Yuku free message boards

I shall take a crack at rebutting "Dr." Foster's pathetic attempts at answering BT's questions, and I shall have a little fun in the process.(Perhaps he's a Dr.of veterinary medicine? I doubt if his "doctorate" is in either English or history!)

I won't bother to "blue" his answers,but my commentary will be in bold.

I'm glad he told us what "blue" is,however!(LSHMSAS) Otherwise,we may never have guessed!

1. Is/was the Latin Vulgate the "word of God"? Why or why not?

ANS. The Latin Valgate of 520 AD. was partially taken from the writings of a Catholic named Augustine (400 AD.) who also wrote the blasphemous book titled "The City Of God" . His writing follow the Heretic named Eusebius (300 AD.) Who followed Origen who wrote the Septuagint about 200 AD. and passed it off as a pre-Christ writing. Jerome (520 AD.) used the manuscript Hexapla 200, and the Sianiticus in 330 AD. which had been discarded in a waste basket and was only partially completed, and the Vaticanius (330 AD.) which is affiliated with Rome, and the Alexandrian manuscript (450 AD.) to complete what is called the Latin Valgate.

Actually,Jerome,or Eusebius,lived from 342 AD to about 420 AD. He made the OT of the Vulgate from the available Hebrew mss; he was a master of the hebrew language,both written & spoken. He made the NT of the Vulgate from every available Greek or Latin ms that Pope Damasus could provide him. He did his work by himself, beginning in 382.

And the events of the "trash can" theory came LONG after Augustine's time!

The LV was the "official" Bible of most of Europe & Asia Minor for a long time! And I see "Dr." Foster didn't directly answer the question! He does NOT say whether he believes the LV is the word of God or not!

Was Jerome "perfect"? No. he believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary & in celibacy for church officials among other things.


2. Is/was the Septuagint (LXX) the "word of God"? Why or why not?

ANS. The Septuagint (LXX) of whom Origen is credited by those who know, came out of Egypt ( a type of the World in the AV.) .

There is more than ample evidence that the Septuagint was made sone 200 years before the coming of Christ, & the many OT quotes made by the Apostles match the text of the Septuagint. Now while this isn't conclusive proof of the Septuagint's antiquity,it is unarguable evidence that Jesus & the Apostles were quoting from a GREEK source.

<<Nothing God ever used came out of Egypt.>>

This statement bears special consideration as it is a total lie! If it were true,then God didn't use Abraham,Moses & the rest of the Israelites, nor JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF!! (Hosea 11:1)

Shoot,God even used Egypt itself to punish Israel!(1 Kings 14:25 onward)


In fact there is curse on all Egypt and God cannot bless what He has cursed. See, Deut. 28:60 and Jer. 46:25 and
Isa 19:14
14 The LORD hath mingled a perverse spirit in the midst thereof: and they have caused Egypt to err in every work thereof, as a drunken man staggereth in his vomit.
(KJV)

Ezek 29:2-3
2 Son of man, set thy face against Pharaoh king of Egypt, and prophesy against him, and against all Egypt:
3 Speak, and say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers, which hath said, My river is mine own, and I have made it for myself.
(KJV)

Notice how history has borne out these prophecies. Egypt herself,and her people fell from the greatest of nations to one of the poorest, losing her sovereignty for over 2000 years. Egypt was a poor nation when the angel sent Joseph & Mary there with Jesus, and remains a poor nation today. And ever since she regained her sovereignty,her rulers have all been ARABS! Don't believe me? Their biographies are readily available on the Net.

But,is Egypt eternally cursed? Absolutely NOT!!! Just read Isaiah Ch.19 to see what God has for Egypt in the future! And anyone doubting these aren't literal promises need only start at Isaiah 19:17,KJV-"And the land of Judah shall be a terror unto Egypt, every one that maketh mention thereof shall be afraid in himself, because of the counsel of the LORD of hosts, which he hath determined against it." Now,whether they mention it or not,is Egypt today not afraid of the people of the land of Judah?(Modern Israel,which has roundly thrashed Egypt in every modern battle they've fought) Just read that whole chapter 19 for the big picture & to see just how wrong Foster is.

And again notice that Foster didn't directly answer THIS question either!


3. Is/was the Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, Matthew's, Tyndale's, etc. the "word of God"? Why or why not?

Ans. Wycliffe (1384) and Tyndale (1525) and Coverdale (1535) and Mattews (1537) and Great Chain (1539) and The Bishops Bible of 1609 were good translations. Luther made a German Bible (1517) Diodati (italian), Erdosi (Hungary), Olivetan (France), Valera (Spain) Gottschalkson (Iceland) DeGrave (Holland) Mychalies (Scanda.) and Elizabeth (Russia), are translations that God has used. They made their translations from the Eramus (1516) and the Colinaeus (1534) and the Stephanes (1546) and the Beza (1565) and the Elzevir (1633) Greek texts. These Greek texts were made from the manuscripts written by the Novatians, and the Donatists and the Anabaptist and the Waldensians and the Lollards, and the Hussites, and the Hussites, and the Vaudois, and the Petrobrusians, and the Paulicians, and the Patennes, and the Bogomules, and the Hugeunots. This compiled from many history books found in your local libraries!

Notice Foster lists a great many Bible versions WITHOUT ANSWERING THE QUESTION of whether he believes them to be the word of God or not! The closest he comes are "good translations"!


4. Which edition (year) of the KJV is uncorrupted? Why do they differ, even occasionally in words? (And if your response has to do with printing problems, why would God inspire a perfect translation only to have it corrupted by the printers? The common people would still be lacking an uncorrupt word of God.)

Ans. <<Corruption is not always in the spelling, although sometimes it is.>>

Taking lessons from Clinton on the definition of "is"?

Corruption comes from the heart of those who intentionally pervert the Word to satisfy their own desires. If you add a little dirt to water, it just becomes dirty water. But if you intentionally add bleach, you have poisoned the water.

Where is the answer to the question?


5. Who publishes the uncorrupted KJV? Cambridge, Oxford, Kirkbride, Scofield, AMG, Zondervan, one of the Bible Societies, or one of the many other publishers? Why do they differ slightly, even occasionally in words?

Ans. The notes or comments made by anybody are not inspired. Scofield never published Bibles, he simply put his notes at the top or bottom of the text. Oxford publishes the Scofield Study Bible. There is only one publisher that changed one word and that was the Cambridge and the two letter word "he" does not change the meaning of the text because "we" or "he " both fit the context and both apply. The "New King James Bible" publisher is attempting to do away with the Holy Bible and replace it with THEIR OWN COPYRIGHT.

Again where is the answer to the question? All we have here is rhetoric!

6. In the context of Matt 5:18, define "jot", "tittle", and "law".

Ans. A jot or tittle are the smallest Hebrew charactors in their written language.

Foster actually answers a question!(Faint from surprise)


7. Define "circular argument" and give an example.

Ans. This has nothing to do with the Word of God but I will answer your question if you can tell me why the NIV left out the purpose and words of Christ in Mat.18:11.

Typical Onlyist avoida


8. When you encounter an archaic term or phrase in the KJV, or come across a "contradiction", why do you rely on fallible tools (dictionaries, etc) to interpret the infallible?

Ans. There are times when I don't know the meaning of English words so I use a dictionary for that.

<<There are no archaic terms or phrases in the AV.>>

So he must be straitened in his bowels every day,eating his sup from a charger,and wist we not that he must be about his boss's business?


<<Even the words "thee" and "thou" are in the real Bible for a reason.>>

Sure-those terms were in the vernacular of the day. The AV 1611 was written in the best English of its time.

Every time you see these words, you know it is in reference to one person. The words have been replaced with "you" in the New Bibles which in in the plural instead of the singular.

And JUST WHO replaced those terms in everyday usage? They were out of everyday usage before any of the MVs were made.


9. Suppose you lived in the 10th century. How would you define "preservation" as it related to God's word, so as to not contradict the KJV-only position?

Ans. No problem, The persevered word (Ps 12:6-7) has always been here in manuscripts even Jesus and Paul referred to them when speaking to others.

Then there's no problem with the MVs as they were made from those old MSS.

10. AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, THE BIG QUESTION:
The KJV came out in 1611. Where was the "final authority" in 1610 and prior? Explain.

Ans. If you don't have any faith in the Word and you are still in doubt after what is answered above, There is nothing The Lord or Holy Spirit can add. Faith is not a scientific or educational thing. Faith is believing God's word enough to act upon it.

Once again,the typical Onlyist avoiding the answer to a question,knowing the correct answer dispels his myth. And also he throws in a hint of another Onlyist axiom: that anyone not using the KJV as their ONLY Bible has no faith in Jesus.

My conclusion: this "dr." is so bright his mom calls him "son". He answered 1 1/2 out of ten questions correctly. A batting average of.150. Not so hot in THIS league. Seems he swung & missed at the inside fastballs that make his doctrine wrong.