Does anyone know where I could go to see an actual copy of the LXX? Where was it found?
If there are NONE in existance, could it just be conjecture? --- Bill Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi David, you have the LXX don't you? Check out its translation of > this word > translated "established" in the KJV. It may shed some light on your > thoughts as it pertains to a connection between this verse and > Lance's post. > Those old Jews may have had a pretty good understanding of the Hebrew > language and how to translate it over into the common language of > their day. > > Bill > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 2:40 PM > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Spalding Enigma > > > > You did knock me off my chair with this one, Lance. ROTFLOL! A > Scripture > > reference from Lance? ??? > > > > You can be sure that I looked this up right away. I don't see its > direct > > relationship to the quote you gave. The passage speaks of the > relationship > > between faith and being established. The quote deals with the > relationship > > between faith and understanding. I need more context of the quote > to > > consider it more fully. I'm not saying I disagree with it. I'm > just > > raising my eyebrows in lacking context, and when I saw Blaine's > > interpretation and your amen, I wrinkled my eyebrows a bit. :-) > > > > Peace be with you. > > David Miller. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 12:12 PM > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Spalding Enigma > > > > > > May I suggest David, that you check out Isaiah chapter 7 with a > special > > focus on verse 9? > > > > What's that, just as he's about to depart, the relativist lib > quotes > > Scripture? At least we can hope that he has done so inaccurately. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: July 21, 2005 10:04 > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Spalding Enigma > > > > > > > Lance wrote: > > >>> Someone has said that 'unless we believe we will not > > >>> understand and, it is only if we believe that we will > > >>> understand. There is no understanding without the > > >>> commitment of the mind to objective reality and > > >>> to its natural or intrinsic intelligibility. > > > > > > Blainer wrote: > > >> This could be the most fundamental truth I have > > >> encountered on TT. ... It suggests that one can choose > > >> to disbelieve something, even in the face of strong evidence > > >> that it is true. Or, on the other hand, that one can choose > > >> to believe something, even if it is obviously not true. > > >> ... They choose to believe or disbelieve for reasons other > > >> than logic and/or scriptural evidence. > > > > > > It seems to me that the statement sets up a false idea of what > > > understanding > > > is. Understanding that is based upon emotion is lame and prone > to all > > > kinds > > > of error and falsehood. It seems to me that the statement says > that one > > > must commit oneself to an object before they can understand it. > This > > > suggests, as you say, that understanding is not based upon logic, > but > upon > > > commitment of the mind regardless of facts. Upon what basis can > one > > > commit > > > oneself if not understanding? The only thing I can think of is > emotion. > > > Maybe someone else can suggest some other motivation for making a > > > commitment. > > > > > > In the context of spiritual realities, there is a measure of > truth to > what > > > is being said, because spiritual realities are not perceived by > the > > > physical > > > senses. Tapping into that sixth sense of man to perceive a > spiritual > > > reality requires a commitment toward that object, and one cannot > > > understand > > > until one first perceives it. However, understanding itself is > not > based > > > upon commitment but upon logic and reason. This is where the > statement > > > falls short. The approach is too holisitic. It would cause us > in the > end > > > to have a superficial and faulty perspective about just what > understanding > > > is and what it requires. > > > > > > Peace be with you. > > > David Miller. > > > > ---------- > > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you > may > know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) > http://www.InnGlory.org > > > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email > to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you > have a > friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. > > > > > > > ---------- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you > may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) > http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you > have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. > ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
