing our rebellion, correcting our mistakes, training us to live God’s way. Through the Word we are put together and shaped up for the tasks God has for us.(2 Timothy 3)
All scripture(The Message says 'Every part of scripture') is God-breathed and is for showing us truth. That even includes the book of Acts of the Apostles my friend.
I am leaving this here and I will not bother you anymore, as you seem to be allergic to being taught.
Prayer is the answer.
Yes. Athanasius said there are other books not part of the canon. As they shouldn't be.
Canon of Carthage is not the canon of the Jews Old Testament. The Jews Old Testament rejects the apocryphal books. Carthage would be influenced by the Alexandrian Jews, who also blended philosophy in with their interpretations of Scripture. The Jews Old Testament comes from the Jews in Palestine. They reject the apocrypha.
Quantrill
So you agree that Esther does not belong to canon?
We are not Jews, we are Christians.
It proves that the apostles did not use the masoretic text. What else should it prove?
But I like how you say you are not wrong even before you understand what is going on.
No. Esther is part of the canon. But there are other books for reading purpose which are not.
So what? Jesus was a Jew. We use the Old Testament of the Jews.
Quantrill
It proves that the apostles did not use the masoretic text. What else should it prove?
It proves nothing. Explain why it proves it.
Quantrill
So, you first accepted the canon of Athanasius but later you say that Esther is canonical.
Yes, Jesus was Jew. It does not mean that the faith of Jews is the right one and that we should be led by them as by our authority regarding doctrines.
Sorry, I do not have time to teach you basics. Study in your own time. If you do not undertand the photo, you cannot answer my questions in some kind of a quality I need.
I need Christians who studied it, who know about it for years and are able to give me proper answers, if they do not agree with me.
That is right because Paul dismissed it. He had the Masoretic in mind when he paraphrased Deut 30:11-14.
Like I said There are quotes from both the LXX and Masoretic in the New Testament. Are you denying that?
In your example, Paul does not quote LXX or consider it when he paraphrases Deut. 30:11-14 in verse 10:6-8.
Now why would I purport that he does not even consider it in His paraphrase? Something is missing from the LXX in verse 14 that is why.
I know. Thanks for bringing it up anyway some might not
It proves that the apostles did not use the masoretic text. What else should it prove?
But I like how you say you are not wrong even before you understand what is going on.
I understand the argument up to this point. And disagree with all you have said prior. So, it is safe for me to know you are equally wrong now in whatever you're trying to prove with your picture.
Quantrill
No, that is not true. Your hiding behind you picture of pages of a language I do not know. Thus you feel you don't have to answer. You just say, you don't have time.
The truth is you can't prove what you're trying to say. Now you are hiding.
Quantrill
The "LXX" sign says that it can be found ONLY in the LXX.
If there is no LXX sign, it can mean:
a) MT and LXX do not differ
b) its in the MT only
c) its neither in the MT nor in the LXX
Yes, not all quotations are from the LXX, only about 80% are.
If we would like to have the exact textual version apostles used, we would have to compile it, it does not exist as a whole. The LXX is the most close version we can have.
The apostle's used the Jews Old Testament. They didn't use any so called 'Septuagint'. There was no Septuagint as I have explained to you already. Your so called Septuagint is just the Alexandrian text.
Quantrill
Sure, I have to explain everything to you, because its me who never learn.
Ok, whatever, I think any other convo with you regarding this is not useful.
Have a nice weekend.
