Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: kosta50
The Apostles considered it Scripture. They quote from it. They use is as Scripture (OT).

All we know for sure is that they approved of some of it, or maybe even the vast majority of it. Quoting several lines does not say that they believed the whole thing was inspired. I'm sure we could quote passages from Mormon writings with approval, but that doesn't mean we accept their texts as scripture. If they did accept all of it as scripture, then why did they not quote from it exclusively?

I read through your whole list and while there are clear differences, I did not see any major contradictions. The principles are still the same. I can read the NIV or the KJV (or others) and be fully confident in any of them.

And I can tell you Matt. 1:23 / Isaiah 7:14 in YOUR Bible is from the Septuagint!

No argument here. That's what it says. Here is the note in my Bible on Is. 7:14 :

God's sign to Ahaz was that of a virgin and her son, who would not be more than 12 to 14 years old before Syria and Israel would be captured in 722 B.C. (When the prophecy was spoken, it probably referred to the woman, a virgin at that time, who Isaiah took later as his second wife, 8:1-4, his first wife presumably having died after the birth of Shear-Jashub, 7:3.) The virgin of Isaiah's prophecy is a type of the virgin Mary, who, by the Holy Spirit, miraculously conceived Jesus Christ. See Matt 1:23. The Hebrew word here that is translated "virgin" is found elsewhere in the OT in Gen. 24:43, Ex. 2:8, Ps. 68:25, Prov. 30:19, Song 1:3, 6:8, and in those instances refers only to a chaste maiden who is unmarried.

11,212 posted on 03/03/2007 1:47:38 AM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11207 | View Replies ]


To: Forest Keeper
Quoting several lines does not say that they believed the whole thing was inspired

Hardly a few lines, FK. I have posted several sources that show clearly this is not so, yet you never commented on them (which is fine with me), such as this one.

The most important thing is precisely Matt 1:23 because ALL Christian Bibles agree with the Septuagint against the Hebrew Bible. If we take exception from something, according to your own logic, it must not be inerrant. And Matt 1:23 is not the only one.

It is easy to show that the Septuagint was used predominantly by the Apostles as Scripture, and is the norm. The Hebrew (Pharisaical version) of the Jewish Scripture is the exception.

11,214 posted on 03/03/2007 5:54:21 AM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11212 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson