Sid Roth, Branham, Cain, and Reed

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by 1 God

Which translation might that be?

my understanding is that:

• translations based on the Received Text are superior to translations based on the Majority Text
  
• the Septuagint is superior to the Masoretic Text.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Amanah

my understanding is that:

• translations based on the Received Text are superior to translations based on the Majority Text
  
• the Septuagint is superior to the Masoretic Text.

I think the Received Text is a product of the Majority Text which is superior to the Alexandrian Text.

If the Septuagint is superior to the Masoretic Text almost no one up until the last few years in America has ever had a "Bible". And relatively speaking almost no American has one today. Also then the Catholic Bible would be the true Bible and ours the false.

The only major leader among Oneness that claims the LXX is superior is Gino Jennings.

[Amanah]

What texts were used for the Geneva bible?

Were the Masoretic texts corrupted by Jewish scribes to downplay scripture used by Christians to support belief in Jesus being Messiah?

[Amanah]

Geneva bible (used by pilgrims)

The differences between the 1599 Geneva Bible and the 1611 King James Version of the Bible are apparent. The King James Version of the Bible eliminated the marginal notes that had been a popular feature for those who used them as a study guide in the 1599 Geneva Bible. Furthermore, the Old Testament from the 1560 and 1599 Geneva Bible was translated directly from the Greek Old Testament and the Hebrew Septuagint scriptures, while the 1611 King James Version of the Bible was compiled from previous English translations of the Old Testament.

https://www.brighthubeducation.com/e...g-james-bible/

[1 God]

Looks like our organization does not have a pure word of God, yet espouses the Bible as such.
They cannot even specifically name a pure translation as such.
Your last post's ended up inconclusive as evidence.
Organizations and churches that say "we believe the Bible as inerrant" are just saying it as a cliche, not a conviction.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by 1 God

Looks like our organization does not have a pure word of God, yet espouses the Bible as such.
They cannot even specifically name a pure translation as such.
Your last post's ended up inconclusive as evidence.
Organizations and churches that say "we believe the Bible as inerrant" are just saying it as a cliche, not a conviction.

Our organization believes that the KJV is the pure word of God.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Amanah

What texts were used for the Geneva bible?

Were the Masoretic texts corrupted by Jewish scribes to downplay scripture used by Christians to support belief in Jesus being Messiah?

I'm not sure you are right. In fact, IIRC, it is the opposite. They began to edit the LXX to debunk the claims of Christ and His followers in the early century. It even makes sense, LXX was the most used translation because of obvious reasons: early Christians didn't speak Hebrew. Also, the LXX we have today is not the same "variant" of the time of the Apostles.

There is a lot of misinformation in the topic, and a lot of skepticism and mistrust not well founded also.

Compare this text from the MT and from the current edition of LXX and tell me which one says more clearly that the Christ is fully human and fully God:

Isaiah 9:6 LXX: For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.

Isaiah 9:6 MT: For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

If the Jewish rabbis were trying to remove the truths about Christ in the MT, then they have failed miserably, because we see it all over the place in our modern Old Testament.

[Amanah]

UPCI the authority of scripture:

https://youtu.be/LtBYAlS8-gk

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by coksiw

I'm not sure you are right. In fact, IIRC, it is the opposite. They began to edit the LXX to debunk the claims of Christ and His followers in the early century. It even makes sense, LXX was the most used translation because of obvious reasons: early Christians didn't speak Hebrew. Also, the LXX we have today is not the same "variant" of the time of the Apostles.

There is a lot of misinformation in the topic, and a lot of skepticism and mistrust not well founded also.

Compare this text from the MT and from the current edition of LXX and tell me which one says more clearly that the Christ is fully human and fully God:

Isaiah 9:6 LXX: For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.

Isaiah 9:6 MT: For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

If the Jewish rabbis were trying to remove the truths about Christ in the MT, then they have failed miserably, because we see it all over the place in our modern Old Testament.

Exactly!

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Amanah

UPCI the authority of scripture:

https://youtu.be/LtBYAlS8-gk

Cullen does a terrible job explaining things. He goes all over the place, and he struggles to address the main points, and instead he spends a lot of time on random objections.