Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
You presume to have the awareness of God? My experience has been that a lot that do not read the Bible carry a KJV because they do not know the scriptures and carry it to fit in.
Open Debate Challenge on My Defending the KJV as the Perfect Word for Today in English
- Thread starter Bible Highlighter
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You presume to have the awareness of God? My experience has been that a lot that do not read the Bible carry a KJV because they do not know the scriptures and carry it to fit in.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Rockerduck
Well-Known Member
I agree on the earlier bibles. Even the Geneva was popular and came over with the puritans. But the KJB coincided with the missionary expansion in the 1700 , 1800', and 1900's.
Rockerduck
Well-Known Member
I guess my generation is the 70, 80, and 90 years old, that grew up with KJB. The power of the Holy Spirit is strong in my bible classes.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Very popular but at that time it was difficult for the average person to verify the scriptures much less the older manuscripts.
Hey, thank you for sharing. It’s all over now anyway if the contents are poured out within, and Sheol “hades/hell” is then done away with. From what I understand Ghenna is no longer on fire either. My reasoning and thoughts are just concluded in my study personally, and whether or not it’s true, it is true that the contents are poured out and the place itself is done away with, I believe it’s done away with today. Again thank you for your thoughts and shared reasonings too.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
The story / history of Hell Hades Sheol is complicated
So we have Jews translating Hebrew scriptures into the Greek called the Septuagint ….Matching two languages, but there was no Greek word that was the equivalent for the word Sheol. The Hebrew understanding of Sheol was that it was where all people went to when they died as in “….And as for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried at a good old age or Abraham breathed his last and died in a ripe old age, an old man and satisfied with life; and he was gathered to his people.. There is no example of people being judged to Sheol for being bad. But still Sheol is not well defined. ….Are they conscience or not? Well in the New Testament Christ spoke with Moses and Elijah. So does this mean they are conscience? (Or were they already in Heaven?)
And some believe that Christ went to Sheol to preach the Gospel to the Jews after the cross. So what does all that mean? I am going to say that it is not all that well defined. Even modern Jewish scholars have different opinions on Sheol. And Sheol is a topic that I have discussed with professors at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. So back then when the Jews were translating the Hebrew to Greek they were faced with the fact that the Greek did not have a word that included the meaning of Sheol. So why did the translators of the Septuagint pick the word Hades?
What does Hades mean? Hades was a Greco-Roman god that reigned over a spiritual place of the dead of the same name. The Greeks and Romans had a lot of stories about the place called Hades. You can read about them here … Hades - Wikipedia
In Greek mythology, all mortals went to the realm of Hades, also known as Erebus, after they died. Three judges, Rhadamanthus, Minos, and Aeacus, would decide where each person would go based on their life. Three distinct areas of Hades, for example, people who lived normal lives would go to the Fields of Asphodel, while heroes would go to the Fields of Elysium. Tartarus was a black pit for the bad and where the gods imprisoned their enemies after they died. Very few living persons could enter or left Hades once they entered, with the exceptions of Hercules and Theseus.
(It is an important point to understand that for the Greco-Romans Hades was more or less Heaven and Sheol and Hell.)
The Ancient Greeks didn’t really have a concept of “damnation” or even sin. Going to Hades was just the natural consequence of death. The concept of Hades did evolve over time, so that it had stories of several realms:
So the Jews were looking for an equivalent Greek word for Sheol but there was none. Although Hades like Sheol was where all the dead went, Hades had good levels and bad levels where the environment was similar to the physical earth. And sometimes people that were still living went to Hades to rescue people that were there. So why did the Jews pick Hades to represent Sheol?….It was the only spiritual place in the afterlife that was represented in the Greek language?
Regardless of the differences between the two places the Jewish translators chose Hades to represent Sheol. So a lot of the information and storylines in the Old Testament about Sheol replaced the Greek definition and information regarding Hades.
The meanings of the two places became confusing. For example if a Jew would say Hades to a Roman, the Roman would be thinking something different than what the Jew meant.
The Apostles ran into the same problems….even more, they were dealing with two definitions of Hades. The Apostles were dealing with Sheol and Hades and a eternal fiery place of punishment and none of them had the same description. In addition the New Testament includes the concept of a battle between good and evil and the Devil.
But in the Christian version of the Greek word Hades was that it was a fiery place of eternal punishment. Christ and the Apostles were talking about and warning about this horrific place of eternal punishment by fire and a Judgment Day where all would be judged and sent to Heaven or "Hell." But none of this fit the actual descriptions of Sheol or Hades. And the Greek did not have words for Heaven or Hell.
In their words the punishment was eternal. When they were talking about this eternal place of punishment they described it as fire or a furnace, always burning and associated with pain. This association with fire and burning is repeated over and over again throughout the New Testament. Still there had to be problems with redefining a well known word. For example, when they started converting the Pagans and told them that they would go to Hades if they did not believe in Christ.
How many shrugged their shoulders and a replied, So what everybody goes to Hades.
This fiery place of punishment was actually a new concept that was not represented in Judaism or in Greek Mythology. The only other religion besides Christianity that had such a fiery place of punishment was Zoroastrianism.
The word Hell was not an option in the biblical period because the word 'Hell' is derived from an Anglo-Saxon word hellia (derived from the Old English, Old Norse, Old High German, hel, helle, circa. 725 AD)
So what was the alternative? Rather than defining a new word or changing the meaning of a word, the God Yeshua used the illustration of Gehenna for the fiery place of eternal punishment. Gehenna....which comes from the Hebrew phrase gey' hinnom, which means "valley of wailing.” Gehenna refers to the valley south of Jerusalem where corrupt Israelite kings sacrificed children to other gods as burnt offerings. And at the time of Christ’s ministry the Romans dumped trash and dead bodies into the flames of Gehenna. A form of sanitation.
But the Apostles decided to adopt the Greek word Hades and include it in the Christian Greek whereby they adopted Greek words but changed the meanings and context. Like the Greek word sin that had nothing to do with morality and simply meant that a Roman missed his target. So they took the Greek word Hades and redefined it as a place where Christ would judge “bad people” to and they would be punished with fire for eternity. Which again…does not agree with the Greek definition of Hades or the Jewish definition of Sheol.
So this outlines the difficulty of translating one language into another when they do not have similar words or concepts.
So now a days most of this does not apply, we have the word Hell and understand its meaning. And we have the word Sheol and understand what it means, so there is no justifiable reason to insert Hades, a mythological place into the Old Testament scriptures. The god of Hades nor the place called Hades ever existed. The Old Testament scriptures meant Sheol and more accurate translations use the word Sheol and that is why I say if you have a Bible with the word Hades in the Old Testament you should find a more accurate Bible because there are a lot more errors in that Bible. The Jews did not and do not believe in Hell and Christians do not believe in Hades. For Christians the New Testament defines an eternal place of fiery torment that we call Hell.
I don’t believe it complicated, it’s people that make it complicated @Grailhunter. I’m sorry I’m uninterested anymore. I believe I have a good handle on the subject from my perspective.
I just don’t believe in that burning in hell forever bullcrap. I don’t buy it, cause the contents of hell are poured out and done away with.
What exist is the kingdom of heaven and the outside of the gate. That’s the destination to the new, not the old.
You can take this comment as me being lazy and bowing out or just a commoner simply sharing an opinion that can be disregarded and no hard feelings, to hold on to. All the best to you and all on this forum.
I just don’t believe in that burning in hell forever bullcrap. I don’t buy it, cause the contents of hell are poured out and done away with.
What exist is the kingdom of heaven and the outside of the gate. That’s the destination to the new, not the old.
You can take this comment as me being lazy and bowing out or just a commoner simply sharing an opinion that can be disregarded and no hard feelings, to hold on to. All the best to you and all on this forum.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
The Johnny Appleseed of Truth….My mission is to let truth be known….I could careless if people believe me…..that is between them and God.
Thank you for your support, and services, you helped me out just a little bit. Now every thing you share perviously with me was your own conducted study or studies of others? That would be my final question.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
That doesn’t make you look good in front of God though. Faith is what pleases God. Sorry, I’ll just leave you be if you’re gonna be just defensive. That doesn’t answer with a yes or no, just boastfulness.
Christian Soldier
Well-Known Member
I did take part in a study about the nature of God, so I'm well aware of what He can do and what He can't do. I'm not sure if you believe that the Bible to be Gods Word or not, but I can tell you that God reveal some things about His nature.
You will be surprised to learn that God said "I change not", that means He has never changed anything about Himself throughout all eternity. He has remained exactly the same through eternity past and He will remain exactly the same into all eternity.
All things are the same as they always were, with God. Nothing has ever changed about Him, that means nothing was ever added to His nature and nothing was ever discarded from His nature and He never changes His mind about anything and He never discovers something new and He never does something new or different. Everything about Him is fixed, nothing can persuade Him to do something new or something different.
This is a very difficult subject for us mortal creatures, to get our puny little minds around. Our capacity to process anything about God is pathetic and so small that it doesn't even register on the scale of understanding. God described our capacity to understand Him, as being impossible, He said His ways are past finding out so He will remain a mystery which only fools will pretend to understand.
I never claimed to understand why God tortured and killed His Son, to save a remnant of wicked sinners. God told us He is a mystery and we will never understand why He does what He does. But we know that He is perfectly righteous, so every single sin must be paid for in full. The problem is, that His nature rejects filthy stinking rags (our best works) as payment for sin.
The only payment He accepted was the blood of a perfect and spotless lamb, and there was no other perfect and spotless sacrifice in existence apart from His Son.
So He had no other option but to sacrifice His own Son to save the elect/remnant.
A corrupt judge can wink at sin, because he is no better. But God can't change anything about Himself, because that would mean that He wasn't perfect to begin with. You only change something if it's defective, if God didn't punish sin with eternal punishment it would mean that He is a corrupt Judge Himself.
A sinner in hell can never pay off his sin debt, because he is not a spotless sacrifice so his sacrifice will never be sufficient and he continues to sin in hell by blaspheming the Name of God while he burns. So he is caught in a never ending cycle of sin and punishment.
If God could have avoided sacrificing His Son, He would have but He had no choice in the matter. His nature demands justice. Jesus prayed as a man, "Father take this cup away from Me, never the less Your will be done". Nobody understands the anguish Jesus endured, He sweated drops of blood so it wasn't a case of simply winking at sin and waving it on.
Christian Soldier
Well-Known Member
Gods Word said "world" but you trashed God's Word and inserted "whole world" and they you act like you never did it. That shows how depraved you are, to deny the in your face evidence.
You obviously have no regard for anything God said, because you have created your own doctrine and trashed everything God said. Then you try to deny it, I find that astounding and incomprehensible, that a professing Christian could rubbish Gods Word and insert His word over Gods Word.
I just gave you one example of how you poison Gods Word with your lies, I have many more but you can't even deal with one so there's no point in burying you in a truck load of your lies.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
You asked--->Now every thing you share perviously with me was your own conducted study or studies of others?
Should I have lied? Half truth? None of your business? So don't ask me any more questions if you are going to be rude.
That’s fine with me sir. You didn’t say yes or no.
How could I be sure, your information could have been credited, but being boastful towards me instead of conversation really bothered me too; it was rude.
Goodbye.
@Grailhunter, I’ve been a person who has had Christ in his life for 6 years now. But it’s all him that did anything good through me.
Last edited:
I definitely wouldn't - 2Ti_3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
Mal_2:12 The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the LORD of hosts.
So there is no such thing as "the Septuagint". It's a myth.
Ok, so called "LXX" (meaning Seventy, 70 in Roman Numerals, L=50, X=10, X=10), and yet according tot te 'Legend"/"myth" of the "Letter of Aristeas" there were "72" scholars, not "70". No one knows why it is not "LXXII" (72, Seventy-Two) rather than "LXX". They assume, but no substantial evidence is ever provided. Instead it is all subjective.
The so called “Septuagint” [LXX., meaning “Seventy” in Roman numerals (L=50, X=10, so 50+10+10=70)], really being “septuaginta (plural, with differing translations)” of Origen's Hexapla, Theodotion (6th column), Aquila of Sinope, & Symmachus are really from the sources Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (both of which are not anywhere near 4th C.).
“The Septuagint” as we presently know it, appears first in the writings of Origen [Hexapla] at near the end of the 2nd century AD., which is why so many of its OT translations, match near word for word, as they are quoted in the NT by various persons. They simply copied the NT Greek texts back into the OT to make it seem like those speakers were directly quoting those passages, and to give a greater credence to their new translation. Historically, there is an item called the “Letter of Aristeas”, which proposes an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew texts, but it has demonstrated to be based on an unfounded and mostly discredited “legend” or “myth”, and has serious internal consistency problems (ie. 72, vs 70, &c).
“... Most of these fables focus on an infamous “book” 14 called the “Letter of Aristeas” 15 (hereafter called the Letter) and the alleged claims of the Letter’s documentation by authors who wrote before the first coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the first few centuries following His first sojourn on earth. 16 The only extant Letter is dated from the eleventh century. In addition, there is no pre-Christian Greek translation of the He-brew Old Testament text, which the Letter alleges, that has been found, in-cluding the texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls. ...” - http://www.theoldpathspublications.com/Downloads/Free/The Septuagint ebook.pdf
“... the story of Aristeas appears comparatively rational. Yet it has long been recognized that much of it is unhistorical, in particular the professed date and nationality of the writer. Its claims to authenticity were demolished by Dr. Hody two centuries ago (De bibliorum textibus originalibus, Oxon., 1705) ...” - The Septuagint, by H. St. J. Thackeray
De bibliorum textibus originalibus - Humfredi Hodii linguae graecae professoris regii et Archidiaconi Oxon. De bibliorum textibus originalibus, versionibus graecis, & latina vulgata libri 4.. : Humphrey Hody : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Other sources, identifying the same - The Septuagint
“... Roman Catholics use the idea that Christ quoted the Septuagint to justly include the Apocrypha in their Bibles. ... Since no Hebrew Old Testament ever included the books of the Apocrypha, the Septuagint is the only source the Catholics have for justifying their canon. Many Reformers and Lutherans wrote at great length refuting the validity of the Septuagint. ...” - http://www.wcbible.org/documents/septuagint.pdf
“... [Page 46] Proponents of the invisible LXX will try to claim that Origen didn't translate the Hebrew into Greek, but only copied the LXX into the second column of his Hexapla. Can this argument be correct? No. If it were, then that would mean that those astute 72 Jewish scholars added the Apocryphal books to their work before they were ever written. (!) Or else, Origen took the liberty to add these spurious writings to God's Holy Word (Rev. 22:18). ...
... Is there ANY Greek manuscript of the Old Testament written BEFORE the time of Christ? Yes. There is one minute scrap dated at 150 BC, the Ryland's Papyrus, #458. It contains Deuteronomy chapters 23-28. No more. No less. If fact, it may be the existence of this fragment that led Eucebius and Philo to assume that the entire Pentatuech had been translated by some scribe in an effort to interest Gentiles in the history of the Jews. ... [page 46]
... [Page 47] If there was an Aristeas, he was faced with two insurmountable problems.
First, how did he ever locate the twelve tribes in order to pick his six representative scholars from each. Having been thoroughly scattered by their many defeats and captivities, the tribal lines of the 12 tribes had long since dissolved into virtual non-existence. It was impossible for anyone to distinctly identify the 12 individual tribes.
Secondly, if the 12 tribes had been identified, they would not have undertaken such a translation for two compelling reasons.
(1) Every Jew knew that the official caretaker of Scripture was the tribe of Levi as evidenced in Deuteronomy 17:18, 31:25,26 and Malachi 2:7. Thus, NO Jew of any of the eleven other tribes would dare to join such a forbidden enterprise. ...” - The Answer Book, By Sam Gipp, Page 46-47, selected portions, emphasis [bold] in original. ...
...
[Personal note: There are also some fragments of Greek papyrii (sections from the OT, Leviticus 26:2-16 (4Q119), Leviticus 1:11, 2:3-5,7-8?, 3:4,7,9-14, 4:3-4,6-8,10-11,18-19,26-28,30, 5:6,8-10,16-24, [6:1-5] (4Q120); Numbers 3:40-43,50-51?, 4:1?,5-9,11-16, 3:39? (4Q121); Deuteronomy 11:4 (4Q122); “unidentified text” (4Q126); Exodus (4Q127); Exodus 28:4-7 (7Q1); 'Letter of Jeremiah' vss 43-44 (not Jeremiah scripture) (7Q2), other “unidentified texts” (7Q3, 7Q4, 7Q5, 7Q6-18, 7Q19) and from the minor prophets (Nahal Hever cave) as Jonah 1:14-17, 2:1-6, 3:1-10, 4:1-2; Micah 1:1-8, 2:7-8, 3:5-6, 4:3-10, 5:2-7; Nahum 1:13-14, 2:4-11, 3:3-16; Habakkuk 1:5-17, 2:1-8,13-20, 3:8-15; Zephaniah 1:1-6,13-18, 2:9-10, 3:6-7; Zechariah 1:1-4,12-14,19-21, 2:3-5,7-8,12-13, 3: - List of the Dead Sea Scrolls - Wikipedia ) found in the caves at Qum'ran, of certain OT texts, but these have no known connection to anything called “LXX” (and only ASSUMMED to be so), as there is no known way to actually determine the transmission (who/where they came from) or dates of these fragments, and could easily have been made AD, rather than BC, and placed in those locations to preserve them during the times of persecution and destruction of manuscripts by Romans, or other. As far as I am aware these particular scraps have not been Carbon dated, which has about 19 or so assumptions even if they had, but are more paleographically dated, which is just as arbitrary and subjective.
The ‘scholarly’ (Mal. 2:12 KJB) ‘dates’ that are given to the various manuscripts (mss; at least the Syriack (Aramaic), and Greek) are all generally based upon “paleographical” analysis, and, as far as this author is aware, not radiocarbon dating, or other radiometric-dating methods, at least to the date of this present writing (AD July 2024). If this author is mistaken about that latter part, please excuse, as this author did research as far as was possible and concluded no such ‘scientific’ dating technique was utilized upon them. Even if the materials were radiocarbon dated, the ‘dates’ produced, would be based upon several unprovable assumptions, and the conclusion would end in selected ‘dates’ that already matched the ‘accepted’ ‘paleographical’ assumed dates, and other ‘dates’ produced by said ‘method(s)’ not already matching the ‘accepted dates’ would simply be ignored or tossed, as is generally the case with most radiocarbon dating when compared to preconceived ‘dates’ obtained by other ‘assumptive methods’ of ‘guessulation’ (coined, this author), or ‘thumbnology’ (coined, ‘Walter. J. Veith’; “Heritage of Israel”).
Paleography is already of itself highly assumptive conjecture and guesswork at best to begin with; is generally non-substantive, but mostly (not entirely) subjective, being typically based in the a priori biases or experiences of the ‘scientist(s)’ utilizing such ‘methods’ of/for ‘dating’. This author likens such ‘method(s)’ to the ‘found laundry on the floor ‘sniff-test’’ to ‘date’ the age. ...
... Taking a ‘whiff’ or two, and based upon the criteria already existing in the mind to judge the item(s), an ‘age’ is assumed for how long the dirty laundry had been laying there. What could go wrong with such ‘scientific’ analysis? Much everything. Yet, many simply just accept such ‘dates’ pulled out of thin air and the imagination of guesswork, such as that of J. T. Milik, and others, where they assume ‘dates’ based upon the ‘magick’ and, somewhat pseudoscience of, “paleography” to the years circa 250-200 BC to 1 BC, and some portions up to AD 100 (underlined supplied), for instance (on 'enochian' fragments):
“... The dates of the 4QEn manuscripts are spread over the second and first centuries B.C.: Ena was written in the first half, Enb in the middle, and Enf (represented by only one fragment, written by the same copyist as that of 4QTestLevib) in the third quarter of the second century; Ene was written in the first half, Eng in the middle, and Enc (of which End seems to be a more or less contemporary copy) in the last third of the first century. However approximate these dates may be (and I would be the first to [page 5,7] acknowledge that there is a fairly wide margin of error), it is significant in every respect that, apart from one manuscript of the Astronomical Book (Enastrb) and some copies of the Book of Giants, no manuscript of 4QEn has been found in the beautiful ‘classical’ writing of the Herodian era or from the last period of the Essene occupation of Hirbet Qumrân. ...” - Jozef T. Milik, The Books of Enoch Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 edited by J. T. Milik with the collaboration of Matthew Black, Oxford At The Clarendon Press, 1976, pages 5 & 7 (chart on page 6) - MILIK - The Book of Enoch Aramaic Fragments Qumran Cave 4 : Jozef T. Milik : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
MILIK - The Book of Enoch Aramaic Fragments Qumran Cave 4 : Jozef T. Milik : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
MILIK - The Book of Enoch Aramaic Fragments Qumran Cave 4The Enoch Scroll of the texts from Qumran Library Cave 4 has provided parts in Aramaic among the Dead...
archive.org
MILIK - The Book of Enoch Aramaic Fragments Qumran Cave 4 : Jozef T. Milik : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
MILIK - The Book of Enoch Aramaic Fragments Qumran Cave 4The Enoch Scroll of the texts from Qumran Library Cave 4 has provided parts in Aramaic among the Dead...
archive.org
Well, “approximate … dates … [being] acknowledge[d] [as] … a fairly wide margin of error” is not by means an accurate, concrete, tested, repeated or demonstrable fact of any kind. One author even says, “suggested” (Book of Watchers: History of Documents and Research, Chapter 2, pg. 15 -
https://ms.augsburgfortress.org/downloads/9781451490329_Chapter 2 excerpt.pdf?redirected=true ). Those ‘accepted’ ‘dates’ are the collective mental infatuation and brain fog of a fallen (sinful) human being. The texts could just as well have been created in that particular script in the 1st century or later AD and then placed there at any time after. Every ‘scholar’ on the subject merely places their guess onto the ‘field’, or assumes a guess already given by someone else. It would be laughable, if it weren’t so sad that this is the complete mess that passes as ‘science’ these days. This author does not accept any of those ‘dates’ as valid, or substantive.
See also The Mythological Septuagint - https://ia801900.us.archive.org/13/...r S Ruckman - The Mythological Septuagint.pdf
“1 Jones, The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis, op. cit., pp. 10–54. The reader should, in all fairness, be apprised of the fact that very nearly all references in the literature which allude to the Septuagint in fact pertain to Origen's 5th column. That is, the real LXX from all citation evidence as to N.T. references – indeed, for all practical purposes – the Septuagint that we actually “see” and “use” is found to actually be only two manuscripts, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus a. This is especially true of Vaticanus. Although this fact is difficult to ferret out from among the vast amount of literature on the subject, it may be verified by numerous sources. Among them, the reader is directed to page 1259 in The New Bible Dictionary op. cit., (Texts-Versions) where D.W. Gooding admits this when he relates that the LXX of Jer.38:40 (Jer.31:40 in the MT) as shown in figure 214 has been taken from the Codex Sinaiticus. Thomas Hartwell Horne is even more direct in An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, 9th ed., Vol. II, (London, Eng.: Spottiswoode and Shaw, 1846), fn. 1. p. 282 and fn. 3 p. 288. It has been established that both were produced from Origen's 5th column. Thus, the Septuagint which we actually utilize in practical outworking, the LXX which is cited almost ninety percent of the time, is actually the LXX that was written more than 250 years after the completion of the New Testament canon – and by a “Catholicized Jehovah's Witness” [personal note: He means 'Origen'.] at that! Moreover, it must be seen that the testimony of these two corrupted manuscripts is almost solely responsible for the errors being foisted upon the Holy Scriptures in both Testaments by modern critics!” - Footnote 1, Which Version?, by Floyd Nolen Jones, 20th edition page 129 [PDF] - https://ia601901.us.archive.org/9/i... Nolen Jones - Which Version Is The Bible.pdf
Various scholarly videos about the so called “LXX” (Septuagint”), by David W. Daniels, and Dr. Phil Stringer:
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
When you are college it is yes and no. Goodbye God Bless.That’s fine with me sir. You didn’t say yes or no.
How could I be sure, your information could have been credited, but being boastful towards me instead of conversation really bothered me too; it was rude.
Goodbye.
Similar threads
