OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Topic started by: Alfred Persson on August 12, 2010, 04:30:55 PM

Title: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 12, 2010, 04:30:55 PM
‘The Orthodox Church has the same New Testament as the rest of Christendom. As its authoritative text for the Old Testament it uses the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint. Where this differs from the Hebrew text (which happens quite often), Orthodox believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation.’-Ware, Kallistos (Timothy): The Orthodox Church, p.208; Penguin 1963,



In Exod 32:4 The LXX follows the Hebrew plural "gods (elohiym, theoi) which usually refers to the One true God in a "plural of majesty." If it were an inspired translation, it would have rendered it singular "God" (theos) because the context indicates that is the reference of the Hebrew.

The people rebelled against God and Moses, dismissing even their rescue from Egypt. At first read it seem Aaron joined them, but it is clear from vvs 4-6 that he did not, rather he sought to turn them back to God and Moses, by making an image of YHWH. This interpretation is confirmed in the NT by Paul who expands this event to encompass all idolatry:


1 Now when the people saw that Moses delayed coming down from the mountain, the people gathered against Aaron and said to him, "Rise up and make us gods that shall go before us. As for Moses, the man who brought us up from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.
2. Aaron then said to them, "Remove the golden earrings in the ears of your wives and daughters and bring them to me."
3. So all the people removed the golden earrings in their ears, and brought them to Aaron.
4.He received them from their hands; and he fashioned them win an engraving tool and made a molten calf. Then he said, "These are your gods, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt."
5. So when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it. Aaron then made a proclamation and said, "Tomorrow is a feast to the Lord."
6. Thus he rose early the next day and offered whole burnt offerings and peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.

7. But the Lord said to Moses, "God quickly! Get down from here! For your people whom you brought  out of the land of Egypt are transgressing the law.
8. They turned aside quickly from the way I commanded them. They made themselves a calf and are worshiping and sacrificing to it, and are saying, 'These are your gods, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt.'-Orthodox Study Bible

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image
made like corruptible man-- and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
 (Rom 1:20-23 NKJ)


Therefore the LXX cannot be inspired translation, if it were it would have used the singular THEOS in these verses.

While many versions also translate it as plural, the following render it "God" singular: the New King James, Bible in Basic English, Complete Jewish Bible, Jewish Publication Society Holy Scriptures, Jewish Publication Society Tanakh, Holman Christian Standard Bible, English Darby Bible, New American Bible, New American Standard, New International Reader's Version, New Jerusalem Bible, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (all italics).
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Fr. George on August 12, 2010, 04:36:39 PM
You do understand that the earliest LXX manuscript we have pre-dates the earliest MT manuscript we have, right?  And that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which also pre-date the earliest MT manuscrupt, "gel" more with the LXX, right?  So you do know that you are begging the question, which manuscript reflects the earlier text: the LXX, or the MT, which is technically a translation, since the PMT didn't have the vowels, and thus required interpretation in order to translate it from Hebrew without vowels to Hebrew with vowels.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 12, 2010, 04:46:36 PM
You do understand that the earliest LXX manuscript we have pre-dates the earliest MT manuscript we have, right?  And that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which also pre-date the earliest MT manuscrupt, "gel" more with the LXX, right?  So you do know that you are begging the question, which manuscript reflects the earlier text: the LXX, or the MT, which is technically a translation, since the PMT didn't have the vowels, and thus required interpretation in order to translate it from Hebrew without vowels to Hebrew with vowels.

I focused on one text to make my point, lest we go all over the map on this and get no where.

It is Orthodox position the LXX translation is inspired...I believe Exodus 32:4 proves it is not, if it were, "gods" would read "god".

Aaron was providing for their need of the sensible, hoping to retain worship of the true God via the image, that is clear in vvs 32:4-6.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Anastasios on August 12, 2010, 04:54:25 PM
If there is a discrepancy, then it just proves that the Masoretic Text is not inspired, because it does not match the Septuagint, which we already know to be the inspired Old Testament.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 12, 2010, 04:59:17 PM
If there is a discrepancy, then it just proves that the Masoretic Text is not inspired, because it does not match the Septuagint, which we already know to be the inspired Old Testament.

All Hebrew texts read the plural ELOHIYM, the Septuagint translates this either singular THEOS or plural THEOI, depending on whether they believed it meant "God" or "gods."

The plural "gods" is used to refer to YHWH God in a plural of majesty. There are parallels to this: cp "crowns" Zec 9:11; "Cattles" Job 40:14; Keys, Mt 16:19.

One must discern from the context who is meant, "God," or "gods."

The context shows Aaron trying to turn the rebels back to YHWH God by incorporating their desire for an image, into true worship.

If the Septuagint were inspired, it would read "God" singular.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 12, 2010, 05:16:05 PM

The early Church Fathers, and the apostles themselves during the New Testament era, when quoting the Old Testament Scriptures, quote the Septuagint version of the text.  The most astounding example is in Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem, where the apostles must decide whether gentiles must conform to Jewish ritual to become Christians.


In rendering the Councils's decision, James quotes Amos 9:11-12, and in our New Testament (NIV), it is quoted thus:


"After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent.  It's ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name....

However, if you turn to your typical Protestant Old Testament, Amos 9:11-12 reads as follows:


"In that day I will restore David's fallen tent. I will repair its broken places, restore its ruins, and build it as it used to be, so that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all nations that bear my name..."
 

Both of these are possible renditions from the transcripts that we have.  But the difference is huge:  the Septuagint says that the gentiles will seek the Lord; the Hebrew version says that "they" [the Jews] will possess the gentiles!  It would humorous (if it wasn't so tragic) that most Bibles use the Septuagint quote in the New Testament, but if you cross-reference back to the Old Testament, they use the Hebrew rendering.


Not only does James quote the Septuagint - but in every case where the Hebrew and Greek texts differ (85% of the time!), the New Testament writers quote the Septuagint.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 12, 2010, 05:39:05 PM

The early Church Fathers, and the apostles themselves during the New Testament era, when quoting the Old Testament Scriptures, quote the Septuagint version of the text.  The most astounding example is in Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem, where the apostles must decide whether gentiles must conform to Jewish ritual to become Christians.


In rendering the Councils's decision, James quotes Amos 9:11-12, and in our New Testament (NIV), it is quoted thus:


"After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent.  It's ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name....

However, if you turn to your typical Protestant Old Testament, Amos 9:11-12 reads as follows:


"In that day I will restore David's fallen tent. I will repair its broken places, restore its ruins, and build it as it used to be, so that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all nations that bear my name..."
 

Both of these are possible renditions from the transcripts that we have.  But the difference is huge:  the Septuagint says that the gentiles will seek the Lord; the Hebrew version says that "they" [the Jews] will possess the gentiles!  It would humorous (if it wasn't so tragic) that most Bibles use the Septuagint quote in the New Testament, but if you cross-reference back to the Old Testament, they use the Hebrew rendering.


Not only does James quote the Septuagint - but in every case where the Hebrew and Greek texts differ (85% of the time!), the New Testament writers quote the Septuagint.


I agree the NT uses the Septuagint mostly, but there are occasions where the Hebrew was chosen against it. A few examples Mt 13:35; 22:24; 27:46; Rom 9:17; 11:35; 12:19; 1 Cor 3:19; 2 Cor 9:9.

That means the NT writers did not see its changes from the Hebrew as inspired.

Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 12, 2010, 05:45:12 PM

I agree the NT uses the Septuagint mostly, but there are occasions where the Hebrew was chosen against it. A few examples Mt 13:35; 22:24; 27:46; Rom 9:17; 11:35; 12:19; 1 Cor 3:19; 2 Cor 9:9.

That means the NT writers did not see its changes from the Hebrew as inspired.



I find it imposible to believe that God allowed the authors of the inspired New Testament to employ material from bibical sources which He did not inspire.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 12, 2010, 05:48:11 PM

The Septuagint is the first "Jewish Authorised Version" of the Old
Testament.

I find that I often have to disabuse young biblical enthusiasts in the
parish of the notion that the Septuagint is "our Greek Orthodox version of
the Old Testament" and the even more odd idea that Christians composed it in
some sort of scriptural war with the Jews.

Nothing could be further from the trurh.

The Septuagint is NOT a Christian translation. It is a Jewish translation.

It became the gift of the Jewish Temple to the Christian Church. The
Christians of the apostolic era received it from the Jews and thereafter
knew no other. It remains the one canonical Old Testament for the Orthodox
Church.

The Septuagint was a translation project approved by the Temple authorities
in the centuries before Christ. Israel provided the best and most learned of
its scholars (said to be 70 in all, hence its name of Septuagint) to
undertake the translation from Hebrew into Greek. Every line was checked
upon translation. Every Jewish scholar working on the translation critically
reviewed everything which some other scholar had translated into Greek.

The Septuagint is the first authoritative and canonical Hebrew Scripture. Up
until then the Scritures had fluctuated as regards the books to be included.
The Septuagint represents the Jerualem Temple's choice of canonical books.
It "fixed" the canonical books for centuries to come.

It also represents the Temple's deliberate choice of correct verses wherever
there were conflicting variants. As a specific example, the choice of
"virgin-parthenos" in Isaiah was the choice of the Jewish translators.

When you hold the Septuagint in your hands, you are holding a 100% Jewish
Old Testament. One could see it as the Authorised Version of the OT for the
Jews, authorised and sealed with the authority of the Temple and the
Sanhedrin.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on August 12, 2010, 05:49:41 PM
It seems that Mr. Persson is more interested in making his contra-Orthodoxy positions than in investigating the differences between his church and The Church.  It looks like he left an earlier hornet's nest that he stirred up (re. icons) just when Isa went after him with Big Bertha, and now is assaulting our OT. I am left wondering if he is, in reality, fighting the Holy Spirit telling him to look favorably upon His Church.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 12, 2010, 05:52:11 PM
Dear Alfred,
 
When it comes to a choice between the Septuagint which was used by the writers of the New Testament and other versions, then I go with the Apostles.  They read the Septuagint, they quoted from it, they used it in their missionary work to spread the teachings of Jesus Christ.   It was because they were so successful with this that the Jews at Jamnia in 90 AD forbade the use of the Septuagint (their own creation!!)   The early Christian Church did not know any other Old Testament; they knew only the Septuagint. 
 
The Gospels and the Epistles of the Apostles are sealed with the inspirational mark of the Holy Spirit.  In comparison to this, decisions against the choice of the Spirit made in Western Europe 1600 years later carry no attraction. Attempts, 1600 years after the fact, to displace the Old Testament used by the Apostles and their succesors seem to me like an attack on the work of God.
 
Fr Ambrose
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Jetavan on August 12, 2010, 05:54:38 PM

In Exod 32:4 The LXX follows the Hebrew plural "gods (elohiym, theoi) which usually refers to the One true God in a "plural of majesty." If it were an inspired translation, it would have rendered it singular "God" (theos) because the context indicates that is the reference of the Hebrew.
Could you quote the LXX version and the alternative version, of the verse in question?
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Benjamin the Red on August 12, 2010, 06:14:14 PM
Here's some legwork as far as original sources and translations are concerned.

Exodus 32:4

καὶ ἐδέξατο ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν αὐτῶν καὶ ἔπλασεν αὐτὰ ἐν τῇ γραφίδι καὶ ἐποίησεν αὐτὰ μόσχον χωνευτὸν καὶ εἶπεν οὗτοι οἱ θεοί σου Ισραηλ οἵτινες ἀνεβίβασάν σε ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου
(Septuagint)

וַיִּקַּח מִיָּדָם וַיָּצַר אֹתֹו בַּחֶרֶט וַֽיַּעֲשֵׂהוּ עֵגֶל מַסֵּכָה וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלוּךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם׃
(Masoretic Text)

And he received [them] at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These [be] thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
(King James Version)

He took this from their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool and made it into a molten calf; and they said, "This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt."
(New American Standard Bible)

He received them from their hand; and he fashioned them with an engraving tool and made a molten calf. Then he said, "There are your gods, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt."
(St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint)
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Shanghaiski on August 12, 2010, 06:24:04 PM
The whole argument for the inspiration of one, singular text and version of that text is a moot point. It doesn't matter it it's the Septuagint, the pre-Masoretic, or the New Testament, there is no one version  of either in the original manuscript form. What we have today is a compilation. The ancient manuscripts were written at various places and times by several authors. The oldest manuscripts we have are copies and collections of earlier manuscripts.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Shanghaiski on August 12, 2010, 06:28:20 PM
It seems that Mr. Persson is more interested in making his contra-Orthodoxy positions than in investigating the differences between his church and The Church.  It looks like he left an earlier hornet's nest that he stirred up (re. icons) just when Isa went after him with Big Bertha, and now is assaulting our OT. I am left wondering if he is, in reality, fighting the Holy Spirit telling him to look favorably upon His Church.

Poor Alfred is a man spiritually deluded, a Church of one, with only his own whim to guide him, thus he results to sniping here and there in an attempt to justify his spiritual insanity. His non-sensical arguments are backed by what he calls evidence, but they are, rather, bits and pieces shaved from their original context and marinated in his own heresy, which denies the true incarnation of the Word of God.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 12, 2010, 06:43:48 PM

I agree the NT uses the Septuagint mostly, but there are occasions where the Hebrew was chosen against it. A few examples Mt 13:35; 22:24; 27:46; Rom 9:17; 11:35; 12:19; 1 Cor 3:19; 2 Cor 9:9.

That means the NT writers did not see its changes from the Hebrew as inspired.



I find it imposible to believe that God allowed the authors of the inspired New Testament to employ material from bibical sources which He did not inspire.

Moreover, using 85% of the time a text which Mr. Persson, two millenia later, says that they didn't believe was inspired. Moreover, since they quote the LXX's changes, that would mean they furthered the corruption. And thereby corrupted the NT, which therefore can't be inspired itself.

Have you been circumcized Mr. Persson?
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 12, 2010, 07:22:47 PM
You do understand that the earliest LXX manuscript we have pre-dates the earliest MT manuscript we have, right?  And that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which also pre-date the earliest MT manuscrupt, "gel" more with the LXX, right?  So you do know that you are begging the question, which manuscript reflects the earlier text: the LXX, or the MT, which is technically a translation, since the PMT didn't have the vowels, and thus required interpretation in order to translate it from Hebrew without vowels to Hebrew with vowels.

I focused on one text to make my point, lest we go all over the map on this and get no where.

You picked one text in the hopes that your prooftexting would not be corrected by context.

Quote
It is Orthodox position the LXX translation is inspired...I believe

You don't get it. No one cares what you believe.

The original Nicene Creed said "We believe."  We now say "I beleive." We receive the Faith of the Church, we do not dictate it to the Church.  We are baptized into the Church.  We don't make the Church up as we go along.

Rule of thumb: if you come up with an interpretation that no one else in 3,000 years has not come up with, it could be wrong. IF it contradicts the teaching of the Church, it is wrong. Taze Russell didn't learn that.

Quote
Exodus 32:4 proves it is not, if it were, "gods" would read "god".

If you could read the Hebrew, you would see that is not likely: the verse has the plural "gods" and also "these" and "they brought."  The plural of majesty usually, with increasing regularity have singular agreement.

The Aramaic Targums have the plural, though Aramaic doesn't have a plural of majesty.
http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/cgi-bin/showtargum.cgi

Quote
Aaron was providing for their need of the sensible,

So, when did Aaron tell you that? Do you have tea with him regularly?  Joseph Smith experience?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Melchizedek_Priesthood.jpg)


Quote
hoping to retain worship of the true God via the image, that is clear in vvs 32:4-6.
LOL. So Perssonism does "translate" the Bible to fit its agenda, like the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 12, 2010, 07:40:13 PM
If there is a discrepancy, then it just proves that the Masoretic Text is not inspired, because it does not match the Septuagint, which we already know to be the inspired Old Testament.

All Hebrew texts read the plural ELOHIYM, the Septuagint translates this either singular THEOS or plural THEOI, depending on whether they believed it meant "God" or "gods."
according to the Spirit guiding them.

Quote
The plural "gods" is used to refer to YHWH God in a plural of majesty. There are parallels

I thought you were sticking to one text?

Quote
to this: cp "crowns" Zec 9:11;

Zechariah? the word crown, singular or plural, doesn't appear in the entire chapter.

Quote
"Cattles" Job 40:14;

Ditto, though ox appears in 15.

Quote
Keys, Mt 16:19

Never in Hebrew.

Are you purporting to refer to the Masoretic Texts (in which the question of the plural of majesty is relevant) or the LXX (in which it is irrelevant)?

Quote
One must discern from the context who is meant, "God," or "gods."

I'll follow the Apostles and trust the translators of the LXX, over a revisionist two millenia too late, any day.

But the Hebrew texts can make it straightforward: if the agreement is singular, it is plural of majesty, if it is not (as in Ex. 32:4), it is not.

Quote
The context shows Aaron trying to turn the rebels back to YHWH God by incorporating their desire for an image, into true worship.

(http://betterwaytomakealiving.com/_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/square-peg-round-hole.jpg)
move away from the hammer.

Quote
If the Septuagint were inspired, it would read "God" singular.
God's editor, are we?

Definitely no self image problems here. ::)
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 12, 2010, 07:53:54 PM
Btw, on the title: What changes?

The LXX text predates the Masoretic Text. Heck, the Vulgate text predates the Masoretic text. We have physical copies of the LXX in one codex that predate the eariest complete Masoretic scroll by over half a millenium. So how can the LXX change anything in the Masoretic text?

And rather than trying to twist texts, why don't you attack a more comprehensive issue, like the status of the Anagignoskomena?
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 12, 2010, 08:13:05 PM

In Exod 32:4 The LXX follows the Hebrew plural "gods (elohiym, theoi) which usually refers to the One true God in a "plural of majesty." If it were an inspired translation, it would have rendered it singular "God" (theos) because the context indicates that is the reference of the Hebrew.
Could you quote the LXX version and the alternative version, of the verse in question?

You missed my point. The lxx is translating the Hebrew plural for "gods" with the Greek plural for "gods", so in that sense is literal.

BUT the Hebrew uses the plural "gods" to also refer to the One true God, context alone determines which is meant. The plural is a "plural of majesty" when the Hebrew "gods" refers to "God."

The context of Exodus indicates "gods" is referring to the one true God, the image represented Him, not foreign deities:

They had rebelled against both Moses and God, dismissing the miraculous events that occurred when God brought them out of Egypt, attributing it to Moses and saying "he is gone." They wanted new gods to lead them:

NKJ  Exodus 32:1 Now when the people saw that Moses delayed coming down from the mountain, the people gathered together to Aaron, and said to him, "Come, make us gods that shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him." (Exo 32:1 NKJ)

Aaron believes he can turn them back to God by accommodating their need for something visible:

 2 And Aaron said to them, "Break off the golden earrings which are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me." (Exo 32:2 NKJ)

He makes an image so they can worship the True God via the image:

 4 And he received the gold from their hand, and he fashioned it with an engraving tool, and made a molded calf. Then they said, "This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt!"
 5 So when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it. And Aaron made a proclamation and said, "Tomorrow is a feast to the LORD."
 6 Then they rose early on the next day, offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
 (Exo 32:4-6 NKJ)

No doubt Aaron thought he did good, stopped the rebellion, and restored both Moses and God to authority.

God called what He did corruption, they defiled their worship with an image:

 7 And the LORD said to Moses, "Go, get down! For your people whom you brought out of the land of Egypt have corrupted themselves.
 8 "They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them. They have made themselves a molded calf, and worshiped it and sacrificed to it, and said,`This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt!'"
 (Exo 32:7-8 NKJ)


So the Hebrew and Greek lxx read the same, but shouldn't. If it was inspired the lxx should read as the NKJ translates, rendering "gods" as "god" so readers would have a clearer sense of what is happening.

As the lxx translates the plural "gods" as "God" elsewhere when it refers to God, it should have done so here.

 
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 12, 2010, 08:26:05 PM
Btw, on the title: What changes?

The LXX text predates the Masoretic Text. Heck, the Vulgate text predates the Masoretic text. We have physical copies of the LXX in one codex that predate the eariest complete Masoretic scroll by over half a millenium. So how can the LXX change anything in the Masoretic text?

And rather than trying to twist texts, why don't you attack a more comprehensive issue, like the status of the Anagignoskomena?

Why not answer my argument instead of changing the subject.

Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 12, 2010, 08:36:40 PM
‘The Orthodox Church has the same New Testament as the rest of Christendom. As its authoritative text for the Old Testament it uses the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint. Where this differs from the Hebrew text (which happens quite often), Orthodox believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation.’-Ware, Kallistos (Timothy): The Orthodox Church, p.208; Penguin 1963,

If the changes in the Septuagint are inspired and are to be accepted as God's continuing revelation, how is it Matthew and Paul follow the Hebrew and not the changes in the Greek Septuagint?

Examples where the NT preferred the MT over the LXX:

"Raise you up" in Ro 9:17 certainly closer to MT "raised you up" than LXX's "thou been preserved."

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up(exegeira se, 1825), (Rom 9:17 NKJ)

 "But indeed for this purpose I have raised you up (he'amadtiykaa, 5975) (, (Exo 9:16 NKJ)

And for this purpose hast thou been preserved (dieterethes), (Exo 9:16 LXE)

##

Matthew uses "Brother in law", a technical term (cf Delitzsch Hebrew NT), not "her husband's brother"

asking, "Teacher, Moses said, 'IF A MAN DIES HAVING NO CHILDREN, HIS BROTHER AS NEXT OF KIN (epigambreusei, 1918) SHALL MARRY HIS WIFE, AND RAISE UP CHILDREN FOR HIS BROTHER.'
 (Mat 22:24 NAU)

 "When brothers live on the same property and one of them dies without a son, the wife of the dead man may not marry a stranger outside the family. Her brother-in-law(yabaamaah, 2993) is to take her as his wife, have sexual relations with her, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law for her.
 (Deu 25:5 CSB)

And if brethren should live together, and one of them should die, and should not have seed, the wife of the deceased shall not marry out of the family to a man not related: her husband's brother(ho adelphos tou andros autes) shall go in to her, and shall take her to himself for a wife, and shall dwell with her.
 (Deu 25:5 LXE)

##

"Vegence is mine, I will repay" is literally correct for Deu 32:35; LXX  "in the day of vengeance I will repay,"

NKJ  Romans 12:19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. (Rom 12:19 NKJ)

NKJ  Deuteronomy 32:35 Vengeance is Mine, and recompense; Their foot shall slip in due time; For the day of their calamity is at hand, And the things to come hasten upon them.'
 (Deu 32:35 NKJ)

LXE  Deuteronomy 32:35 In the day of vengeance(en hemera ekdikeseos) I will recompense, whensoever their foot shall be tripped up; for the day of their destruction is near to them, and the judgments at hand are close upon you. (Deu 32:35 LXE)


##

Paul correctly translates the Hebrew ba'aaramaam chakaamiym Lokeed (6193 2450 3920) as drassomenos en tee panourgia auton, not following the Septuagint's katalambanon en te phronesei.:

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their own craftiness"; (1Co 3:19 NKJ)

He catches the wise in their own craftiness, And the counsel of the cunning comes quickly upon them. (Job 5:13 NKJ)

 Job 5:13 who takes the wise in their wisdom, and subverts the counsel of the crafty (Job 5:13 LXE)
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: bogdan on August 12, 2010, 08:50:02 PM
Your basic presupposition is that the MT is correct because it's written in Hebrew. Is this accurate?
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 12, 2010, 09:03:30 PM
Your basic presupposition is that the MT is correct because it's written in Hebrew. Is this accurate?

No, my basic premise is Christ and His apostles are correct. They used the Septuagint, they used the Hebrew, they used Aramaic versions. To say a translation is inspired and its changes are the "new deal" cannot be correct, the NT doesn't follow that rule.

Not one jot or tittle having meaning is lost, it does not follow men haven't added to the scripture:

NKJ  Matthew 5:18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. (Mat 5:18 NKJ)

That Christ is referring to jot and tittle that have meaning is deducible from "till all is fulfilled."

Therefore in the Masoretic is every jot and tittle that will be fulfilled, that Christ said would not pass away.

It may be the mss has been revised to adopt less friendly readings to Christians than otherwise existed, but that didn't lose their meaning, the truth of God is still there.

Christ is never wrong, He is my LORD.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 12, 2010, 09:07:40 PM
nt
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Cymbyz on August 12, 2010, 09:25:38 PM
Actually, I think vowel-pointing hadn't been invented when Christ was on Earth, and it certainly wouldn't have appeared in any of the scrolls available to Him.  OTOH, Greek did have accent marks and the iota subscript, rather a bit more than the marks one finds on a traditional Hebrew text of the first century.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: jnorm888 on August 12, 2010, 09:42:04 PM

I focused on one text to make my point, lest we go all over the map on this and get no where.

Oh boy, here we go again  ;D



Quote
It is Orthodox position the LXX translation is inspired...I believe Exodus 32:4 proves it is not, if it were, "gods" would read "god".

We aren't the only ones to see it as Inspired. The Jews in the first century saw it as such as well as a good number of church fathers and earlychristian witnesses.

You should of looked at the New Testament quotes of the OT before starting this thread.








ICXC NIKA
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 12, 2010, 09:51:32 PM

I focused on one text to make my point, lest we go all over the map on this and get no where.

Oh boy, here we go again  ;D



Quote
It is Orthodox position the LXX translation is inspired...I believe Exodus 32:4 proves it is not, if it were, "gods" would read "god".

We aren't the only ones to see it as Inspired. The Jews in the first century saw it as such as well as a good number of church fathers and earlychristian witnesses.

You should of looked at the New Testament quotes of the OT before starting this thread.


ICXC NIKA

The Septuagint was a universal Bible most everyone could read, so of course the disciples would quote from it often.

But it does not follow the translation is inspired so that wherever it changes the Hebrew, we must follow it.

I got other examples where the NT doesn't follow that rule, therefore the rule isn't "apostolic".

Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: jnorm888 on August 12, 2010, 09:56:34 PM

I focused on one text to make my point, lest we go all over the map on this and get no where.

Oh boy, here we go again  ;D



Quote
It is Orthodox position the LXX translation is inspired...I believe Exodus 32:4 proves it is not, if it were, "gods" would read "god".

We aren't the only ones to see it as Inspired. The Jews in the first century saw it as such as well as a good number of church fathers and earlychristian witnesses.

You should of looked at the New Testament quotes of the OT before starting this thread.


ICXC NIKA

The Septuagint was a universal Bible most everyone could read, so of course the disciples would quote from it often.

But it does not follow the translation is inspired so that wherever it changes the Hebrew, we must follow it.

I got other examples where the NT doesn't follow that rule, therefore the rule isn't "apostolic".

If they quote from it 85% of the time in where it differs from the latter Hebrew then what in the world are you talking about? How can you ignore the 85%?







ICXC NIKA
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Melodist on August 12, 2010, 10:47:03 PM
The Septuagint was a universal Bible most everyone could read, so of course the disciples would quote from it often.

You said it.

Just to be sure...

Acts 13:5
And when they were at Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John to their minister.

Acts 13:14-15
But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down. And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.

Acts 14:1
And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed.

Acts 17:1-2
Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Acts 17:16-17
Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry. Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.

Acts 18:1,4
After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth; And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

The synagogue in Ephesus is mentioned multiple times between Chapters 18 and 19 in Acts.

These greek speaking synagogues would have used greek for their Scripture. Paul used their Scripture when at a synagogue.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: theistgal on August 12, 2010, 10:49:40 PM
Instead of another multi-page thread, how about you just tell us your point, Alfred? Why is it so important to you to discredit the OT used by the Orthodox?  What's in it that you dislike?
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Melodist on August 12, 2010, 10:54:31 PM
One more thing.

2Tim 3:15-17
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Paul told Timothy that the Scripture he read as a child were inspired of God.

Acts 16:1
Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:

Which would have been greek.

There you have it, proven from the NT, the LXX is divinely inspired.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Melodist on August 12, 2010, 10:58:29 PM
One more person who quoted from the LXX.

Deut 16:21 You shall not plant for yourself any grove or any tree near the altar of the Lord your God which you build for yourself.
Deut 16:22 You shall not set up a pillar the Lord your God hates.- Orthodox Study Bible.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 12, 2010, 11:55:26 PM
Instead of another multi-page thread, how about you just tell us your point, Alfred? Why is it so important to you to discredit the OT used by the Orthodox?  What's in it that you dislike?

I dislike untruth, declaring the Septuagint inspired, claiming its changes to the Hebrew "were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation" is not true.

Once one swallows that error, then all the apocrypha becomes scripture, and all the unscriptural ideas in them become dogma...and before you know it, your bowing down to icons believing that is what God would have you do.

That's what I dislike, how a little leaven leavens the whole lump.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 12, 2010, 11:56:06 PM
Btw, on the title: What changes?

The LXX text predates the Masoretic Text. Heck, the Vulgate text predates the Masoretic text. We have physical copies of the LXX in one codex that predate the eariest complete Masoretic scroll by over half a millenium. So how can the LXX change anything in the Masoretic text?

And rather than trying to twist texts, why don't you attack a more comprehensive issue, like the status of the Anagignoskomena?

Why not answer my argument instead of changing the subject.

Your argument had been refuted. Hence I moved on.

But since there's a commercial:

Exodus 33:1 καὶ ἰδὼν ὁ λαὸς ὅτι κεχρόνικεν μωυσῆς καταβῆναι ἐκ τοῦ ὄρους συνέστη ὁ λαὸς ἐπὶ ααρων καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ ἀνάστηθι καὶ ποίησον ἡμῖν θεούς οἳ προπορεύσονται ἡμῶν ὁ γὰρ μωυσῆς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὃς ἐξήγαγεν ἡμᾶς ἐξ αἰγύπτου οὐκ οἴδαμεν τί γέγονεν αὐτῷ
וַיַּרְא הָעָם כִּי־בֹשֵׁשׁ מֹשֶׁה לָרֶדֶת מִן־הָהָר וַיִּקָּהֵל הָעָם עַל־אַהֲרֹן וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו קוּם עֲשֵׂה־לָנוּ
אֱלֹהִים
 אֲשֶׁר
 יֵלְכוּ לְפָנֵינוּ כִּי־זֶה מֹשֶׁה הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלָנוּ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לֹא יָדַעְנוּ מֶה־הָיָה לֹו׃

"make us gods who will go before us" It is pluarl agreement in the Hebrew, so not plural of majesty, confomring to the LXX.

32:4
καὶ ἐδέξατο ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν αὐτῶν καὶ ἔπλασεν αὐτὰ ἐν τῇ γραφίδι καὶ ἐποίησεν αὐτὰ μόσχον χωνευτὸν καὶ εἶπεν οὗτοι οἱ θεοί σου ισραηλ οἵτινες ἀνεβίβασάν σε ἐκ γῆς αἰγύπτου
וַיִּקַּח מִיָּדָם וַיָּצַר אֹתֹו בַּחֶרֶט וַיַּעֲשֵׂהוּ עֵגֶל מַסֵּכָה וַיֹּאמְרוּ
 אֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר
הֶעֱלוּךָ
 מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם
"these are your gods O Israel who brought you out" It is plural agreement in the Hebrew, so not plural of majesty, conforming to the LXX.

32:8 repeats 32:4.

32:11 καὶ ἐδεήθη μωυσῆς ἔναντι κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ εἶπεν ἵνα τί κύριε θυμοῖ ὀργῇ εἰς τὸν λαόν σου οὓς ἐξήγαγες ἐκ γῆς αἰγύπτου ἐν ἰσχύι μεγάλῃ καὶ ἐν τῷ βραχίονί σου τῷ ὑψηλῷ
וַיְחַל מֹשֶׁה אֶת־פְּנֵי יְהוָה

אֱלֹהָיו
  בְּעַמֶּךָ אֲשֶׁר הֹוצֵאתָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בְּכֹחַ גָּדֹול וּבְיָד חֲזָקָה׃וַיֹּאמֶר לָמָה יְהוָה יֶחֱרֶה אַפְּךָ

"His God, and said "O Lord why does Your anger burn against Your people whom You have brought" It is singular agreement in Hebrew, conforming to the LXX, so plural of majesty, but the presence of "LORD" can by a stretch be said to determine agreement.

32:23 repeats the same as 32:4.

32:27 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς τάδε λέγει κύριος ὁ θεὸς ισραηλ θέσθε ἕκαστος τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ῥομφαίαν ἐπὶ τὸν μηρὸν καὶ διέλθατε καὶ ἀνακάμψατε ἀπὸ πύλης ἐπὶ πύλην διὰ τῆς παρεμβολῆς καὶ ἀποκτείνατε ἕκαστος τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἕκαστος τὸν πλησίον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἕκαστος τὸν ἔγγιστα αὐτοῦ
וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם כֹּה־
אָמַר
יְהוָה
 אֱלֹהֵי
ִישְׂרָאֵל
שִׂימוּ אִישׁ־חַרְבֹּו עַל־יְרֵכֹו עִבְרוּ וָשׁוּבוּ מִשַּׁעַר לָשַׁעַר בַּמַּחֲנֶה וְהִרְגוּ אִישׁ־אֶת־אָחִיו וְאִישׁ אֶת־רֵעֵהוּ וְאִישׁ אֶת־קְרֹבֹו׃

"says the LORD the God..." repeats the same 32:11

32:31 ὑπέστρεψεν δὲ μωυσῆς πρὸς κύριον καὶ εἶπεν δέομαι κύριε ἡμάρτηκεν ὁ λαὸς οὗτος ἁμαρτίαν μεγάλην καὶ ἐποίησαν ἑαυτοῖς θεοὺς χρυσοῦς
וַיָּשָׁב מֹשֶׁה אֶל־יְהוָה וַיֹּאמַר אָנָּא חָטָא הָעָם הַזֶּה חֲטָאָה גְדֹלָה וַיַּעֲשׂוּ לָהֶם
 אֱלֹהֵי זָהָב
"god of gold." It is plural agreement in the Hebrew, so not plural of majesty, conforming to the LXX

Before chapter 32, in 29:46 καὶ γνώσονται ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι κύριος ὁ θεὸς αὐτῶν ἐξαγαγὼν αὐτοὺς ἐκ γῆς αἰγύπτου ἐπικληθῆναι αὐτοῖς καὶ θεὸς εἶναι αὐτῶν
ls)
וְיָדְעוּ כִּי
 אֲנִי
 יְהוָה
 אֱלֹהֵיהֶם
 אֲשֶׁר
 הֹוצֵאתִי
 אֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם
 לְשָׁכְנִי
 בְתֹוכָם
 אֲנִי יְהוָה
אֱלֹהֵיהֶם׃

"I am the LORD their God who brought them out of Egypt that I may dwell among them I am the LORD their God. repeats the grammar of 32:11.

But in 34:14 οὐ γὰρ μὴ προσκυνήσητε θεῷ ἑτέρῳ ὁ γὰρ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ζηλωτὸν ὄνομα θεὸς ζηλωτής ἐστιν
כִּי לֹא תִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה
 לְאֵל אַחֵר
 כִּי יְהוָה קַנָּא שְׁמֹו
 אֵל קַנָּא הוּא׃
"another god, for the LORD is a jealous God." Singular throughout in the Hebrew, conforming to the LXX

And in 24:10 καὶ εἶδον τὸν τόπον οὗ εἱστήκει ἐκεῖ ὁ θεὸς τοῦ ισραηλ καὶ τὰ ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ ἔργον πλίνθου σαπφείρου καὶ ὥσπερ εἶδος στερεώματος τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τῇ καθαριότητι
וַיִּרְאוּ אֵת
 אֱלֹהֵי
 יִשְׂרָאֵל וְתַחַת
 רַגְלָיו
כְּמַעֲשֵׂה לִבְנַת הַסַּפִּיר וּכְעֶצֶם הַשָּׁמַיִם לָטֹהַר׃
"They saw (!) the God of Israel and under His feet..." It is singular agreement in Hebrew, conforming to the LXX, so plural of majesty

24:11 καὶ τῶν ἐπιλέκτων τοῦ ισραηλ οὐ διεφώνησεν οὐδὲ εἷς καὶ ὤφθησαν ἐν τῷ τόπῳ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἔφαγον καὶ ἔπιον
וְאֶל־אֲצִילֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא
 שָׁלַח יָדֹו
וַיֶּחֱזוּ אֶת־
הָאֱלֹהִים וַיֹּאכְלוּ וַיִּשְׁתּוּ׃
"He did not stretch His hand...and they saw God (!)." It is singular agreement in Hebrew, conforming to the LXX, so plural of majesty.

we could go through all of Exodus, but I'm not going to. It is enough here to show that the simple syntactical rule that the plural of majesty, taking singular agreement, conforms to all the singular "God" (or in 34:14, "god") in the LXX, where plural agreement means plurality of the noun, as in your "prooftext," Ex. 32:4.


Now, I know that doesn't fit your agenda, but it fits the grammar of Hebrew, the revelation of God, the teaching of the Apostles, and the Faith of the Church.

(http://betterwaytomakealiving.com/_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/square-peg-round-hole.jpg)
move away from the hammer.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 13, 2010, 12:02:57 AM

I agree the NT uses the Septuagint mostly, but there are occasions where the Hebrew was chosen against it. A few examples Mt 13:35; 22:24; 27:46; Rom 9:17; 11:35; 12:19; 1 Cor 3:19; 2 Cor 9:9.

That means the NT writers did not see its changes from the Hebrew as inspired.



I find it impossible to believe that God allowed the authors of the inspired New Testament to employ material from biblical sources which He did not inspire.


God allowed Paul to employ two pagan "poets", Epimenides the Cretan (c. 600 B.C.) "For in thee we live and move and have our being” and Phainomena  a Cilician Aratus (born 310 B.C.) about Zeus: "for we are truly his offspring.” 

 KJV  Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. (Act 17:28 KJV) 

So why would God stop Paul from using a good translation of the Hebrew scriptures, that most could read?
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 13, 2010, 12:05:55 AM

I focused on one text to make my point, lest we go all over the map on this and get no where.

Oh boy, here we go again  ;D



Quote
It is Orthodox position the LXX translation is inspired...I believe Exodus 32:4 proves it is not, if it were, "gods" would read "god".

We aren't the only ones to see it as Inspired. The Jews in the first century saw it as such as well as a good number of church fathers and earlychristian witnesses.

You should of looked at the New Testament quotes of the OT before starting this thread.


ICXC NIKA

The Septuagint was a universal Bible most everyone could read, so of course the disciples would quote from it often.

But it does not follow the translation is inspired so that wherever it changes the Hebrew, we must follow it.

I got other examples where the NT doesn't follow that rule, therefore the rule isn't "apostolic".

If they quote from it 85% of the time in where it differs from the latter Hebrew then what in the world are you talking about? How can you ignore the 85%?


ICXC NIKA

I talking about the rule "that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation."

The apostles didn't believe that, why should we?
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 13, 2010, 12:07:53 AM
If there is a discrepancy, then it just proves that the Masoretic Text is not inspired, because it does not match the Septuagint, which we already know to be the inspired Old Testament.

All Hebrew texts read the plural ELOHIYM, the Septuagint translates this either singular THEOS or plural THEOI, depending on whether they believed it meant "God" or "gods."
according to the Spirit guiding them.

Quote
The plural "gods" is used to refer to YHWH God in a plural of majesty. There are parallels

I thought you were sticking to one text?

Quote
to this: cp "crowns" Zec 9:11;

Zechariah? the word crown, singular or plural, doesn't appear in the entire chapter.

Quote
"Cattles" Job 40:14;

Ditto, though ox appears in 15.

Quote
Keys, Mt 16:19

Never in Hebrew.

Are you purporting to refer to the Masoretic Texts (in which the question of the plural of majesty is relevant) or the LXX (in which it is irrelevant)?

Quote
One must discern from the context who is meant, "God," or "gods."

I'll follow the Apostles and trust the translators of the LXX, over a revisionist two millenia too late, any day.

But the Hebrew texts can make it straightforward: if the agreement is singular, it is plural of majesty, if it is not (as in Ex. 32:4), it is not.

Quote
The context shows Aaron trying to turn the rebels back to YHWH God by incorporating their desire for an image, into true worship.

(http://betterwaytomakealiving.com/_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/square-peg-round-hole.jpg)
move away from the hammer.

Quote
If the Septuagint were inspired, it would read "God" singular.
God's editor, are we?

Definitely no self image problems here. ::)


Plural of majesty is a Hebrew phenomena, found only in the Hebrew versions.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: theistgal on August 13, 2010, 12:08:52 AM
Are there verses in the apocrypha that specifically support icon veneration?  Or is it Jude Maccabee's prayers for the dead you're upset about?
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Melodist on August 13, 2010, 12:19:12 AM
I talking about the rule "that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation."

The apostles didn't believe that, why should we?

Paul did, or at least that's what he told Timothy. He said "all scripture" and "from a child thou hast known", not "most of what you read minus a few books and some passages in some books and a few passages that I don't personally think weren't translated correctly".
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 13, 2010, 12:28:09 AM
Instead of another multi-page thread, how about you just tell us your point, Alfred? Why is it so important to you to discredit the OT used by the Orthodox?  What's in it that you dislike?

I dislike untruth,
(http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/jfa0273l.jpg)
Physician, heal thyself.

Quote
declaring the Septuagint inspired, claiming its changes to the Hebrew "were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation" is not true.
Remove not the ancient landmark which thy fathers have set. Prov. 22:28.

Ooops! Forgot. The Apostles and Fathers are not your Fathers.

Quote
Once one swallows that error, then all the apocrypha becomes scripture,

Sooo your disingenous accusations of changing the subject
Btw, on the title: What changes?
The LXX text predates the Masoretic Text. Heck, the Vulgate text predates the Masoretic text. We have physical copies of the LXX in one codex that predate the eariest complete Masoretic scroll by over half a millenium. So how can the LXX change anything in the Masoretic text?
And rather than trying to twist texts, why don't you attack a more comprehensive issue, like the status of the Anagignoskomena?
Why not answer my argument instead of changing the subject.
were not based on any rape of purity, but out of anger that I exposed your ulterior motives.

Btw, as witnessed by the Hebrew Church, the Spirit, Christ, His Apostles and His Church, the Anagignoskomena.

Quote
and all the unscriptural ideas in them become dogma

TRANSLATION: the Anagignoskomena/Deuterocanonicals further expose the heretical ideas that Perssonism tries to read into the scripture, so we must condemn them and remove them from the Bible.

Quote
...and before you know it, your bowing down to icons believing that is what God would have you do.

When the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld the icon of the invisible God, the Father said "let all the angels of God worship Him." John 1:14, Col. 1:15, Heb. 1:6

Quote
That's what I dislike, how a little leaven leavens the whole lump.
Then stop trying to sneak in the old leaven of the Pharisees, and taking out the Anagignoskomena of Christ's canon.

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book If any man shall add unto these things God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy God shall take away his part out of the book of life and out of the holy city and from the things which are written in this book. Rev.22:18-9.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 13, 2010, 12:37:11 AM
Plural of majesty is a Hebrew phenomena, found only in the Hebrew versions.
Yes, I know Hebrew. Do you? As shown in the post above
Btw, on the title: What changes?
The LXX text predates the Masoretic Text. Heck, the Vulgate text predates the Masoretic text. We have physical copies of the LXX in one codex that predate the eariest complete Masoretic scroll by over half a millenium. So how can the LXX change anything in the Masoretic text?
And rather than trying to twist texts, why don't you attack a more comprehensive issue, like the status of the Anagignoskomena?
Why not answer my argument instead of changing the subject.
Your argument had been refuted. Hence I moved on.
But since there's a commercial:

it seems not.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 13, 2010, 12:38:58 AM
Are there verses in the apocrypha that specifically support icon veneration?  Or is it Jude Maccabee's prayers for the dead you're upset about?
That the two are connected seems to be gnawing at him, though he tried to evade it in the other thread.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: LBK on August 13, 2010, 12:40:18 AM
Quote
Plural of majesty is a Hebrew phenomena, found only in the Hebrew versions.

Complete nonsense. Plural of majesty is found in a large number of languages, including ancient and modern forms of Greek. To say that it does not, or did not exist, in pre-modern forms of Greek is laughable. Even modern, vernacular Greek retains the formal plural.

Modern English is very much in a minority in that it has got rid of its formal plural, though it did exist in earlier forms of the language.

BTW, phenomena is the plural of phenomenon. With all the grand pronouncements about your great knowledge you've made here over a number of threads, grammatical sloppiness is not a good look. Coupled with your persistent evasion of answering simple questions, dodging the topics at hand, and comprehensively ignoring the wealth of scriptural, historical, liturgical and practical evidence brought against your mistaken assertions, it only serves to shred your credibility further among us here.

There are none so blind, as those who will not see.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 13, 2010, 12:43:22 AM

I agree the NT uses the Septuagint mostly, but there are occasions where the Hebrew was chosen against it. A few examples Mt 13:35; 22:24; 27:46; Rom 9:17; 11:35; 12:19; 1 Cor 3:19; 2 Cor 9:9.

That means the NT writers did not see its changes from the Hebrew as inspired.



I find it impossible to believe that God allowed the authors of the inspired New Testament to employ material from biblical sources which He did not inspire.


God allowed Paul to employ two pagan "poets", Epimenides the Cretan (c. 600 B.C.) "For in thee we live and move and have our being” and Phainomena  a Cilician Aratus (born 310 B.C.) about Zeus: "for we are truly his offspring.” 

 KJV  Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. (Act 17:28 KJV) 

So why would God stop Paul from using a good translation of the Hebrew scriptures, that most could read?

They had one, the LXX. And they read it.

How could they read the Masoretic text?  It wouldn't exist for nearly a millenium into the future.  And most didn't speak Hebrew in Palestine (hence the Targumim into Aramaic), and were Greek speaking in the Diaspora. Hence they couldn't read it even if they had it.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 13, 2010, 12:55:51 AM
I talking about the rule "that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation."

The apostles didn't believe that, why should we?

Paul did, or at least that's what he told Timothy. He said "all scripture" and "from a child thou hast known", not "most of what you read minus a few books and some passages in some books and a few passages that I don't personally think weren't translated correctly".

Yes, it seems that Mr. Persson is slipping, and betrayed the sola scriptura mantra "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness." It seems Persson qualifies that, translated it a la New World Translation "All scripture judged by one man over two thousand years after the fact as translated correctly i.e. in conformity to his views, is given by inspiration...."

Btw, Joseph Smith Jr. believed the same thing:
Quote
The Articles of Faith
of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God

Do you have your own Urim and Thurim to translate the Bible, Mr. Persson? I have to depend on Gensenius and Bauer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 13, 2010, 01:09:42 AM

I focused on one text to make my point, lest we go all over the map on this and get no where.

Oh boy, here we go again  ;D



Quote
It is Orthodox position the LXX translation is inspired...I believe Exodus 32:4 proves it is not, if it were, "gods" would read "god".

We aren't the only ones to see it as Inspired. The Jews in the first century saw it as such as well as a good number of church fathers and earlychristian witnesses.

You should of looked at the New Testament quotes of the OT before starting this thread.


ICXC NIKA

The Septuagint was a universal Bible most everyone could read, so of course the disciples would quote from it often.

But it does not follow the translation is inspired so that wherever it changes the Hebrew, we must follow it.

So St. Timothy was reading an uninspired Bible, or is St. Paul a liar?


Quote
I got other examples where the NT doesn't follow that rule, therefore the rule isn't "apostolic".

Are you still using this rule on what is "apostolic"?
Lets see you claim to be in apostolic sucession & yet say that someone (me) who finds an apostolic source as evidence of a veneration practice by apostolic Christians of the remains a martyred apsotolic Christian & that I trust these people as observing proper Christian burial rite as relying on unreliable hearsay?

The Church is Apostolic (ecclesia apostolica) inasmuch as all its members to the Last Day come to faith in Christ through the Word of the Apostles (John 17:20: πιστεύσοντες διὰ λόγου αὐτῶν εἰς ἐμέ) and cling to the Word of the Apostles (Acts 2:42: προσκαρτεροῦντες τῇ διδαχῇ τῶν ἀποστόλων), and this over against all departures from the truth of Scripture. Rom. 16:17: “Avoid them,” namely, those who “cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned.”
Pieper, F. (1999). Vol. 3: Christian Dogmatics (electronic ed.) (411). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.
1999? That's only 1900 years too late to be in contact with an Apostle to receive their teaching.

President Pieper also comes nearly 1800 years too late too.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/FranzAugustOttoPieper.jpg)

Like you, he was sent by no one sent by the Apostles, hence not sent by Christ, therefore not sent by God.

Odd that you should stand on him as an authority, as he was not only a confessional Lutheran, but one who held "quia subscription" to the Book of Concord, one of the examples of the tradition the Protestants supposedly don't have and don't follow. ::)
http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=10741
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessional_Lutheran#.22Quia.22_versus_.22Quatenus.22_subscription

Quia means he held, and required, the belief that the Book of Concord did not contradict Scripture, and because ("quia") of that, one must subcribe to its teachings.
Why Bible-Believing Lutherans Subscribe to the Book of Concord
http://www.wlsessays.net/node/385

I used to belong to the "Quatenus" Lutherans, who believe in the Book of Concord insofar as ("quatenus") it doesn't contradict scripture.  Taking that to its logical conclusion, I left Lutheranism for Orthodoxy, as did Jaroslav Pelikan, one of the BoC's translators (in addition to being a renowned Church historian).

Some of the Vatican's bishops subscribed to the Book of Concord's promulgation, and bishops of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland subcribe quia to the Book of Concord, but, besides the obvious problems of these "bishops" being installed outside the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, since the BoC contains the filioque, it obviously contradicts the scripture of Apostolic Tradition, as condemned by the Council of Constanitnople IV, and these bishops therefore fall under the same condemnation.  The EP comdemned the heart of the BoC, the Augsburg Confession, as heresy, and the Confession of Patriarch Dositheus, accepted at the Synod of Jerusalem condemned several articles that the Lutherans held in common with the Calvinists (and Perssonism, it seems) as heresy.

That being so, your authority claims that the Church is Apostolic (ecclesia apostolica) inasmuch as all its members to the Last Day come to faith in the filioque (explicitely taught by the BoC, and condemned accordingly by the Orthodox) as the Spirit proceeding from Christ, claiming that through the Word of the Apostles and clinging to the filioque as the Word of the Apostles  Since we reject the filioque (and other heresies in the BoC), your authority, President Pieper, tells you in your citation Rom. 16:17: “Avoid [us],” namely, those who “cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned" e.g. the filioque.

So how is your walking disorderly, and not in the Tradition received of the Apostles, Apostolic? Waking in the way of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes, Apostolic?
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: John Larocque on August 13, 2010, 01:17:11 AM
The LXX text predates the Masoretic Text. Heck, the Vulgate text predates the Masoretic text. We have physical copies of the LXX in one codex that predate the eariest complete Masoretic scroll by over half a millenium. So how can the LXX change anything in the Masoretic text?

Evangelicals threw a massive fit after the publication of the RSV OT. Part of the reason is that the translators "de-Christed" the Old Testament, but much of their fury was aimed at those who had challenged the divine authority of the Masoretic Text by littering the revision with passages attested by the Vulgate, LXX, the Syriac etc... Yet even translations such as the NIV couldn't help themselves in resorting to other ancient versions to correct perceived defects in the text. The ESV also (sometimes blindly) scrubbed clean many LXX readings in the RSV OT, even one reading attested to by the Apostle Paul.

Why do they hate the pre-MT texts so much? Is it a sin to use them?

Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Salpy on August 13, 2010, 01:25:23 AM
http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spindex.htm

Instances where the New Testament quotes from the Septuagint:

Enoch was not, because God translated him
Gen 5.24 quoted in Heb 11.5
To thy seed
Gn 12.7 quoted in Ga 3.16

Jacob ... worshipped, leaning on the top of his staff
Gen 47.31 quoted in Heb 11.21

Wouldest thou kill me, as thou killest the Egyptian yesterday?
Ex 2.14 quoted in Ac 7.27-28

My name might be published abroad in all the earth
Ex 9.16 quoted in Ro 9.17

A royal priesthood
Ex 19.6 quoted in 1 Pe 2.9

The Lord knoweth them that are his
Nu 16.5 quoted in 2 Tm 2.19

Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God
Dt 6.13 quoted in Mt 4.10 and Lk 4.8

Put away the wicked man from among yourselves
Dt 17.7 quoted in 1 Cor 5.13

Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree
Dt 21.23 quoted in Ga 3.13

Cursed is everyone who continueth not
Dt 27.26 quoted in Ga 3.10

Let all the angels of God worship him
Dt 32.43 quoted in He 1.6

Why did the Gentiles rage?
Ps 2.1-2 quoted in Ac 4.25-26

Their throat is an open sepulchre
Ps 5.9 quoted in Ro 3.13

Out of the mouth of babes
Ps 8.2 quoted in Mt 21.16

What is man, that thou art mindful of him?
Ps 8.4-6 quoted in He 2.6-8

Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness
Ps 10.7 quoted in Ro 3.14

They are together become unprofitable
Ps 14.1-3 quoted in Ro 3.10-12

Thou wilt not leave my soul unto Hades
Ps 16.8-11 quoted in Ac 2.25-28

Their sound went out into all the earth
Ps 19.4 quoted in Ro 10.18

I will declare thy name unto my brethren
Ps 22.22 quoted in He 2.12

Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not
Ps 40.6-8 quoted in He 10.5-6

That thou mightest be justified in thy words
Ps 51.4 quoted in Ro 3.4

They are together become unprofitable
Ps 53.1-3 quoted in Ro 3.10-12

Let their table be made a snare
Ps 69.22-23 quoted in Ro 11.9-10

He gave them bread out of heaven to eat
Ps 78.24 quoted in Jn 6.31

Today, if ye shall hear his voice
Ps 95.7-8 quoted in He 3.15 and He 4.7

Today, if ye shall hear his voice
Ps 95.7-11 quoted in He 3.7-11

And they all shall wax old as doth a garment
Ps 102.25-27 quoted in He 1.10-12

I believed, and therefore did I speak
Ps 116.10 quoted in 2 Cor 4.13

The Lord is my helper
Ps 118.6 quoted in He 13.6

The poison of asps in under their lips
Ps 140.3 quoted in Ro 3.13

For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth
Pr 3.11-12 quoted in He 12.5-6

God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble
Pr  3.34 quoted in James 4.6 and 1 Pe 5.5

And if the righteous is scarcely saved, 
where shall the ungodly and sinner appear
Pr 11.31 quoted in 1 Pe 4.18

If thine enemy hunger, feed him
Pr 25.21-22 quoted in Ro 12.20

Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, 
we should have been as Sodom
Is 1.9 quoted in Ro 9.29

By hearing ye shall hear, and in no wise understand
Is 6.9-10 quoted in Mt 13.14-15 and Mk 4.12

By hearing ye shall hear, and in no wise understand
Is 6.9-10 quoted in Ac 28.26-27

Lest they should see with their eyes ... and I should heal them
Is 6.9-10 quoted in John 12.40

Behold, the virgin shall be with child
Is 7.14 quoted in Mt. 1.23

I will put my trust in him
Is 8.17 quoted in He 2.13

It is the remnant that shall be saved
Is 10.22-23 quoted in Ro 9.27-28

On him shall the Gentiles hope
Is 11.10 quoted in Ro 15.12

When I shall take away their sins
Is 27.9 quoted in Ro 11.27

He that believeth on him shall not be put to shame
Is 28.16 quoted in Ro 9.33, 10.11 and 1 Pe 2.6

Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men
Is 29.13 quoted in Mt 15.8-9 and Mk 7.6-7

I will destroy the wisdom of the wise
Is 29.14 quoted in 1 Cor 1.19

All flesh shall see the salvation of God
Is 40.3-5 quoted in Lk 3.4-6

The voice of one crying in the wilderness
Is 40.3 quoted in Mt 3.3, Mk 1.3 and Jn 1.23

All flesh is as grass
Is 40.6-8 quoted in 1 Pt 1.24-25

Who hath known the mind of the Lord? 
Is 40.13 quoted in Ro 11.34 and 1 Cor 2.16

And in his name shall the Gentiles hope
Is 42.4 quoted in Mt 12.21

A people for God's own possession
Is 43.21 quoted in 1 Pe 2.9

To me every knee shall bow
Is 45.23 quoted in Ro 14.11

At an acceptable time I hearkened unto thee
Is 49.8 quoted in 2 Cor 6.2

For the name of God is blasphemed 
among the Gentiles because of you
Is 52.5 quoted in Ro 2.24

They shall see, to whom no tidings of him came
Is 52.15 quoted in Ro 15.21

Who has believed our report?
Is 53.1 quoted in Jn 12.38 and Ro 10.16

He was led as a sheep to the slaughter
Is 53.7-8 quoted in Ac 8.32-33

Neither was guile found in his mouth
Is 53.9 quoted in 1 Pt 2.22

Rejoice thou barren that bearest not
Is 54.1 quoted in Ga 4.27

The holy and sure blessings of David
Is 55.3 quoted in Ac 13.34

To set at liberty them that are bruised
Is 58.6 in Luke 4.18

He shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob
Is 59.20-21 quoted in Ro 11.26-27

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me
Is 61.1-2 quoted in Lk 4.18-19

I was found of them that sought me not
Is 65.1 quoted in Ro 10.20

A disobedient and gainsaying people
Is 65.2 quoted in Ro 10.21

Behold, the days come
Jer 31.31-34 quoted in He 8.8-12

I will put my laws on their heart
Jer 31.33-34 quoted in He 10.16-17

I will call that my people, which was not my people
Ho 2.23 quoted in Ro 9.25

I desire mercy, and not sacrifice
Ho 6.6 quoted in Mt 9.13 and 12.7

O death, where is thy sting?
Ho 13.14 quoted in 1 Cor 15.55

I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh
Jl 2.28-32 quoted in Ac 2.17-21

Ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch
Am 5.25-27 quoted in Ac 7.42-43

I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen
Am 9.11-12 quoted in Ac 15.16-17

For I work a work in your days,
which ye shall in no wise believe
Hab 1.5 quoted in Ac 13.41

But my righteous one shall live by faith
Hab 2.3-4 quoted in He 10.37-38




Instances where the New Testament quotes the Masoretic:

He that taketh the wise in their craftiness
Job 5.13 quoted in 1 Cor 3.19
Who hath first given to him
Job 41.11 quoted in Ro 11.35

A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence
Is 8.14 quoted in Ro 9.33 and 1 Pe 2.8

Out of Egypt did I call my son
Ho 11.1 quoted in Mt 2.15

They shall look on him whom they pierced
Zch 12.10 quoted in Jn 19.37

Behold, I send my messenger before thy face
Mal 3.1 quoted in Mt 11.10, Mk 1.2, and Lk 7.27

http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spindex.htm
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: LBK on August 13, 2010, 01:28:40 AM
Alfred, allow me to point out the following to you:

1. Have you missed the point that the Hebrew version of the OT produced by the Masoretes is a good 1000 years younger than the LXX, which even Jewish scholars who lived in the period contemporary to its translation into Greek, regarded as an authoritative and correct text? So where on earth do you get this incomprehensible notion that the LXX led to "changes" in the OT? It was the Masoretes who changed the OT to suit ther own ends, such as changing references which could lead people to realise that the OT prophecies were indeed linked to Jesus Christ. The incarnational prophecies in Isaiah are particularly significant.

2. What say you regarding the persistent referencing of the LXX, not the Masoretic, not just by the apostles, but of Christ Himself, in the New Testament?

3. Do you have any intention of confronting the wealth of evidence so many of us have supplied against you?
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 13, 2010, 01:43:18 AM

I agree the NT uses the Septuagint mostly, but there are occasions where the Hebrew was chosen against it. A few examples Mt 13:35; 22:24; 27:46; Rom 9:17; 11:35; 12:19; 1 Cor 3:19; 2 Cor 9:9.

That means the NT writers did not see its changes from the Hebrew as inspired.



I find it impossible to believe that God allowed the authors of the inspired New Testament to employ material from biblical sources which He did not inspire.


God allowed Paul to employ two pagan "poets", Epimenides the Cretan (c. 600 B.C.) "For in thee we live and move and have our being” and Phainomena  a Cilician Aratus (born 310 B.C.) about Zeus: "for we are truly his offspring.” 

 KJV  Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. (Act 17:28 KJV) 

So why would God stop Paul from using a good translation of the Hebrew scriptures, that most could read?

They had one, the LXX. And they read it.

How could they read the Masoretic text?  It wouldn't exist for nearly a millenium into the future.  And most didn't speak Hebrew in Palestine (hence the Targumim into Aramaic), and were Greek speaking in the Diaspora. Hence they couldn't read it even if they had it.

Hebrew is an ancient language, it existed prior to the Masoretic, there were other Hebrew texts available.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 13, 2010, 01:52:09 AM
http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spindex.htm

Instances where the New Testament quotes from the Septuagint:

You'd be interested in "Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, by Gleason L. Archer & G.C. Chirichigno (Moody Press, Chicago)

It analyzes the quotes in parallel columns, Categorizing them A-F.
Category A: Is where the Masoretic, LXX and NT all agree.
B: Where the NT follows the LXX
C: Where the NT follows the Masoretic against the LXX (that's where I was getting my examples)
D: Where the NT follows the LXX against the Masoretic
E:Where neither text is followed, and context ignored.
F: Allusions to OT texts.

It boils down to faith in God. But my faith is not a blind faith, its consistent with facts. I only point out the Orthodox claims for the LXX are impossible as the apostles themselves don't follow them. They clearly did not view the LXX text as the text, they go against it often enough to show they sometimes checked the Hebrew beneath the Greek.

But its certainly a valuable translation, and I do consider its readings when studying difficult texts, and often I find it explains what the Hebrew meant to the ancients. But I believe Christ 100%, and therefore as the LXX is a translation, Christ's words apply to the Hebrew...and that means the Massoretic has all Christ said it would have, every meaningful word, no matter how small...every idea God wants us to know, regardless how insignificant.

NKJ  Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.
 (Pro 25:2 NKJ)

Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: John Larocque on August 13, 2010, 01:58:04 AM
In defense of the Masoretic text, the text stabilized long before 1000AD, and the readings found in the Vulgate (which was based on the Hebrew texts of its day) more often than not side with the MT whenever there are textual conflicts with the LXX. So while the MT may be 1000 years old, the bulk of the readings go back centuries before that. I'm told most of the Peshitta books have a strong affinity to the MT.

Is the MT the best Hebrew text? Perhaps not. But it's a stable one. I would tend to take notice if a cluster of early witnesses (including "proto-Masoretic" ones like the Latin or Syriac) attest to defects in the text. I think it would be stupid to put out an Old Testament translation and not give these ancient witnesses some respect.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Salpy on August 13, 2010, 01:59:16 AM

I agree the NT uses the Septuagint mostly, but there are occasions where the Hebrew was chosen against it. A few examples Mt 13:35; 22:24; 27:46; Rom 9:17; 11:35; 12:19; 1 Cor 3:19; 2 Cor 9:9.

That means the NT writers did not see its changes from the Hebrew as inspired.


Actually, if you look at the website I just linked, most of the verses you cite above do not come directly from the Masoretic.  Either they are matches with the Septuagint, or they agree with both the Septuagint and Masoretic (the two texts were not always different,) or in a couple of instances the verse differs from both texts.

Click where it says "All quotations in New Testament Order."  You'll see that what you wrote above is not true.  Just a couple of those verses come from the Masoretic and disagree with the Septuagint.

http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spindex.htm

It's a great site.  If you click on the verse, it will give you the actual Septuagint version, Hebrew version, and the New Testament verse, so you can compare.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 13, 2010, 02:00:53 AM
In defense of the Masoretic text, the text stabilized long before 1000AD, and the readings found in the Vulgate (which was based on the Hebrew texts of its day) more often than not side with the MT whenever there are textual conflicts with the LXX. So while the MT may be 1000 years old, the bulk of the readings go back centuries before that. I'm told most of the Peshitta books have a strong affinity to the MT.

Is the MT the best Hebrew text? Perhaps not. But it's a stable one. I would tend to take notice if a cluster of early witnesses (including "proto-Masoretic" ones like the Latin or Syriac) attest to defects in the text. I think it would be stupid to put out an Old Testament translation and not give these ancient witnesses some respect.


Origen used various texts, Hebrew and Greek, and it appears the apostles did also. While I consider the MT the final word, the other versions often interpret that text better than modern scholarship today.

Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 13, 2010, 02:07:00 AM

I agree the NT uses the Septuagint mostly, but there are occasions where the Hebrew was chosen against it. A few examples Mt 13:35; 22:24; 27:46; Rom 9:17; 11:35; 12:19; 1 Cor 3:19; 2 Cor 9:9.

That means the NT writers did not see its changes from the Hebrew as inspired.


Actually, if you look at the website I just linked, most of the verses you cite above do not come directly from the Masoretic.  Either they are matches with the Septuagint, or they agree with both the Septuagint and Masoretic (the two texts were not always different,) or in a couple of instances the verse differs from both texts.

Click where it says "All quotations in New Testament Order."  You'll see that what you wrote above is not true.  Just a couple of those verses come from the Masoretic and disagree with the Septuagint.

http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spindex.htm

It's a great site.  If you click on the verse, it will give you the actual Septuagint version, Hebrew version, and the New Testament verse, so you can compare.

Thanks, I will  check it out. I know the MT was standardized, and Christ friendly readings obscured...but Christ's words have a text in mind, and it was Hebrew...and the only Hebrew Text these last few centuries was the MT.

Its impossible Christ is wrong...I have never found Him wrong about anything else, therefore its sound to believe Him on this also.

NKJ  Matthew 5:18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. (Mat 5:18 NKJ)

MIT  Matthew 5:18 For I assure you that until such time as heaven and earth pass off the scene, not one smallest letter or stroke of the pen will drop out of the law until every aspect is fulfilled.
 (Mat 5:18 MIT) -The Idiomatic Translation of the New Testament

A "jot" or "yod" is the name of the smallest Hebrew letter in the alphabet.
A tittle served to distinguish one letter from another.

So Christ is referring to a Hebrew version (of course not the Masoretic, but its parent or grand parent),  not Greek version. So I believe all that was in the ancient text found its way into the MT, every jot and tittle of it (having meaning) is there.


BUT I look forward to that Eastern Orthodox Bible" mentioned on your site, I trust they will have as a module in Bibleworks, which program, if you don't have, you are missing out.

http://www.bibleworks.com/
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: LBK on August 13, 2010, 02:34:00 AM
Quote
but Christ's words have a text in mind, and it was Hebrew...and the only Hebrew Text these last few centuries was the MT.

Its impossible Christ is wrong...I have never found Him wrong about anything else, therefore its sound to believe Him on this also.

Christ's primary language was Aramaic. It is beyond doubt He quoted from the Septuagint during His earthly life. Both the Gospels anf Jewish scholars who lived at the same time as He trod the earth.

You may, or may not be, aware that Greek was the lingua franca, the common language, of the Holy Land, both in the century or two before Christ (indeed, the very period where the Septuagint came into existence), as well as for at least several centuries beyond the time of Christ.

Let's not forget that the language in which the books and letters which became the New Testament (yes, Alfred, the very Gospels and Epistles, and even, the Book of Revelation, written by Apostle John the Evangelist on the Greek island of Patmos at the turn of the second century - 96AD, acording to Orthodox tradition) was Greek Then, as now, folks in that part of the world became naturally conversant with a variety of languages. A modern equivalent would be that of Central and Eastern Europeans, who, by sheer force of geography and political influence, became multilingual from childhood.

Is it not, therefore, quite feasible, that Jesus Christ was multilingual? That He knew Greek, as well as his native Aramaic, as well as the liturgical Hebrew of His kin? It is indeed an imprimatur to the authenticity of the Septuagint that Christ Himself quotes that very document. It is also damning to the Masoretic OT that certain crucial passages are utterly different in content to the LXX, such as the incarnational prophecies in Isaiah I referred to earlier.

Quote
So I believe all that was in the ancient text found its way into the MT, every jot and tittle of it (having meaning) is there.

Nope. Compare Isaiah ch 53 in the LXX and the MT. Especially v. 10.

Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Cymbyz on August 13, 2010, 02:34:46 AM
The Hebrew letter yod corresponds to the Greek letter iota (the Hebrew and Greek alphabets have a common origin).  A tittle, to the Greeks, might mean the iota subscript that marks the dative singular in many nouns, or either of the breath-marks placed before an initial vowel, or perhaps, even the ancient pitch-accent marks, which were already moot because Greek at that time was stress-accenting.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 13, 2010, 07:36:35 AM

In Exod 32:4 The LXX follows the Hebrew plural "gods (elohiym, theoi) which usually refers to the One true God in a "plural of majesty." If it were an inspired translation, it would have rendered it singular "God" (theos) because the context indicates that is the reference of the Hebrew.
Could you quote the LXX version and the alternative version, of the verse in question?

You missed my point.

Can't miss a missing target.

The lxx is translating the Hebrew plural for "gods" with the Greek plural for "gods", so in that sense is literal.

BUT the Hebrew uses the plural "gods" to also refer to the One true God, context alone determines which is meant.

No, syntax.  If you knew Hebrew, you would know that.

The plural is a "plural of majesty" when the Hebrew "gods" refers to "God."

The context of Exodus

no, only in the context of your agenda.

Quote
indicates "gods" is referring to the one true God, the image represented Him, not foreign deities:
Stay tuned, new arguments to follow, one of them based on Hosea 8:1ff

The word icon does appear in Hosea (13:2):
καὶ προσέθετο τοῦ ἁμαρτάνειν ἔτι καὶ ἐποίησαν ἑαυτοῖς χώνευμα ἐκ τοῦ ἀργυρίου αὐτῶν κατ' εἰκόνα εἰδώλων ἔργα τεκτόνων συντετελεσμένα αὐτοῖς αὐτοὶ λέγουσιν θύσατε ἀνθρώπους μόσχοι γὰρ ἐκλελοίπασιν
13:2 And now they have sinned increasingly, and have made for themselves a molten image of their silver, according to the iicon (Bretton "fashion) of idols, the work of artificers accomplished for them: they say, Sacrifice men, for the calves have come to an end

So you can't distinguish between the icon of idols and the icon of the one True God.

The calves in Exodus, 1 Kings and Hosea are images, but they are used to worship God as the Orthodox would an icon, God is their prototype, hence God's reaction to that use is definitely relevant to icons also having a prototype. They both cut a figure.

Is Perssonism akin to Serapis and the Apis cult?  
Notice how other gods and images are listed separately:
 7 Thou shalt have none other gods before me.
 8 Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:
 9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, (Deu 5:7-9 KJV)

So this is OK?
(http://www.bibleorigins.net/MnevisBullPharaoh.jpg)
because it's not another god, just a beast on the earth.

The Church wrote in her book, the Bible that God created man in His image and likeness, and that He emptied Himself and took the likeness of man. This god who serves as your prototype for calves in Exodus, I Kings (actually III Kingdoms) and Hosea must have made the bovine in his image and likeness, and taken the likeness of a calf, and is true god and true bull.

Or rather false god and true bull.  

There is a calf in the icon of the Nativity, but that's not Christ Our God. The calf is worshipping Him.
(http://orthodoxincense.com/images/Icons/NativityIcon20th.jpg)
Full answer on the more appropriate thread on this link:
You seem intent on repeating Nestorius' mistakes.
That wasn't an answer, and its iconographers who accomplish two heresies, with one icon.
As they image because of the incarnation of Christ, they are tearing the humanity of Christ, from His deity = Nesotorian.
As they image the Person of Christ, with one image, they confuse the natures in one icon = Monophysite.
Yes, you have chanted that mantra before.  But none of us have converted to Hinduism in the meantime, so we won't be worshipping your sacred cow, even if you put it in Bethel or Dan.  Rather, we'll be serving up the sacred beef filled theological arguments of St. John and Christ's Church.


  They had rebelled against both Moses and God, dismissing the miraculous events that occurred when God brought them out of Egypt, attributing it to Moses and saying "he is gone." They wanted new gods to lead them:

and they got them.

NKJ  Exodus 32:1 Now when the people saw that Moses delayed coming down from the mountain, the people gathered together to Aaron, and said to him, "Come, make us gods that shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him." (Exo 32:1 NKJ)

Aaron believes he can turn them back to God by accommodating their need for something visible:

We don't need your apocrypha corrupting the text.

2 And Aaron said to them, "Break off the golden earrings which are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me." (Exo 32:2 NKJ)

He makes an image so they can worship the True God via the image:

 4 And he received the gold from their hand, and he fashioned it with an engraving tool, and made a molded calf. Then they said, "This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt!"
 5 So when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it. And Aaron made a proclamation and said, "Tomorrow is a feast to the LORD."
 6 Then they rose early on the next day, offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
 (Exo 32:4-6 NKJ)

The Masoretic text agrees with the LXX, saying "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought (pl.) you..."

That it doesn't agree with your agenda is your problem.

No doubt Aaron thought he did good, stopped the rebellion, and restored both Moses and God to authority.

Just can't put that hammer down, can you?
(http://betterwaytomakealiving.com/_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/square-peg-round-hole.jpg)
move away from the hammer.

God called what He did corruption, they defiled their worship with an image:

 7 And the LORD said to Moses, "Go, get down! For your people whom you brought out of the land of Egypt have corrupted themselves.
 8 "They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them. They have made themselves a molded calf, and worshiped it and sacrificed to it, and said,`This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt!'"
 (Exo 32:7-8 NKJ)

Your translation again corrupts the text.

So the Hebrew and Greek lxx read the same, but shouldn't.


I'll go with the Alpha and the Omega, and not the Title and the Jot, on how scripture should read.

If it was inspired the lxx should read as the NKJ translates,

And what is Perssonism's basis for holdong the NKJ as inspired?

rendering "gods" as "god" so readers would have a clearer sense of what is happening.

That would fit your agenda better, but not Hebrew grammar.

As the lxx translates the plural "gods" as "God" elsewhere when it refers to God, it should have done so here.

Here we have the danger of a translator who doesn't speak the language.

For sake of argument, let's say that the original text matched neither the LXX nor the Masoretic text, but the NKJ (which is based on the Masoretic Text and LXX), and that it was plural of majesty with singular agreement.

The Spirit then inspired the change (which in the actual texts we have is the original) to the plural, voiding the plural of majesty, and making the reference clearly polytheistic (much like the inspired translation makes clear that Isaiah said "the Vigin," and not just "a young woman").

That would undo your agenda, but uphold Orthodox theology.  But then, God is interested in upholding Orthodox theology, and not the agenda of Perssonism.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 13, 2010, 08:30:10 AM
‘The Orthodox Church has the same New Testament as the rest of Christendom. As its authoritative text for the Old Testament it uses the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint. Where this differs from the Hebrew text (which happens quite often), Orthodox believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation.’-Ware, Kallistos (Timothy): The Orthodox Church, p.208; Penguin 1963,

If the changes in the Septuagint are inspired and are to be accepted as God's continuing revelation, how is it Matthew and Paul follow the Hebrew and not the changes in the Greek Septuagint?

Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Mt. 23:24.

85%+ of the NT uses the LXX, when the readings differ.  With odds like that, your problem is explaining why we should accept the Hebrew as inspired.

In Matthew, the tradition of the Church, besides naming the Apostle Matthew the Evangelist Matthew (whose Gospel leaves its author anonymous and unattributed), attests that he wrote his Gospel first in Hebrew/Aramaic and then rendered it in Greek (my working theory is that he compiled a logia type Gospel in Aramaic, and then rendered it into narrative on the model of St. Mark's Gospel).

Quote
Examples where the NT preferred the MT over the LXX:

"Raise you up" in Ro 9:17 certainly closer to MT "raised you up" than LXX's "thou been preserved."

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up(exegeira se, 1825), (Rom 9:17 NKJ)

 "But indeed for this purpose I have raised you up (he'amadtiykaa, 5975) (, (Exo 9:16 NKJ)

And for this purpose hast thou been preserved (dieterethes), (Exo 9:16 LXE)

##

Matthew uses "Brother in law", a technical term (cf Delitzsch Hebrew NT), not "her husband's brother"

Most brothers of a husband are her brother in law. Actually, all of them.

Quote
asking, "Teacher, Moses said, 'IF A MAN DIES HAVING NO CHILDREN, HIS BROTHER AS NEXT OF KIN (epigambreusei, 1918) SHALL MARRY HIS WIFE, AND RAISE UP CHILDREN FOR HIS BROTHER.'
 (Mat 22:24 NAU)

 "When brothers live on the same property and one of them dies without a son, the wife of the dead man may not marry a stranger outside the family. Her brother-in-law(yabaamaah, 2993) is to take her as his wife, have sexual relations with her, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law for her.
 (Deu 25:5 CSB)

And if brethren should live together, and one of them should die, and should not have seed, the wife of the deceased shall not marry out of the family to a man not related: her husband's brother(ho adelphos tou andros autes) shall go in to her, and shall take her to himself for a wife, and shall dwell with her.
 (Deu 25:5 LXE)

In Greek there is no "technical [read:"legal"] term." There is no need: the Greeks didn't observe Leverite Marriage, and the Church forbids it.

So here, definitely a distinction without a difference. I Timothy 6:20. II Timothy 2:16.

I Timothy 6:3If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; 4He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, 5Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. II Timothy 2:14 14Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. 15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

Quote
"Vegence is mine, I will repay" is literally correct for Deu 32:35; LXX  "in the day of vengeance I will repay,"

NKJ  Romans 12:19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. (Rom 12:19 NKJ)

NKJ  Deuteronomy 32:35 Vengeance is Mine, and recompense; Their foot shall slip in due time; For the day of their calamity is at hand, And the things to come hasten upon them.'
 (Deu 32:35 NKJ)

LXE  Deuteronomy 32:35 In the day of vengeance(en hemera ekdikeseos) I will recompense, whensoever their foot shall be tripped up; for the day of their destruction is near to them, and the judgments at hand are close upon you. (Deu 32:35 LXE)


##

Paul correctly translates the Hebrew ba'aaramaam chakaamiym Lokeed (6193 2450 3920) as drassomenos en tee panourgia auton, not following the Septuagint's katalambanon en te phronesei.:

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their own craftiness"; (1Co 3:19 NKJ)

He catches the wise in their own craftiness, And the counsel of the cunning comes quickly upon them. (Job 5:13 NKJ)

 Job 5:13 who takes the wise in their wisdom, and subverts the counsel of the crafty (Job 5:13 LXE)

I'll defer to your knowledge of the crafty.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 13, 2010, 08:40:48 AM
Your basic presupposition is that the MT is correct because it's written in Hebrew. Is this accurate?

No, my basic premise is Christ and His apostles are correct. They used the Septuagint, they used the Hebrew, they used Aramaic versions. To say a translation is inspired and its changes are the "new deal" cannot be correct, the NT doesn't follow that rule.

Not one jot or tittle having meaning is lost, it does not follow men haven't added to the scripture:

NKJ  Matthew 5:18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. (Mat 5:18 NKJ)

That Christ is referring to jot and tittle that have meaning is deducible from "till all is fulfilled."

Therefore in the Masoretic

You just betrayed your agenda Hebrew=Masoretic Text=original and authritative.

Christ, His Apostles, the NT do not quote the Masoretic Text, as it didn't exist. If fact, they don't quote anything in Hebrew at all (though some Aramaic is quoted).


Quote
is every jot and tittle that will be fulfilled, that Christ said would not pass away.

It may be the mss has been revised to adopt less friendly readings to Christians than otherwise existed, but that didn't lose their meaning, the truth of God is still there.

So the rabbis corrupting the text against Christ doesn't bother you.

Quote
Christ is never wrong, He is my LORD.

Well you go on walking disorderly,and not in the Tradition of His Apostles, but in that of the Pharisees, Sadduccees and Scribes. We will stick to the straight and narrow path the Apostles have laid, and stand firm on that.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 13, 2010, 08:46:56 AM

I agree the NT uses the Septuagint mostly, but there are occasions where the Hebrew was chosen against it. A few examples Mt 13:35; 22:24; 27:46; Rom 9:17; 11:35; 12:19; 1 Cor 3:19; 2 Cor 9:9.

That means the NT writers did not see its changes from the Hebrew as inspired.



I find it impossible to believe that God allowed the authors of the inspired New Testament to employ material from biblical sources which He did not inspire.


God allowed Paul to employ two pagan "poets", Epimenides the Cretan (c. 600 B.C.) "For in thee we live and move and have our being” and Phainomena  a Cilician Aratus (born 310 B.C.) about Zeus: "for we are truly his offspring.” 

 KJV  Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. (Act 17:28 KJV) 

So why would God stop Paul from using a good translation of the Hebrew scriptures, that most could read?

They had one, the LXX. And they read it.

How could they read the Masoretic text?  It wouldn't exist for nearly a millenium into the future.  And most didn't speak Hebrew in Palestine (hence the Targumim into Aramaic), and were Greek speaking in the Diaspora. Hence they couldn't read it even if they had it.

Hebrew is an ancient language,

So is Ancient Egyptian, and Greek for that matter.  Your point?

Quote
it existed prior to the Masoretic, there were other Hebrew texts available.
but not to you.  You make enough mischief with the texts we have, Lord only knows what you would do with ones you make up.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 13, 2010, 08:53:04 AM
In defense of the Masoretic text, the text stabilized long before 1000AD, and the readings found in the Vulgate (which was based on the Hebrew texts of its day) more often than not side with the MT whenever there are textual conflicts with the LXX. So while the MT may be 1000 years old, the bulk of the readings go back centuries before that. I'm told most of the Peshitta books have a strong affinity to the MT.

Is the MT the best Hebrew text? Perhaps not. But it's a stable one. I would tend to take notice if a cluster of early witnesses (including "proto-Masoretic" ones like the Latin or Syriac) attest to defects in the text. I think it would be stupid to put out an Old Testament translation and not give these ancient witnesses some respect.


Origen used various texts, Hebrew and Greek, and it appears the apostles did also. While I consider the MT the final word,

On what autority?

Interesting how you refuse to consider the Definition of the Fathers of the Church of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which predates the MT of the rabbis of Judaism by a century, as "the final word."

Quote
the other versions often interpret that text better than modern scholarship today.
How do you know?
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 13, 2010, 09:01:24 AM

I agree the NT uses the Septuagint mostly, but there are occasions where the Hebrew was chosen against it. A few examples Mt 13:35; 22:24; 27:46; Rom 9:17; 11:35; 12:19; 1 Cor 3:19; 2 Cor 9:9.

That means the NT writers did not see its changes from the Hebrew as inspired.


Actually, if you look at the website I just linked, most of the verses you cite above do not come directly from the Masoretic.  Either they are matches with the Septuagint, or they agree with both the Septuagint and Masoretic (the two texts were not always different,) or in a couple of instances the verse differs from both texts.

Click where it says "All quotations in New Testament Order."  You'll see that what you wrote above is not true.  Just a couple of those verses come from the Masoretic and disagree with the Septuagint.

http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spindex.htm

It's a great site.  If you click on the verse, it will give you the actual Septuagint version, Hebrew version, and the New Testament verse, so you can compare.

Thanks, I will  check it out. I know the MT was standardized, and Christ friendly readings obscured...but Christ's words have a text in mind, and it was Hebrew

Then why does he quote the Aramaic?

Quote
...and the only Hebrew Text these last few centuries was the MT.

then you are out of luck.


Quote
Its impossible Christ is wrong...

Christ isn't standing trial before your fellow rabbis anymore.

Quote
I have never found Him wrong about anything else, therefore its sound to believe Him on this also.

Those who refuse to look at the icon, look in the mirror instead.


Quote
NKJ  Matthew 5:18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. (Mat 5:18 NKJ)

MIT  Matthew 5:18 For I assure you that until such time as heaven and earth pass off the scene, not one smallest letter or stroke of the pen will drop out of the law until every aspect is fulfilled.
 (Mat 5:18 MIT) -The Idiomatic Translation of the New Testament

A "jot" or "yod" is the name of the smallest Hebrew letter in the alphabet.
A tittle served to distinguish one letter from another.

So Christ is referring to a Hebrew

No, Aramaic.

Quote
version (of course not the Masoretic, but its parent or grand parent),

Sooo, you are admitting that your hypothetical Hebrew text has passed away.

Quote
 not Greek version. So I believe all that was in the ancient text found its way into the MT, every jot and tittle of it (having meaning) is there.

And the authority of your belief?  Because it is not Christ, His Apostles or His Church.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Nigula Qian Zishi on August 13, 2010, 10:32:41 AM
The Jews did not have a set canon that all Jews everywhere accepted at the time of Christ. The Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Samaritans, etc. believed in less books than most of the other Jews, so when Jesus was instructing those who used only the Pentateuch, or a lesser canon, he used the version of the Bible they used, but the rest of the time, fully 2/3 of the time, he used the Septuagint. (A great example to follow, reaching Christ from sources the potential convert already believes in and not using what he/she does not believe in) Since Jesus teaches from the Septuagint, anyone who does not believe the Septuagint is inspired, blessed, and truly the Bible, does not believe in the teachings of Jesus the Christ!
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 13, 2010, 01:01:36 PM
In defense of the Masoretic text, the text stabilized long before 1000AD, and the readings found in the Vulgate (which was based on the Hebrew texts of its day) more often than not side with the MT whenever there are textual conflicts with the LXX. So while the MT may be 1000 years old, the bulk of the readings go back centuries before that. I'm told most of the Peshitta books have a strong affinity to the MT.

Is the MT the best Hebrew text? Perhaps not. But it's a stable one. I would tend to take notice if a cluster of early witnesses (including "proto-Masoretic" ones like the Latin or Syriac) attest to defects in the text. I think it would be stupid to put out an Old Testament translation and not give these ancient witnesses some respect.


Evidently you investigated this question. So did I, after being thoroughly confused by all the equal possibilities, I defaulted to faith in Christ and His apostles. Paul said God entrusted the Jews with His oracles:

KJV  Romans 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
 3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
 4 God forbid
 (Rom 3:1-4 KJV)

Its always possible what Christ said applied only to the Law, but I choose to believe it applies to all scripture unless proven different:

 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Mat 5:18 KJV)

There is nothing worse than doubts about God's word, for one's faith. Hence that is the first tactic Satan employed:

CJB  Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any wild animal which ADONAI, God, had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You are not to eat from any tree in the garden'?" (Gen 3:1 CJB)


If wrong, I'll repent on Judgment day, but I suspect defaulting to faith in Christ and His apostles will be praised, not punished, in the Day when the secrets of the heart are made manifest.

 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel. (Rom 2:16 NKJ)
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 13, 2010, 01:36:30 PM
In defense of the Masoretic text, the text stabilized long before 1000AD, and the readings found in the Vulgate (which was based on the Hebrew texts of its day) more often than not side with the MT whenever there are textual conflicts with the LXX. So while the MT may be 1000 years old, the bulk of the readings go back centuries before that. I'm told most of the Peshitta books have a strong affinity to the MT.

Is the MT the best Hebrew text? Perhaps not. But it's a stable one. I would tend to take notice if a cluster of early witnesses (including "proto-Masoretic" ones like the Latin or Syriac) attest to defects in the text. I think it would be stupid to put out an Old Testament translation and not give these ancient witnesses some respect.


Evidently you investigated this question. So did I, after being thoroughly confused by all the possibilities, I defaulted to faith in Christ and His apostles. Paul said God entrusted the Jews with His oracles:
If you really defaulted to faith in Christ and His Apostles, you would have joined the Church Jesus Christ founded and His Apostles established.

Its always possible what Christ said applied only to the Law, but I choose to believe it applies to all scripture unless proven different:
That's nice. ::)  Who cares what you believe?  It's not truth just because you believe it is, and you already shot down our reason to believe you an authority on matters of Christian doctrine with your logical fallacies on both this and the icons thread.

There is nothing worse than doubts about God's word, for one's faith. Hence that is the first tactic Satan employed:
God's Word is Jesus Christ, not the Scriptures; the Scriptures are merely the verbal icon of Christ the Word.  Even if we were to agree that the Scriptures are the words of God, we harbor no doubts about these words.  The only thing we doubt here is what YOU present to be God's word.

If wrong, I'll repent on Judgment day, but I suspect defaulting to faith in Christ and His apostles will be praised, not punished, in the Day when the secrets of the heart are made manifest.
That is, if you're really defaulting to faith in Christ and His Apostles.  If it ends up that you've been resisting faith in Christ and His Apostles all these years and in all these arguments, then what will you have to say for yourself on Judgment Day when the secrets of the heart are made manifest?
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 13, 2010, 01:42:04 PM
In defense of the Masoretic text, the text stabilized long before 1000AD, and the readings found in the Vulgate (which was based on the Hebrew texts of its day) more often than not side with the MT whenever there are textual conflicts with the LXX. So while the MT may be 1000 years old, the bulk of the readings go back centuries before that. I'm told most of the Peshitta books have a strong affinity to the MT.

Is the MT the best Hebrew text? Perhaps not. But it's a stable one. I would tend to take notice if a cluster of early witnesses (including "proto-Masoretic" ones like the Latin or Syriac) attest to defects in the text. I think it would be stupid to put out an Old Testament translation and not give these ancient witnesses some respect.


Evidently you investigated this question. So did I, after being thoroughly confused by all the possibilities, I defaulted to faith in Christ and His apostles. Paul said God entrusted the Jews with His oracles:
If you really defaulted to faith in Christ and His Apostles, you would have joined the Church Jesus Christ founded and His Apostles established.

Its always possible what Christ said applied only to the Law, but I choose to believe it applies to all scripture unless proven different:
That's nice. ::)  Who cares what you believe?  It's not truth just because you believe it is, and you already shot down our reason to believe you an authority on matters of Christian doctrine with your logical fallacies on both this and the icons thread.

There is nothing worse than doubts about God's word, for one's faith. Hence that is the first tactic Satan employed:
God's Word is Jesus Christ, not the Scriptures; the Scriptures are merely the verbal icon of Christ the Word.  Even if we were to agree that the Scriptures are the words of God, we harbor no doubts about these words.  The only thing we doubt here is what YOU present to be God's word.

If wrong, I'll repent on Judgment day, but I suspect defaulting to faith in Christ and His apostles will be praised, not punished, in the Day when the secrets of the heart are made manifest.
That is, if you're really defaulting to faith in Christ and His Apostles.  If it ends up that you've been resisting faith in Christ and His Apostles all these years and in all these arguments, then what will you have to say for yourself on Judgment Day when the secrets of the heart are made manifest?

You call that tirade "apologetic?"

I love it, consider it all joy, thanks.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 13, 2010, 01:45:08 PM
In defense of the Masoretic text, the text stabilized long before 1000AD, and the readings found in the Vulgate (which was based on the Hebrew texts of its day) more often than not side with the MT whenever there are textual conflicts with the LXX. So while the MT may be 1000 years old, the bulk of the readings go back centuries before that. I'm told most of the Peshitta books have a strong affinity to the MT.

Is the MT the best Hebrew text? Perhaps not. But it's a stable one. I would tend to take notice if a cluster of early witnesses (including "proto-Masoretic" ones like the Latin or Syriac) attest to defects in the text. I think it would be stupid to put out an Old Testament translation and not give these ancient witnesses some respect.


Evidently you investigated this question. So did I, after being thoroughly confused by all the possibilities, I defaulted to faith in Christ and His apostles. Paul said God entrusted the Jews with His oracles:
If you really defaulted to faith in Christ and His Apostles, you would have joined the Church Jesus Christ founded and His Apostles established.

Its always possible what Christ said applied only to the Law, but I choose to believe it applies to all scripture unless proven different:
That's nice. ::)  Who cares what you believe?  It's not truth just because you believe it is, and you already shot down our reason to believe you an authority on matters of Christian doctrine with your logical fallacies on both this and the icons thread.

There is nothing worse than doubts about God's word, for one's faith. Hence that is the first tactic Satan employed:
God's Word is Jesus Christ, not the Scriptures; the Scriptures are merely the verbal icon of Christ the Word.  Even if we were to agree that the Scriptures are the words of God, we harbor no doubts about these words.  The only thing we doubt here is what YOU present to be God's word.

If wrong, I'll repent on Judgment day, but I suspect defaulting to faith in Christ and His apostles will be praised, not punished, in the Day when the secrets of the heart are made manifest.
That is, if you're really defaulting to faith in Christ and His Apostles.  If it ends up that you've been resisting faith in Christ and His Apostles all these years and in all these arguments, then what will you have to say for yourself on Judgment Day when the secrets of the heart are made manifest?

You call that tirade "apologetic?"
No, I don't.  I call it "polemic."

I love it, consider it all joy, thanks.
You must really have a warped sense of persecution if you think of this as persecution.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 13, 2010, 02:00:12 PM
St. Augustine of Hippo was one of those who criticized Jerome’s decision to make his translation into Latin out of the Hebrew.  He was concerned about two issues:  (1) that the new Latin translation would lead to divergences with the Greek-speaking part of the Church, and (2) that the translation would not be authoritative since Jerome’s skill in the interpretation of Hebrew would be questioned, and validated only with great difficulty.
 

For my part, I would much rather that you would furnish us with a translation of the Greek version of the canonical Scriptures known as the work of the Seventy translators. For if your translation begins to be more generally read in many churches, it will be a grievous thing that, in the reading of Scripture, differences must arise between the Latin Churches and the Greek Churches, especially seeing that the discrepancy is easily condemned in a Latin version by the production of the original in Greek, which is a language very widely known; whereas, if any one has been disturbed by the occurrence of something to which he was not accustomed in the translation taken from the Hebrew, and alleges that the new translation is wrong, it will be found difficult, if not impossible, to get at the Hebrew documents by which the version to which exception is taken may be defended.  And when they are obtained, who will submit, to have so many Latin and Greek authorities: pronounced to be in the wrong?  Besides all this, Jews, if consulted as to the meaning of the Hebrew text, may give a different opinion from yours:  in which case it will seem as if your presence were indispensable, as being the only one who could refute their view; and it would be a miracle if one could be found capable of acting as arbiter between you and them.  [From Augustine of Hippo’s, Letter LXXI, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Volume 1.]

It would perhaps be an interesting study to determine the extent to which using different Old Testament texts has contributed to the separation between East and West through the centuries.  Clearly, Augustine’s own reliance on a poor Latin translation of the book of Romans led him into erroneous conclusions regarding original sin. 

Augustine went on to state his desire that Jerome would provide a fresh translation of the Old Testament into Latin from the Septuagint, since it “has no mean authority, seeing that it has obtained so wide circulation, and was the one which the apostles used, as is ... proved by looking to the text itself.”  In that statement, I think, it is clear that Augustine was correct.  Yet Jerome was of a contrary opinion, stating “Wherever the Seventy agree with the Hebrew, the apostles took their quotations from that translation; but, where they disagree, they set down in Greek what they had found in the Hebrew.  [Jerome’s Apology, Book II.]”  But that claim is manifestly false - unless Jerome’s Hebrew text was radically different from what we possess today.
http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spindex.htm
i.e. the MT.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on August 13, 2010, 02:10:43 PM
Hey everybody, professors have told me that there is no "Septuagint" in and of itself. There is the translation of the Torah in Alexandria by the seventy, but aren't there numerous other Greek translations in circulation for the rest of the Old Testament canon?

So if we are arguing about the Septuagint being all-divine and inspired, then which Septuagint?  :o

Also, why is everyone in this thread imagining the Bible in the way that the Muslims view the Qur'an? Is there some authoritative version of the text, free from all error and discrepancy that plopped out of the heavens? If Christians talk about perfect things plopping out of the heavens, then I suppose we could only say that about Christ Himself...

The Bible is a part of human history and was made by humans under divine inspiration. If the Greek translations have errors, why would anyone assume that the Hebrew also did not? These people weren't going into ecstatic trances when they wrote this stuff. Many of the text were likely edited over long periods of time before a final product was settled on. Did the text become "divine and unalterable" only at the point that they were officially promulgated by the Temple authority structure?
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 13, 2010, 03:21:41 PM
In defense of the Masoretic text, the text stabilized long before 1000AD, and the readings found in the Vulgate (which was based on the Hebrew texts of its day) more often than not side with the MT whenever there are textual conflicts with the LXX. So while the MT may be 1000 years old, the bulk of the readings go back centuries before that. I'm told most of the Peshitta books have a strong affinity to the MT.

Is the MT the best Hebrew text? Perhaps not. But it's a stable one. I would tend to take notice if a cluster of early witnesses (including "proto-Masoretic" ones like the Latin or Syriac) attest to defects in the text. I think it would be stupid to put out an Old Testament translation and not give these ancient witnesses some respect.


Evidently you investigated this question. So did I, after being thoroughly confused by all the equal possibilities, I defaulted to faith in Christ and His apostles.

Then you would have accepted their Bible, the LXX.

Paul said God entrusted the Jews with His oracles:

KJV  Romans 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
 3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
 4 God forbid
 (Rom 3:1-4 KJV)
and the Hebrews translated the LXX.

As for the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scirbes, in whose way (Halakhah), the Protestants walk, Paul says:
Quote
Rom.9:6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. 9For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. 10And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; 11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) 12It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. 14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
25As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.  26And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. 27Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: 28For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth. 29And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha. 30What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. 31But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. 32Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; 33As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed

10:11Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. 2For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. 3For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. 5For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. 6But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:) 7Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) 8But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. 18But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. 19But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you. 20But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. 21But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

11:1I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, 3Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. 4But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. 5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. 7What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded 8(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. 9And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: 10Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway. 11I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. 12Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? 13For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: 14If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. 15For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? 16For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. 17And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; 18Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 19Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. 20Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. 22Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. 23And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. 24For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree? 25For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. 26And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. 28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. 29For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. 30For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: 31Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. 33O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! 34For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counseller? 35Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? 36For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen[/size]

Its always possible what Christ said applied only to the Law, but I choose to believe

Quote
John 6:52The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. 59These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. 60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 67Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. 70Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve?
15:1“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunesa so that it will be even more fruitful. 3You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. 5“I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. 8This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.
15Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. 18“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’b If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me. 22If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin. 23He who hates me hates my Father as well. 24If I had not done among them what no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen these miracles, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. 25 But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.'  26“When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me. 27And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.

it applies to all scripture unless proven different:
 TITTLE MANTRA
You already admitted that it passed away
I know the MT was standardized, and Christ friendly readings obscured...but Christ's words have a text in mind, and it was Hebrew and the only Hebrew Text these last few centuries was the MT.
So Christ is referring to a Hebrew version (of course not the Masoretic, but its parent or grand parent),
And it has already been proven different:
The Hebrew letter yod corresponds to the Greek letter iota (the Hebrew and Greek alphabets have a common origin).  A tittle, to the Greeks, might mean the iota subscript that marks the dative singular in many nouns, or either of the breath-marks placed before an initial vowel, or perhaps, even the ancient pitch-accent marks, which were already moot because Greek at that time was stress-accenting.

There is nothing worse than doubts about God's word,

Any yet you do:
Instead of another multi-page thread, how about you just tell us your point, Alfred? Why is it so important to you to discredit the OT used by the Orthodox?  What's in it that you dislike?
I dislike untruth, declaring the Septuagint inspired, claiming its changes to the Hebrew "were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation" is not true.
Once one swallows that error, then all the apocrypha becomes scripture, and all the unscriptural ideas in them become dogma...and before you know it, your bowing down to icons believing that is what God would have you do.
That's what I dislike, how a little leaven leavens the whole lump.

Rom. 11:16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. Mat. 13:33 The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.


for one's faith. Hence that is the first tactic Satan employed:

Quote
CJB  Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any wild animal which ADONAI, God, had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You are not to eat from any tree in the garden'?" (Gen 3:1 CJB)

LOL. Did Satan write the MT? Seems God's teaching wasn't written in Eden, but was by word.
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." I Thess. 2:15.

Btw, what monstrasity is the CJB? And the reason to be pretentious and use "ADONAI" instead of "LORD?"


If wrong, I'll repent on Judgment day, but I suspect defaulting to faith in Christ and His apostles will be praised, not punished, in the Day when the secrets of the heart are made manifest.

So you will repent for refusing to walk in the Way of Christ and His Apostles, and accept the LXX as the work of the Holy Spirit?
"And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." Mat. 12:32.

 
Quote
16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel. (Rom 2:16 NKJ)
John 9:5Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? 36He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? 37And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen Him, and it is He that talketh with thee. 38And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped Him. 39And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind. 40And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also? 41Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Shanghaiski on August 13, 2010, 03:42:30 PM
It is the Church, not Scripture itself, which makes the determination of what writings are inspired Scripture and what are not. That is why we have the books and texts we do, and not the contents of the Nag Hamadi library. Without the Church, there is no Scripture, whether the Old or New Testaments. And, whoever does not have the Church as his mother, does not have God as his Father.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 13, 2010, 04:26:10 PM
Hey everybody, professors have told me that there is no "Septuagint" in and of itself. There is the translation of the Torah in Alexandria by the seventy, but aren't there numerous other Greek translations in circulation for the rest of the Old Testament canon?

So if we are arguing about the Septuagint being all-divine and inspired, then which Septuagint?  :o

The one the Church uses, of course!

On that:


And you still haven't explained why you are not guilty of plagerism and copyright infringment.
Huh?  ???

Quote
In other words, the Ecumenical Councils.
I had no implication toward any ecumenical councils in mind, no. Rather I had gospel preaching, gospel experiences, and the virtual Christian consensus along with the blessing of the Spirit on the use of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments.

Yes, so you keep saying. But that 66 book Bible didn't come off the press until 1824, around the time Evangelicalism was coming into existence.  And it was plagerism to take the Pharisees who formed the Masoretic text, a Jewish text formed nearly a millenium after the birth of the Church (and hence NOT the text the NT quotes), and pass it off as a Christian Bible. No.  Give credit where credit is due: you've decided to walk according to

Of course, there's the problem that the Masoretic text is mangling the previous Hebrew canon: the Talmud itself comments on Sirach, the Jews celebrate Hanukkah based on the Scriptural warrant of Maccabees, etc.  The Jew Theodotion translated Daniel from a text that resembles the LXX and not the Masoretic text (it includes, Susanna, the Song of the Three Youths and Bel and the Dragon) in the second century AD.  Wouldn't know that from the Masoretic text.  But if one is going to take the Rabbis as one's authority, one has to follow their error I guess.

Where did you get that text for your NT?  Copyright infringment: the Church did the heavy work of sorting through those other Gospels, and you don't want to give credit where credit is due. ALL manuscripts of the NT are coupled with the Church's canon of the OT.  You take the Rabbis' OT, why not their NT? You can't have ours.

I had thought of starting a thread on Perssonism's teaching on sola scriptura, but decided the thread "Sola Scriptura - A Diversion From the True Word of God" would be an appropriate place to taste test, to spew out as poison, Perssonism's flavor of Sola Scriptura.

In fact, so great is the episcopacy, the presbyters of Acts 15, that St. Peter, introduding himself as "an [note, btw: "a," not "the"] Apostle of Jesus Christ," nonetheless identifies himself as a "fellow presbyter" when he invokes himself as a witness of Christ and a partaker of His glory, to exhort his fellow presbyters, whom he identifies as the bishops (5:1-2), and the Apostle John, the disciple whom Christ loved, doesn't give his autority to his second and third epistles as neither the Disciple nor Apostle, but as "the presbyter."

"He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me." Luke 10:16  You cannot have the Church's book without the Church.

Of course, you have the free will to preach or accept another Gospel.

There's another issue:

3) All the Christian manuscripts of the OT are the LXX, or derived from it.  The only exception is the Vulgate: Jerome took a Jewish Hebrew text and translated from that.  The problem is that because that text had passed through Jewish (meaning those Hebrews who had rejected our Messiah) hands for several centuries, i.e. Jerome was not working from 1st century texts, it can still be said to be a Jewish text.  He was criticized for doing so at the time.

In other words, the LXX was translated by those we would say were of the same Faith as us (symbolized by the legend of St. Symeon as being one of the translators, and his problem with the translation of "virgin" leading to him being told he would not die until he saw its fulfillment).  Those Hebrews who accepted our Messiah continued to use the LXX and it Hebrew Vorlage (varient readings in the Dead Sea Scrolls agree with the LXX, as do some pre-Christian scraps of the OT elsewhere).  Those who rejected Him used another text type, which was approved at Jamnia AFTER the birth of the Church.  The Masoretic text dates after Chalcedon, for instance.

In other words, the LXX has never been outside of those whom we would consider outside the Faith, which is a problem for Protestants: if you trust our Church to copy the Scriptures (and the King James Version, for instance, depended on late manuscripts from the Orthodox Church copied well over a thousand years after the autographs: as a matter of fact, I don't think they predate the schism of 1054), why do you reject that Church's interpretation.  How do you know that we didn't "change" anything?

Case in point: all Christian manuscripts of the Bible have the Anagignoskomena/Deuterocanonicals: none lack them.  And in this we are proved right in that the Jewish Talmud expounds on Sirach (the Hebrew text has been found in the 1800s).  The Jews celebrate Hannukkah although their rejection of Maccabbees has deprived them of scriptural warrent (1 Mac. 4:56–59) for doing so (and for our Fundamentalist friends, the Gospels record Our Lord celebrating it (John 10:22-24).  And the Jewish translation of Theodotion, done centuries after the rise of the Church, includes the disputed books (in fact, his transaltion of Daniel was preferred over that of the LXX by the Church, and it includes the "additions" in the LXX but not in the Masoretic text).   So one can follow the path of the Apostles, or that of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes.

And I haven't even touched the issue of the OT here: It seems that Perssonism rejects the Apostles in taking the Masoretic text over the LXX.  Given the allusions and quotations the Apostles take from the LXX, including what the Protestant reject as "apocrypha" (e.g. Christ celebrates Hanuka in John, although its only scriptural warrent is in Maccabbees), the NT doesn't give a list of the OT (and the Jews canonized their canon, upon which the Masorites depended, not until after the rise of the Church and the NT. In fact, the Jew Theodotion in 150 was still translating into Greek for the synagogue, for instance, what Protestants (and their brethren, the Vatican) have removed from Daniel (i.e. Susanna, the Song of the Three Youths, Bel and the Dragon) what was not in the Masoretic text, but is in the LXX), nor can you reconstruct the canon from the Apostles citations.


The Church I know, so Christ I know and Paul I know, but who are you? You shouldn't wave the veil of Moses while invoking the name of Christ like a matador.  You can get hurt.

An earlier version of this got sucked in the "session verification failed" hole. I'll try to reconstruct.

So's the Talmud.

Actually the Talmud is in Hebrew & Aramaic, the Mishnah is in Hebrew & the Gemara is in Aramaic, so what.

Actually so too is the Masoretic text in Hebrew & Aramaic, and like the Talmud Jewish texts against Christ, His Church and the Tradition His Apostles passed on to His Church.  This is in contrast to the Peshitta and even some of the Targums.

As St. Augustine upbraided St. Jerome for departed from the marker the Church Fathers had set up by using a Jewish text, "we walk in the way of the Apostles, and not the way of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes.

The Apostles and Yeshua used the pre-Masoretic Hebrew text,

Actually from His words on the Cross we know He used Aramaic.

Quote
not the LXX,

Fragments of the LXX have been found even in the caves used by the followers of Bar Kochba, and the Apostles certainly used it outside of Palestine and Syria, which is connected to your next "point"

Quote
the LXX was not used in any synagogue in Palestine,

80% of the Israelite inscriptions in Palestine (disregarding the Gentiles ones) are in Greek from the period, including a third of the inscriptions in and around Jerusalem. This would include the 1st cent. synagogue inscription of the priest Theodotus, the earliest synagogue inscription yet found:
http://www.kchanson.com/ancdocs/greek/theodotus.html

At Masada, the Jewish graffitti is in Greek (and a solitary one in Latin). Greek texts are found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.  This includes synagogue inscriptions (which include a quote or two from the LXX, but they may have been Christian synagogues).  The rabbis in the Talmud talk about the issue of using Greek, including in liturgy and reading the Bible, and R. Shimon b. Gamliel (the last nasi head of the Sanhendrin before the destruction of the Temple) is quoted as saying that in his father's house half of the thousand students devoted themselves to "Greek wisdom," and allowed Greek (and only Greek) alongside Hebrew in the Bible (his father, however, is said by early Tradition to have been a crypto-Christian).
Jerusalem: portrait of the city in the second Temple period (538 B.C.E.-70 C.E.) By Lee I. Levine
http://books.google.com/books?id=gqL8C_JBEm0C&pg=PA272&lpg=PA272&dq=Greek+temple+inscription+Jerusalem&source=bl&ots=gDeQoC4SyM&sig=OtVNl4yGZL8leebrIK20i5v4-F8&hl=en&ei=pwrGSqSlCZTllQfZw82SAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=Greek%20temple%20inscription%20Jerusalem&f=false
Jewish literacy in Roman Palestine By Catherine Hezser
http://books.google.com/books?http://books.google.com/books?id=zlrxbYml2ioC&pg=PA249&dq=Greek+in+Roman+Palestine#v=onepage&q=Greek%20in%20Roman%20Palestine&f=false

And we are not even talking about the largest Hebrew community at the time, that of Alexandria, which was (as Philo shows) fully Greek speaking and using the LXX.

Quote
and certainly never in the Temple.
I agree that I would doubt it. It depends on how Hellenized the Sadduccees and their priests were.

We know that the temple had a least one Greek inscription:
http://www.kchanson.com/ancdocs/greek/templewarning.html


Quote
Yes the LXX is translated from this text, but Greek is not one of our liturgical languages

Greek, like Hebrew and Aramaic, is one of those liturgical languages every Christian has.


Quote
Hebrew is, that's why we use the MT because it's the only complete version of the Hebrew Tanakh, the Dead Sea Scrolls are too fragmantry to work with.
The Masorectic Tanakh by definition is incomplete, as it omits the Anagignoskomena that we know, from the Talmud and the Jewish translations into Greek against the Christians use of the LXX (e.g. Theodotion) show us that in the century after the Temple's destruction the Jews were still reading and using it  To this day, the only Scriptural warrant for Hanukkah is 1 Macc. iv. 59, and according to the rabbis the requirement of women participating (usually they are exempt) and eating cheese and dairy during that holiday is attributed to the story of Judith.

Quote
There is nothing wrong with the MT, it's a perfectly defensible text regarding Messianic prophecies


The same can be said of the New World Translation, the Jehovah Witnesses authorised standard (the reason I use it with dealing with their "dogma.")

Quote
(provided you know the Hebrew language), the Masorites did not alter the readings, they kept their opinions in the footnotes.


The Masoretic Tanakh, for instance, uses the truncated Daniel, when the translation of Theodotion shows that the fuller version was used even by the Jews.  The commentary on Sirach in the Talmud, and is serving as the basis of the Amidah show that it too was authoritative until the rabbis grew to dislike its use for the Christian catechumate.  In fact, the rabbis excised the whole of the Anagignoskomena.  These are opinions not confined to "footnotes."

I believe there is some groundwork to be layed out here before a proper debate can be conducted.

First, we should realize that the Septuagint text is a greek translation of the old testament which includes the hebrew books along with the deuterocanonical books written in the intertestamental period.

This attack is directed towards these deutercononical books specifically, not the Septuagint.

Next, what does the originator of this argument consider a "bible believing church" and a "biblical Christian" to be?



No, because of the Books of Psalms, Daniel and Esther etc. it is not just a question of translations leaving out the Anagignoskomena, but of which redaction.

We know that the Jews still used the redaction that the LXX used for Daniel, becasuse the Jew Theodotion in the second century produced a translation for them with included the things (Susanna, Son of the Three Youths, Bel and the Dragon) that the rabbis, and their emulator St. Jerome and their Protestant followers, took out.  They still used Sirach, as the Talmud comments on it, and it passed into Jewish liturgics.  The Talmud comments on the "additions" to Esther.  They still used Maccabbees because they TILL THIS day celebrate Hanukkah, and its only scriptural warrant is I Mac. 4:56–59.

The NT also in many key places quotes the LXX, not a Masoretic Urtex.

"Biblical Christian": one who doesn't know history.

"Bible believing Church":one which has no history to the Apostles.

It would seem that God continued to use the Jews rejection of their Messiah, as described in Romans quoted above, to His purposes for His Church, as demonstrated by the acceptance of Theodotion's translation. (Daniel is particularly unreadable in the original LXX version, the fact that it was written in Aramaic, not Hebrew, perhaps contributed to the difficulties).


Quote
Also, why is everyone in this thread imagining the Bible in the way that the Muslims view the Qur'an? Is there some authoritative version of the text, free from all error and discrepancy that plopped out of the heavens? If Christians talk about perfect things plopping out of the heavens, then I suppose we could only say that about Christ Himself...

Not even.  Although Mr.Persson repeats the errors of Eutyches and Nestorius (quite a feat) on the hypostatic union, Christ did not come with His Body from heaven but He did take flesh and dwell among us, and, as the Orthodox Church as maintained from the time of the Apostles. preaching "the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the icon of God, for which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day, While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal," (II Cor. 4:4, 16-7) yet preaching with the Evangelist (Luke 2:52) that Christ as true man, "Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man." Hence, if God the Word Who took flesh changed, so too no doubt the word of God changed. But as God the Word made man changed like us in all things save sin, so too the word of God transcribed was transmittd like a book in all things save corruption.

The fact that it seemed good to the Holy Spirit to move speakers of three languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek), the spirit of Christ decidiing that the words of God the Word incarnate be transmitted (except for a few transliterated Aramaic phrases) in translation, I always took as preventing the Muslim attitude (which imitates the Jewish) to scripture.  But those who wear the veil of Moses do not see that.

Quote
The Bible is a part of human history and was made by humans under divine inspiration. If the Greek translations have errors, why would anyone assume that the Hebrew also did not? These people weren't going into ecstatic trances when they wrote this stuff. Many of the text were likely edited over long periods of time before a final product was settled on. Did the text become "divine and unalterable" only at the point that they were officially promulgated by the Temple authority structure?
Couldn't have: the Temple was destoyed in vengence for the martyrdom of St. James the Brother of God before the Jews fixed their canon, and their text wasn't fixed until after the Church celebrated her triumph over the Iconoclasts.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 13, 2010, 04:30:06 PM
It is the Church, not Scripture itself, which makes the determination of what writings are inspired Scripture and what are not. That is why we have the books and texts we do, and not the contents of the Nag Hamadi library. Without the Church, there is no Scripture, whether the Old or New Testaments. And, whoever does not have the Church as his mother, does not have God as his Father.
yes, but it seems some cannot learn from the mistakes of others, and those who prefer the bomdswoman as their mother rather than the Church are, in knowledge and (as the case it seems here) in ignorance, dusting off the Nag Hamadi canon.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 13, 2010, 07:46:18 PM
In defense of the Masoretic text, the text stabilized long before 1000AD, and the readings found in the Vulgate (which was based on the Hebrew texts of its day) more often than not side with the MT whenever there are textual conflicts with the LXX. So while the MT may be 1000 years old, the bulk of the readings go back centuries before that. I'm told most of the Peshitta books have a strong affinity to the MT.

Is the MT the best Hebrew text? Perhaps not. But it's a stable one. I would tend to take notice if a cluster of early witnesses (including "proto-Masoretic" ones like the Latin or Syriac) attest to defects in the text. I think it would be stupid to put out an Old Testament translation and not give these ancient witnesses some respect.


Evidently you investigated this question. So did I, after being thoroughly confused by all the possibilities, I defaulted to faith in Christ and His apostles. Paul said God entrusted the Jews with His oracles:
If you really defaulted to faith in Christ and His Apostles, you would have joined the Church Jesus Christ founded and His Apostles established.

Its always possible what Christ said applied only to the Law, but I choose to believe it applies to all scripture unless proven different:
That's nice. ::)  Who cares what you believe?  It's not truth just because you believe it is, and you already shot down our reason to believe you an authority on matters of Christian doctrine with your logical fallacies on both this and the icons thread.

There is nothing worse than doubts about God's word, for one's faith. Hence that is the first tactic Satan employed:
God's Word is Jesus Christ, not the Scriptures; the Scriptures are merely the verbal icon of Christ the Word.  Even if we were to agree that the Scriptures are the words of God, we harbor no doubts about these words.  The only thing we doubt here is what YOU present to be God's word.

If wrong, I'll repent on Judgment day, but I suspect defaulting to faith in Christ and His apostles will be praised, not punished, in the Day when the secrets of the heart are made manifest.
That is, if you're really defaulting to faith in Christ and His Apostles.  If it ends up that you've been resisting faith in Christ and His Apostles all these years and in all these arguments, then what will you have to say for yourself on Judgment Day when the secrets of the heart are made manifest?

You call that tirade "apologetic?"
No, I don't.  I call it "polemic."

I love it, consider it all joy, thanks.
You must really have a warped sense of persecution if you think of this as persecution.

Not persecution, your response fits the text in other ways, for example,  It wasn't until I expressed faith in Jesus that your frothing tirade reached new depths:

NKJ  Luke 6:22 Blessed are you when men hate you, And when they exclude you, And revile you, and cast out your name as evil, For the Son of Man's sake. (Luk 6:22 NKJ)

But that's ok, I consider it all joy.

Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: theistgal on August 13, 2010, 08:11:11 PM
Unfortunately for you, no one here hates you. So that verse doesn't really apply.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on August 13, 2010, 08:13:41 PM
It wasn't until I expressed faith in Jesus that your frothing tirade reached new depths.

Don't pat yourself on the back too hard.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 13, 2010, 09:24:57 PM
Unfortunately for you, no one here hates you. So that verse doesn't really apply.
Unfortunately Mr. Persson, although he objects to the denomination Perssonism, cannot seperate himself from his views. Fortunately, we can.
" save with fear pulling them out of the fire hating even the garment spotted by the flesh" Jude 23.

As St. Augustine said "Kill the sin, love the sinner."
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 13, 2010, 09:50:24 PM
In defense of the Masoretic text, the text stabilized long before 1000AD, and the readings found in the Vulgate (which was based on the Hebrew texts of its day) more often than not side with the MT whenever there are textual conflicts with the LXX. So while the MT may be 1000 years old, the bulk of the readings go back centuries before that. I'm told most of the Peshitta books have a strong affinity to the MT.

Is the MT the best Hebrew text? Perhaps not. But it's a stable one. I would tend to take notice if a cluster of early witnesses (including "proto-Masoretic" ones like the Latin or Syriac) attest to defects in the text. I think it would be stupid to put out an Old Testament translation and not give these ancient witnesses some respect.


Evidently you investigated this question. So did I, after being thoroughly confused by all the possibilities, I defaulted to faith in Christ and His apostles. Paul said God entrusted the Jews with His oracles:
If you really defaulted to faith in Christ and His Apostles, you would have joined the Church Jesus Christ founded and His Apostles established.

Its always possible what Christ said applied only to the Law, but I choose to believe it applies to all scripture unless proven different:
That's nice. ::)  Who cares what you believe?  It's not truth just because you believe it is, and you already shot down our reason to believe you an authority on matters of Christian doctrine with your logical fallacies on both this and the icons thread.

There is nothing worse than doubts about God's word, for one's faith. Hence that is the first tactic Satan employed:
God's Word is Jesus Christ, not the Scriptures; the Scriptures are merely the verbal icon of Christ the Word.  Even if we were to agree that the Scriptures are the words of God, we harbor no doubts about these words.  The only thing we doubt here is what YOU present to be God's word.

If wrong, I'll repent on Judgment day, but I suspect defaulting to faith in Christ and His apostles will be praised, not punished, in the Day when the secrets of the heart are made manifest.
That is, if you're really defaulting to faith in Christ and His Apostles.  If it ends up that you've been resisting faith in Christ and His Apostles all these years and in all these arguments, then what will you have to say for yourself on Judgment Day when the secrets of the heart are made manifest?

You call that tirade "apologetic?"
No, I don't.  I call it "polemic."

I love it, consider it all joy, thanks.
You must really have a warped sense of persecution if you think of this as persecution.

Not persecution, your response fits the text in other ways, for example,  It wasn't until I expressed faith in Jesus that your frothing tirade reached new depths:

NKJ  Luke 6:22 Blessed are you when men hate you, And when they exclude you, And revile you, and cast out your name as evil, For the Son of Man's sake. (Luk 6:22 NKJ)

But that's ok, I consider it all joy.


Alfred, we all confess Christ Jesus here, so there's no need to relate to us as if we're not Christian.  We just express our faith in Jesus in a way that you don't.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 13, 2010, 10:05:28 PM
Alfred, we all confess Christ Jesus here, so there's no need to relate to us as if we're not Christian.  We just express our faith in Jesus in a way that you don't.
LOL. Yes. His.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 14, 2010, 12:46:01 AM

The early Church Fathers, and the apostles themselves during the New Testament era, when quoting the Old Testament Scriptures, quote the Septuagint version of the text.  The most astounding example is in Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem, where the apostles must decide whether gentiles must conform to Jewish ritual to become Christians.


In rendering the Councils's decision, James quotes Amos 9:11-12, and in our New Testament (NIV), it is quoted thus:


"After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent.  It's ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name....

However, if you turn to your typical Protestant Old Testament, Amos 9:11-12 reads as follows:


"In that day I will restore David's fallen tent. I will repair its broken places, restore its ruins, and build it as it used to be, so that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all nations that bear my name..."
 

Both of these are possible renditions from the transcripts that we have.  But the difference is huge:  the Septuagint says that the gentiles will seek the Lord; the Hebrew version says that "they" [the Jews] will possess the gentiles!  It would humorous (if it wasn't so tragic) that most Bibles use the Septuagint quote in the New Testament, but if you cross-reference back to the Old Testament, they use the Hebrew rendering.


Not only does James quote the Septuagint - but in every case where the Hebrew and Greek texts differ (85% of the time!), the New Testament writers quote the Septuagint.


Proving the lxx is followed 85% of the time is not proving the apostles would agree with the Orthodox that ALL its changes to the MT are inspired and "to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation." There is 15% that disproves that.

However, your example of James citing the LXX against the Hebrew is fascinating and I believe proves yet again why the LXX is to be highly valued...often it states explicitly what was only implicit in the Hebrew and I think this is one of those times.

Amos 9:11  in both essentially agree:

In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and will rebuild the ruins of it, and will set up the parts thereof that have been broken down, and will build it up as in the ancient days: (Amo 9:11 LXE)

 "On that day I will raise up The tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, And repair its damages; I will raise up its ruins, And rebuild it as in the days of old; (Amo 9:11 NKJ)

Amos 9:12 seems very different:

that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things. (Amo 9:12 LXE)

 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, And all the Gentiles who are called by My name," Says the LORD who does this thing. (Amo 9:12 NKJ)

The context of Amos 9:1-10 is the destruction of Israel, the restoration comes in vv 11-15 which happens in the Millennial Kingdom, when Christ returns...Only then is the house of David restored.

Recall WHY James cites this----to prove the Gentiles need not be circumcised, and "with this the words of the prophets agree." How?

By predicting there will be Gentiles called by God's name even though they had never joined themselves to Israel and so were never circumcised.


the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called
the remnant of Edom, And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,

Edom = Esau, the implacable enemy of Jacob, and all the Gentiles, also enemies of God, were now a people called by God's Name.


What happens among those called by God's Name? They earnestly seek God, that is implicit in their being in God's Country, that is what people who are called by God's name, do.

So the restored house of David posses these, "that the remnant of men (taken from those who fought against the Kingdom), and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things."

I have seen this before, where the Hebrew implies premises Gentiles would miss. Christ gave us an excellent example when refuting the Sadducees denial of the resurrection:
Fact is, Christ only proved life after death, not the resurrection....UNLESS we see the implied premises:

26 "But concerning the dead, that they rise, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the burning bush passage, how God spoke to him, saying,`I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob '?
 27 "He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living. You are therefore greatly mistaken."
 28 Then one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, perceiving that He had answered them well,
 (Mar 12:26-28 NKJ)

To Gentiles Christ only proved life after death, not the resurrection. But to Jesus' audience, "He had answered them well."

How so? It is impossible God not honor His promises to the patriarchs they serve Him physically forever, especially as they live with Him as constant reminders of His promises--- therefore it is impossible God not raise them up from the dead and fulfill His promises, because He is the God of the living, not of the dead.

Hebrew is very economical, much meaning is packed in a few words. Thanks be to God we have the Septuagint to aid us in unlocking some of these meanings we might otherwise miss.

But to say the Septuagint is inspired and its changes to the Hebrew are to be accepted is simply not practiced by the NT writers, there is that 15% or less where they follow the Hebrew, not the Greek. Even if you succeed in whittling this down to 1%, that is enough to disprove the idea the apostles would agree with the Orthodox and allow the Septuagint change the Hebrew.

Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Pearl_Of_Great_Price on August 14, 2010, 01:13:59 AM
Interesting video about Septugint:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7H6wJ43K_s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7H6wJ43K_s)
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 14, 2010, 01:34:48 AM
Interesting video about Septugint:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7H6wJ43K_s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7H6wJ43K_s)

Well done propaganda piece...but those examples of where the apostles followed the Hebrew against the Septuagint prove there were times they would not accept the changes in the Greek as inspired.

The Orthodox elevated the Septuagint far above what it is, a translation of the Hebrew.

That said, there is evidence it preserves readings not found in the Masoretic, that's great. I am of the opinion these often shed more light on the same subject, much as these "competing" ideas do:

NKJ  Matthew 13:15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.' (Mat 13:15 NKJ)

NKJ  John 12:40 "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them."
 (Joh 12:40 NKJ)

Matthew emphasizes free will, "they  have closed" their eyes and ears.
John God's sovereignty, He blinded them.

The Holy Spirit wanted "both sides" of the coin revealed, and chose this way to do it. Both are correct, there is no contradiction at all. But the resolution of the apparent paradox will have to wait for another thread...its quite elementary actually...implicit in the following:

NKJ  Romans 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son
 (Rom 8:29 NKJ)

Both foreknowing and predestining occur to the elect who already were chosen before this event, hence the unsaved aren't mentioned at all in the context.

Rome 8i: 29 Its not about election, its describing two things God did to those He had already elected, and implicit in this is how (via foreknowledge)  God will reveal/prove His choice of the elect was just:

NKJ  Revelation 15:4 Who shall not fear You, O Lord, and glorify Your name? For You alone are holy. For all nations shall come and worship before You, For Your judgments have been manifested."
 (Rev 15:4 NKJ)


Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ICXCNIKA on August 14, 2010, 01:38:54 AM
When I was in school they taught us 85 > 15. You also keep on saying that the Septuagint made changes to the MT. I am hoping that you will admit that to be impossible unless the MT traveled back in time since it didn't exist.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Salpy on August 14, 2010, 01:39:06 AM
Interesting video about Septugint:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7H6wJ43K_s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7H6wJ43K_s)

Welcome to the forum!
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 14, 2010, 01:48:31 AM
When I was in school they taught us 85 > 15. You also keep on saying that the Septuagint made changes to the MT. I am hoping that you will admit that to be impossible unless the MT traveled back in time since it didn't exist.

Of course it is, but that only proves the Orthodox position on this is wrong 15% of the time:

‘The Orthodox Church has the same New Testament as the rest of Christendom. As its authoritative text for the Old Testament it uses the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint. Where this differs from the Hebrew text (which happens quite often), Orthodox believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation.’-Ware, Kallistos (Timothy): The Orthodox Church, p.208; Penguin 1963,

If the apostles reject the Septuagint change even once, its clear they didn't believe the same as the Orthodox church.

I cited examples where Matthew and Paul preferred the Hebrew over the change in the Septuagint, that proves they didn't believe the changes "are to be accepted."

Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 14, 2010, 01:57:52 AM
When I was in school they taught us 85 > 15. You also keep on saying that the Septuagint made changes to the MT. I am hoping that you will admit that to be impossible unless the MT traveled back in time since it didn't exist.

Of course it is, but that only proves the Orthodox position on this is wrong 15% of the time:

‘The Orthodox Church has the same New Testament as the rest of Christendom. As its authoritative text for the Old Testament it uses the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint. Where this differs from the Hebrew text (which happens quite often), Orthodox believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation.’-Ware, Kallistos (Timothy): The Orthodox Church, p.208; Penguin 1963,

If the apostles reject the Septuagint change even once, its clear they didn't believe the same as the Orthodox church.

I cited examples where Matthew and Paul preferred the Hebrew over the change in the Septuagint, that proves they didn't believe the changes "are to be accepted."
No, it proves that they didn't use it in that verse. St. Jude used the Book of Enoch without accepting it as Scripture, what was stopping St. Matthew and St. Pual from using an uncanonical reading of Scripture?

Not using does not necessarily equal rejecting.  To be consistent, since the apostles rejected (to use your terminology) readings which the MT later incorporated, then they would have rejected the MT, if it had existed (which it didn't): you said "even once," and they "rejected" said readings 85% of the time.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 14, 2010, 02:00:33 AM
When I was in school they taught us 85 > 15. You also keep on saying that the Septuagint made changes to the MT. I am hoping that you will admit that to be impossible unless the MT traveled back in time since it didn't exist.

Of course it is, but that only proves the Orthodox position on this is wrong 15% of the time:

‘The Orthodox Church has the same New Testament as the rest of Christendom. As its authoritative text for the Old Testament it uses the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint. Where this differs from the Hebrew text (which happens quite often), Orthodox believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation.’-Ware, Kallistos (Timothy): The Orthodox Church, p.208; Penguin 1963,

If the apostles reject the Septuagint change even once, its clear they didn't believe the same as the Orthodox church.

I cited examples where Matthew and Paul preferred the Hebrew over the change in the Septuagint, that proves they didn't believe the changes "are to be accepted."
No, it proves that they didn't use it in that verse. St. Jude used the Book of Enoch without accepting it as Scripture, what was stopping St. Matthew and St. Pual from using an uncanonical reading of Scripture?

Not using does not necessarily equal rejecting.  To be consistent, since the apostles rejected (to use your terminology) readings which the MT later incorporated, then they would have rejected the MT, if it had existed (which it didn't): you said "even once," and they "rejected" said readings 85% of the time.

It is impossible to argue the apostles "believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation" if they reject the change and stick to the Hebrew.

Its irrelevant how often they did this, doing it just once proves they wouldn't agree with the Orthodox on this.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: John Larocque on August 14, 2010, 02:13:16 AM
I don't think any textual type or tradition is infallible or inerrant, from the vantage-point of "original text". All the ones cited in this thread have suffered in transmission - Hebrew and Greek. In the case of the LXX, it is difficult now to completely restore the text from changes made by Lucian or Theodotion etc... If you move over into New Testament territory it's the same story. For some people - such as Bart Ehrman - the problems associated with very strict "biblical inerrancy" and all the doctrinal issues associated with it led to a loss of faith.

Can you have confidence in a text that has probably suffered interpolations and other foreign or borrowed elements that came about through transmission? Can you have faith in "85%"? The answer is a qualified yes.

BTW putting down other text types is silly. Some of the Aramaic-supremacy threads I've seen are hilarious to read. ("You Greeks corrupted the original Aramaic text of the New Testament, and our version is closer to the MT and the Hebrew"). Although the actual text of Westcott-Hort has gained wide acceptance, many of their theories on the origin of the NT text types is conjecture.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 14, 2010, 09:30:00 AM
Proving the lxx is followed 85% of the time is not proving the apostles would agree with the Orthodox that ALL its changes to the MT are inspired and "to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation." There is 15% that disproves that.

And history (besides theology) disproves that.

First, you keep on talking about the LXX changing the MT. The LXX predates the MT by a millenium, so the MT wasn't around for the LXX to "change."

Second, we have texts in Hebrew which agree with the LXX against the later MT. Besides the Dead Sea Scrolls, there is the Nas Papyrus, which contains the text of the Ten Commandments which agrees with the LXX text over the MT, an agreement with the LXX that the NT follows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_Papyrus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cook,_Stanley_A._%22A_Pre-Massoretic_Biblical_Papyrus%22.pdf

So the MT cannot even claim original language priority. Indeed, the MT itself testifies to that: in Psalter, the MT divides the LXX Pslam 9 into two. Since, however, the MT Psalms 9 and 10 are acrostics (poems with lines in alphabetical order) in which 9 has half the alphabet and 10 picks up and continues to the end, showing that they should be together, as in the LXX.

Now, we don't have all the Hebrew texts predating the NT which agree with the LXX, to reconstruct the LXX Vorlage, but we don't have to. The Apostles gave us the LXX.

Third, the MT is a text 100% compiled by Jews, 100% for Jews, 100% to serve Judaism, something you yourself admit:
You already admitted that it passed away
I know the MT was standardized, and Christ friendly readings obscured
The LXX is a text 100% Hebrew, because even the Greek parts (e.g. Maccabees) were written 100% by Hebrews, 100% or Hebrews (that's how the Jews celebrate Hanukkah).  (Btw, as recorded in the Talmud, the Jews thought it inspired, the fulfillment of Noah's blessing that Japheth would live in the tents of Shem).  Now the Jews rejected it because those the Apostles taught were too skilled at using it to convert the synagogue into the Church.  Why would anyone who claims Christ follow in the footsteps of the Pharisees, Sadduccees, and Scribes?  Only one who walked disorderly and not in the Tradition received of the Apostles.

Fourth, the Jews, after rejecting Christ and His Church, still continued to use the LXX text type, as the translation of the Jew Theodotion shows.  In fact, there is some question on whether Theodotion just revised the LXX, or retranslated from the Hebrew.  It spread throughout the Diaspora and its synagouges (and since the destruction of the Temple in 70, all the Jews were in Diaspora).  The rabbis rejection of this may have been because of the Church's adoption of his translation of Daniel (which has the Anagignosmena parts in it, because the Jews still read them).

Fifth, all the manuscripts of the Bible, with one exception, with the NT have the LXX as its OT, in all languages.  The exception is the Bible in Syriac, which used the Peshitta, but revised it on the basis of the LXX.  The Apostles' proclamation of the LXX has gone out into all the earth, and their use of its words to the ends of the universe.

Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 14, 2010, 09:58:12 AM
The Holy Spirit wanted "both sides" of the coin revealed, and chose this way to do it. Both are correct, there is no contradiction at all. But the resolution of the apparent paradox will have to wait for another thread...its quite elementary actually...implicit in the following:

NKJ  Romans 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image icon (EIKWN) of His Son
 (Rom 8:29 NKJ)
ὅτι οὓς προέγνω, καὶ προώρισε συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς·
fixed that for you.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 14, 2010, 10:07:57 AM
However, your example of James citing the LXX against the Hebrew is fascinating and I believe proves yet again why the LXX is to be highly valued...often it states explicitly what was only implicit in the Hebrew and I think this is one of those times.

Amos 9:11  in both essentially agree:

In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and will rebuild the ruins of it, and will set up the parts thereof that have been broken down, and will build it up as in the ancient days: (Amo 9:11 LXE)

 "On that day I will raise up The tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, And repair its damages; I will raise up its ruins, And rebuild it as in the days of old; (Amo 9:11 NKJ)

Amos 9:12 seems very different:

that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things. (Amo 9:12 LXE)

 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, And all the Gentiles who are called by My name," Says the LORD who does this thing. (Amo 9:12 NKJ)

The context of Amos 9:1-10 is the destruction of Israel, the restoration comes in vv 11-15 which happens in the Millennial Kingdom, when Christ returns...Only then is the house of David restored.

I don't believe your authority Pres. Franz Pieper taught Millenialism. I don't thiink he would find it Apostolic.

Btw, St. James the Brother of God and the descendent of David sat on throne of David that Christ restored in Jerusalem. The Patriarch of Jerusalem succeeds him in sitting on it till today.
The throne of St. James still exists, St. Epiphanios (from Palestine, btw) says it will always exist, as I've posted:
For this group didn not name themselves after Christ or with Jesus own name, but "Nazoraeans."  However, at the time all Christians were called Nazoraeans.  They also came to be called "Jessaeans" for a short while, before the disciples began to be called Christians at Antioch.  But they were called Jessaeans because of Jesse, I suppose, since David was descended from Jesse, but Mary from David's line.  This was in fulfillment of sacred scripture, for in the Old Testament the Lord tells David, "Of the fruit of thy belly shall I set upon thy throne."

.....since the Lord had told David, "Of the fruit of thy belly shall I set upon the throne," and "The Lord swore unto David and will not repent," it is plain that God's promise is an irreversible one.  In the first place, what does God have to swear by but "By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord?"-for "God hath no oath by a greater" [Heb. 6:13]  What is divine does not even swear; yet the statement has the function of providing confirmation.

For God swore with an oath to David that he would set the fruit of his belly upon his throne.  And the Apostles bear witness that Christ had to born of David's seed, as Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ indeed was.  As I said, I shall pass ove most of the testimonies, to avoid a very burdensome discussion.

But someone will probably say, "Since Christ was physically born of David's see, that is, of the Holy Virgin Mary, why is He not sitting on David's throne?  For the Gospel says, "They came that they might anoint him king, and when Jesus perceived this He departed....and his himself in Ephraim, a city in the wilderness."   But now that I reach this place for this, and I am asked about this text, and why it is that the prophecy about sitting on David's throne has not been fulfilled physically in the Savior's case-for some have thought that is has not-I shall still say that it is a fact.  Not a word of God's Holy Scripture can come to nothing.

David's throne and kingly seat is the priesthood in the Holy Church.   The Lord had combined this rank, which is both that of king and high priest, and conferred it on His Church by transferring David's throne to it, never to fail. [mh dialeiponta eis ton aiwna]  Formerly David's throne continued by succession until Christ Himself, since the rulers from Judah did not fail until he came "for whom are the things prepared, and he is the expectation of the nations," as scripture says.[Gen. 49:10]

With the advent of the Christ the rulers in line of succession from Judah, reigning until the time of the Christ himself, came to an end.  Until His time the rulers were anointed priests but after His birth in Bethlehem of Judea the order ended and changed with Alexander, a ruler of priestly and kingly stock. After Alexander on this heritage form the time of Salina, who is also called Alexandra, died out under Herod the king and Augustus the Roman emperor. (Although Alexander was crowned also, since he was one of the anointed priests and rulers.  For once the two tribes, the royal and the priestly, meaning Judah and Aaron and the whole tribe of Levi, had been joined together, the kings were also made priests; nothing based on a hint in holy scripture can be wrong.  But then finally a foreign king, Herod, was crowned, and not David's descendants any more.

But because of this change in the royal house, the rank of king passed in Christ the kingly seat passed over to the church, the kingly dignity being transferred from the fleshly house of  David and Israel, Judah and Jerusalem; and the throne is established in the holy church of God forever, having a double dignity because of both its kingly and its high-priestly character, both ranks of king and high-priest, for two reasons: the royal dignity coming from Our Lord Jesus Christ in two ways, from the fact that he is of King David's seed according to the flesh and from the fact that in Godhead He is, as is certainly true, a greater king from eternity in His divinity, and the priestly dignity coming from the fact that He is high priest and chief of high priests, since James having been ordained at once the first bishop immediately, he who is called the brother of the Lord and apostle.  Actually he was Joseph's son, but was said to be in the position of the Lord's brother because they were reared together.

For James was Joseph's son by Joseph's [first] wife, not Mary, as I have said, and discussed with greater clarity, in many other places.  And I find that he is of David's stock through being Joseph's son and moreover that he was a Nazarite (for he was Joseph's firstborn and hence consecrated), and we have found furthermore that he exercised the priesthood according to the priestly order of old. Thus it was permitted him once a year to enter the holy of holies, as the law ordered the high priests according to what is written. For many of the historians before me of him, Eusebius, Clement, and others have reported this of him. He was also allowed to wear the priestly mitre on his head [also said of St. John e.g. Eusebius III.31.3] besides, as the trustworthy persons mentioned have testified in the same historical writings.

Now as I said Our Lord Jesus Christ is "priest forever after the order of Melchizedek," and at the same time king after the order on high and so may transfer the priesthood with its legal charter.  But since David's seed through Mary is seated on a throne, his throne endures forever, and of His kingdome there will be no end.   He would need now to reposition the former crown; for His Kingdom is not earthly, as He said to Pontius Pilate in the Gospel, "My Kingdom in not of this world."  For since Christ fulfills all that was said in riddles, the beginnings have reached a limit.

For He who is always a king did not come to achieve sovereignty.  Lest it be thought that He advanced from a lower estate to a higher, He granted the crown to those whom He appointed.  For His throne endures, and there will be no end of His Kingdom.  And He sits on the throne of David, and has transferred David's crown and granted it, with the high priesthood, to his own servants, the high priests of the Catholic Church.

...Not "nazarites"-that means "consecrated persons."  Anciently this rank belonged to firstborn sons and men dedicated to God...John the Baptist too was one of these persons consecratd to God, for "He drank neither wine nor strong drink." (This regimen, befitting their rank, was prescribed for persons of that sort)....but besides as I indicated, everyone called the Christians Nazoreans, as they say in accursing the Apostle Paul, "We have found this man a pestilent fellow and a perverter of the people, a ring leader of the sect of Nazoreans." (Acts 24:5) And the holy apostle did not disclaim the name-not to profess the Nazorean sect, but he was glad to own the name his adversaries' malice had applied to him for Christ's.  For he says in court, "They neither found me in the temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, nor have I done any of those things whereof they accuse me.  But this I confess unto thee, that after the Way which they call heresy, so worship I, believing all things in the Law and and the Prophets." (Acts 24:12-14)

And no wonder the Apostle admitted to being a Nazoraean!  In those days everyone called Christians this because of the city of Nazareth-there was no other usage of the name then.  People thus gave the name of "Nazoraeans" to believers in Christ, of Whom it is written, "He shall be called a Nazoraean." (Mat.) Even today in fact, people call all the sects, I mean Manichaeans, Marcionites, Gnostics and others, by the common name of "Christians," though they are not Christians. However, although each sect has another name, it still allows this one with pleasure, since it is honored by the name.  For they think they can pren themselves on Christ's name; not on faith and works!

Thus Christ's holy disciples called themselves "disciples of Jesus" then, as indeed they were.  But they wre not rude when others called them Nazoraeans, since they saw the intent of those who called them this.  They did it because of Christ, since our Lord Jesus was called the Nazoraean" himself-so say the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles-because of His upbringing in Joseph's home in the city of Nazareth, which is now a village.  (Though He was born in the flesh at Bethlehem, of the ever-virgin Mary, Joseph's betrothed.  Joseph had settled in Nazareth after leaving Bethlehem and taking up residence in Galilee.)

But these sectarians whom I am now sketching disregareded the name of Jesus, and did not call themselves Jessanaeans, keep the name of Jews, or term themselves Christians-but "Nazoraeans," form the place-name, "Nazareth," if you please!  However they are simply complete Jews...As to Christ, I cannot say whether they too are captives of the wickedness of Cerinthus and Merinthus, and regard Him as a mere man-or whether, as the truth is, they affirm His birth of Mary by the Holy Spirit.

Today this sect of the Nazoraeans is found in Beroea near Coelesyria, in the Decapolis near Pella, and in Bashanitis at the place called Cocabe-Khokhabe in Hebrew.  For that was its place of origin, since all the disciples had settled in Pella after they left Jerusalem-Christ told them to abandon Jerusalem and withdrew from it because of its coming siege.  And they settled in Perea for this reason and, as I said, spent their lives there.  That was there the Nazoraean sect began.

But they too are wrong to boast of circumcision, and persons like themselves are still "under a curse," since they cannot fulfil the Law.  For how can they fulfill the Law's provision, "Thrice a year thou shalt appear before the Lord they God at the feasts of Unleavened Bread, Tabernacles and Pentacost," on the site of Jerusalem.  As the site is closed off, and the Law's provisions cannot be filfilled, anyone with sense can see that Christ came to be the Law's fulfiller-not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill the Law-and to lift the curse that had been put on transgression of the Law.  For after Moses had given every commandment he came to the point of the book and "included the whole in a curse" with the words, "Cursed is he that continueth not in all the words that are written in this book to do them."

Hence Christ came to free what had been fettered with the bounds of the curse.  In place of the lesser commandments which cannot be fulfilled, He granted us the greater, which are not inconsistent with the completion of the task as the earlier ones were.  For I have discussed this many times before, in every Sect, in connection with the Sabbath, circumcision and the rest-how the Lord has granted something more perfect to us.
there's more there.

Quote
Recall WHY James cites this----to prove the Gentiles need not be circumcised, and "with this the words of the prophets agree." How?

By predicting there will be Gentiles called by God's name even though they had never joined themselves to Israel and so were never circumcised.


the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called
the remnant of Edom, And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,

Edom = Esau, the implacable enemy of Jacob, and all the Gentiles, also enemies of God, were now a people called by God's Name.


What happens among those called by God's Name? They earnestly seek God, that is implicit in their being in God's Country, that is what people who are called by God's name, do.

So the restored house of David posses these, "that the remnant of men (taken from those who fought against the Kingdom), and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things."

I have seen this before, where the Hebrew implies premises Gentiles would miss. Christ gave us an excellent example when refuting the Sadducees denial of the resurrection:
Fact is, Christ only proved life after death, not the resurrection....UNLESS we see the implied premises:

26 "But concerning the dead, that they rise, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the burning bush passage, how God spoke to him, saying,`I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob '?
 27 "He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living. You are therefore greatly mistaken."
 28 Then one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, perceiving that He had answered them well,
 (Mar 12:26-28 NKJ)

To Gentiles Christ only proved life after death, not the resurrection. But to Jesus' audience, "He had answered them well."

How so? It is impossible God not honor His promises to the patriarchs they serve Him physically forever, especially as they serve as constant reminders of His promise because they alive with Him in Heaven, therefore it is impossible God not raise them up from the dead to fulfill His promises, He is the God of the living, not of the dead.

Hebrew is very economical, much meaning is packed in a few words. Thanks be to God we have the Septuagint to aid us in unlocking some of these meanings we might otherwise miss.

And the Tradition of the Apostles, to do so correctly, which they handed over with the LXX, and the NT.

Quote
But to say the Septuagint is inspired and its changes to the Hebrew are to be accepted is simply not practiced by the NT writers, there is that 15% or less where they follow the Hebrew, not the Greek.

You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. Mat. 23:24.

Quite interesting to watch you strain out the 15% and try to ride it to victory like a camel in the caliph's calvary.

Quote
Even if you succeed in whittling this down to 1%, that is enough to disprove the idea the apostles would agree with the Orthodox and allow it to change the Hebrew.

We don't have to whittle it down to 1%, you have to inflate it to 100% to get the answer you want to the question you keep begging.

Quote
Similarly some believe the King James translation is inspired, but the facts contradict that belief also.

You might debate your fellow sola scripturists on that.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Nazarene on August 14, 2010, 10:18:18 AM
‘The Orthodox Church has the same New Testament as the rest of Christendom. As its authoritative text for the Old Testament it uses the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint. Where this differs from the Hebrew text (which happens quite often), Orthodox believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation.’-Ware, Kallistos (Timothy): The Orthodox Church, p.208; Penguin 1963,

What changes to the LXX? The MT didn't exist until well after the compilation of the LXX, unless he's referring to pre-MT Hebrew texts, and specifically the Pre-MT text which was used to translate the LXX. This statement is IMO too obscure for use textual debates, or am I misunderstanding what he's saying? Perhaps a case of wrong choice of words?

In Exod 32:4 The LXX follows the Hebrew plural "gods (elohiym, theoi) which usually refers to the One true God in a "plural of majesty." If it were an inspired translation, it would have rendered it singular "God" (theos) because the context indicates that is the reference of the Hebrew.

Considering that you quoted from Exodus...

The 1st 5 books of the OT were translated by the 70 Jerusalem scholars, but the other books were NOT, everyone must remember this - the true Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Torah by the 70. Secondly everyone must be aware of why they did this translation and who they did it for. The Letter of Aristeas states that this translation was requested by Ptolemy for the purpose of adding it to his library in Alexandria. IOW this translation is an academic translation, it was not intended for liturgical use. It was Ptolemy who wanted this translation not the Alexandrian Jewish community so that they could have a Greek translation to use in their synagogues. Once this point is understood it's not difficult to see why the 70 translated Elohim literally as Theoi instead of interpretively as Theos - their purpose was to convey the literal meaning of the text to Greek pagans NOT to explain the meaning of the Hebrew in Greek to the Alexandrian Jewish faithful. In short the Septuagint, while it was translated by Jews, it was not translated for Jews, the Jews did however make use of it.

So this translation is not wrong, it serves the purpose for which it was intended.

Hey everybody, professors have told me that there is no "Septuagint" in and of itself. There is the translation of the Torah in Alexandria by the seventy, but aren't there numerous other Greek translations in circulation for the rest of the Old Testament canon?

Yes you were told right. As stated earlier the true Septuagint is the Torah translation of the 70, but because all the early Greek translations became known under the name "Septuagint", it is more correctly understood as a blanket term.

So if we are arguing about the Septuagint being all-divine and inspired, then which Septuagint?  :o

Aren't the Scriptures "all-divine and inspired" no matter what language?

Also, why is everyone in this thread imagining the Bible in the way that the Muslims view the Qur'an? Is there some authoritative version of the text, free from all error and discrepancy that plopped out of the heavens?

The originals that were penned by the original authors themselves may have been free from all errors but they didn't plop out of heaven.

If Christians talk about perfect things plopping out of the heavens, then I suppose we could only say that about Christ Himself...

Yip.

The Bible is a part of human history and was made by humans under divine inspiration. If the Greek translations have errors, why would anyone assume that the Hebrew also did not?

It's not impossible that the original compilations had errors though I doubt that's the most likely scenario. The Greek translations have errors cause they're translations so scribal errors are inevitable. Also copies in the original language will (and do) have errors too, scribal errors are inevitable for this case as well. This is really nothing for anyone to stress over.

These people weren't going into ecstatic trances when they wrote this stuff. Many of the text were likely edited over long periods of time before a final product was settled on.

Let's not confuse actually writing a book (be it Genesis or Proverbs) with the decision of whether or not to preserve it by copying or translating it. Moses wrote Genesis, it was not written by some unknown scribe hundreds of years after his death (yes this opinion is faith based not a historically proven fact). But various scribes after his death, through the ages, have preserved his book by copying it, I believe, as faithfully as they could without deliberately altering a word in it. Later when it came the time to translate this book, the translators, I believe, translated it as faithfully as they could without deliberately misrepresenting the meaning of it.

Where editing is concerned I believe that the copyists and translators probably edited their own texts but I, out of faith, will not entertain the idea that they dared to tamper with the originals because they feared them.

Did the text become "divine and unalterable" only at the point that they were officially promulgated by the Temple authority structure?

To my knowledge there was never any such "Temple authority structure" event to declare any text "divine and unalterable", even the Council of Jamnia is just a hypothesis not a historically proven fact. The truth that Jews and Christians have always considered the Holy Scriptures both divinely inspired and authoritative.

Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 14, 2010, 10:50:45 AM
Interesting video about Septugint:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7H6wJ43K_s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7H6wJ43K_s)

Well done propaganda piece...but those examples of where the apostles followed the Hebrew against the Septuagint prove there were times they would not accept the changes in the Greek as inspired.

No, it just proves that they didn't use it in those instances.  I have nothing against the KJV, I just don't use it much except when debating types like you.  You seem to prefer it. If not, please let me know what version you want.
(btw, I think David Young mentioned he prefers the KJV, being English, which is why I use it with him.  I don't lump him with you).

Case in point: most (Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20, Romans 13:9, and James 2:11) of the NT follows the majority text of the LXX on the order of the Commandments.  But not Matthew 19:18, which reflects the order the MT adopted. Why?  Perhaps because Matthew being writtten in and for the Hebrew circles of Antioch, where they were divided between the Church and the rabbis, and a text closer, especially not in a difference of the Faith.

"And And unto the Jews I became as a Jew that I might gain the Jews to them that are under the law as under the law that I might gain them that are under the law." I Cor. 9:20.

Quote
The Orthodox elevated the Septuagint far above what it is, a translation of the Hebrew.

Yes, Christ and the Apostles did that.

And the translation from Hebrew, not the MT.

Quote
That said, there is evidence it preserves readings not found in the Masoretic, that's great. I am of the opinion these often shed more light on the same subject, much as these "competing" ideas do:

NKJ  Matthew 13:15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.' (Mat 13:15 NKJ)

NKJ  John 12:40 "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them."
 (Joh 12:40 NKJ)

Matthew emphasizes free will, "they  have closed" their eyes and ears.
John God's sovereignty, He blinded them.

The Holy Spirit wanted "both sides" of the coin revealed, and chose this way to do it. Both are correct, there is no contradiction at all. But the resolution of the apparent paradox will have to wait for another thread...its quite elementary actually

St. Matthew wrote in Aramaic, translated into Greek, for the Greco-Aramaic community in Antioch converted to Christ or not yet, before the destruction of the Temple. St. John's Gospel is written for only those within the Church, after it had been expelled by the Jews from the synagogue.

After looking at what the Fathers have testified to, we would have to look at the 15%, where they are (I suspect mostly in Matthew), the topic being discussed and the point being made, and what cross reference in the NT say. Also, if the Vulgate, a Latin translation from a Jewish Hebrew text (Jerome makes clear he is receiving the OT from the Jews, and St. Augustine makes that clear when he points out we received it from the Apostles) differs from the LXX and MT in those verses.

Quote
...implicit in the following:

NKJ  Romans 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image iconof His Son
 (Rom 8:29 NKJ)
fixed that for you.

Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 14, 2010, 10:57:05 AM
Secondly everyone must be aware of why they did this translation and who they did it for. The Letter of Aristeas states that this translation was requested by Ptolemy for the purpose of adding it to his library in Alexandria. IOW this translation is an academic translation, it was not intended for liturgical use. It was Ptolemy who wanted this translation not the Alexandrian Jewish community so that they could have a Greek translation to use in their synagogues. Once this point is understood it's not difficult to see why the 70 translated Elohim literally as Theoi instead of interpretively as Theos - their purpose was to convey the literal meaning of the text to Greek pagans NOT to explain the meaning of the Hebrew in Greek to the Alexandrian Jewish faithful. In short the Septuagint, while it was translated by Jews, it was not translated for Jews, the Jews did however make use of it.

So this translation is not wrong, it serves the purpose for which it was intended.

this is perhaps a more accurate portrayal.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 14, 2010, 11:04:32 AM
I don't think any textual type or tradition is infallible or inerrant, from the vantage-point of "original text". All the ones cited in this thread have suffered in transmission - Hebrew and Greek. In the case of the LXX, it is difficult now to completely restore the text from changes made by Lucian or Theodotion etc... If you move over into New Testament territory it's the same story. For some people - such as Bart Ehrman - the problems associated with very strict "biblical inerrancy" and all the doctrinal issues associated with it led to a loss of faith.

Can you have confidence in a text that has probably suffered interpolations and other foreign or borrowed elements that came about through transmission? Can you have faith in "85%"? The answer is a qualified yes.

BTW putting down other text types is silly. Some of the Aramaic-supremacy threads I've seen are hilarious to read. ("You Greeks corrupted the original Aramaic text of the New Testament, and our version is closer to the MT and the Hebrew"). Although the actual text of Westcott-Hort has gained wide acceptance, many of their theories on the origin of the NT text types is conjecture.


I agree much scholarly conjecture is unsound. But Inerrancy is usually reserved for the autographs, not copies of them.  While our copies are many and good, its clear some spelling errors etc crept in. By most estimates, 99% of these are insignificant as they don't affect the sense of the text, less than 1% does. In that 1% its argued the essential meaning is unchanged:

The last group of variants or differences in the New Testament Greek texts are those that are both meaningful—in other words, they actually change the meaning of the text—and viable—in the sense that they cannot easily be explained away by looking at other manuscript evidence or external factors. This is by far the smallest group of variants or differences in the manuscripts, making up less than one percent of the total. Let's look at a couple of examples.

Some manuscripts have Romans 5:1 using a Greek letter called an omicron to create the word echomen; others use an omega resulting in the word echōmen. Thus the passage could be saying either "We have peace" or "Let us have peace" with God, depending on this single disputed letter. But how different are the two results? The bottom line is that neither usage contradicts the overall message of the New Testament.

Another example is found in 1 John 1:4. Again, a single contested letter means the difference between the passage saying "Thus we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete," or "Thus we are writing these things so that your joy may be complete." The meaning is certainly affected by the change, but neither translation violates Christian doctrine. In fact, as Wallace argues "Whether the author is speaking of his joy or the readers' joy, the obvious point of this verse is that the writing of this letter brings joy."{4}

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223627/k.51B1/Bart_Ehrmans_Complaint.htm

If one's faith is destroyed because one mss has "color" while another "colour", it may be one never had genuine faith to start with.

However, often the supposed error is with the interpreter. Scholars have reversed themselves when archeology has proven scripture right, or correct exegesis revealed the difficulty actually arose because of facts the expositor missed.

At one time I blindly accepted the eclectic texts thinking Mark's longer ending proved them right. But that was reversed when I learned the text can be defended as scripture:
http://www.curtisvillechristian.org/MarkOne.html

A simple argument reversed my thinking. As "snake handling" etc is so distasteful, what is more likely, the text be deleted, or inserted? As there were no snake handling cults controlling the text of scripture, ever, that seems to be a modern American phenomena, who in their right mind would insert an "embarrassing text" into the scripture? Answer, no one. Therefore it far more likely the text is genuine and as noted in the link above, there is much supporting it.

Moreoever, correct exegesis removes the alleged embarrassment. Christ spoke to the disciples, and defeating satanic forces is one of the signs that follow the founding apostles and prophets of the faith, as God's sign they are true believers. Its not saying believers must handle snakes. Christ appearing in another form (morphe) is like saying a golfer appeared in a different form than usual, it does not refer to physical form, but to what is manifested to others. So nothing unorthodox in the text at all.

I consider the Stephanus 1550 to be the best copy of the autographs, rejecting completely the often unsound speculations of scholars.

The Bible remains "infallible" in spite of such insignificant spelling errors etc.




Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Nazarene on August 14, 2010, 11:11:33 AM
Thanks Isa,

This is what makes the most sense to me as a translator is going to serve the needs of his/her audience. Since the original recipients of the original Septuagint were not Jews but Ptolemy, the translators saw no need try to convey all the nuances and spiritual implications of the Hebrew text, so they just translated the text literally to the best of their ability. The result: a fine and accurate academic translation for it's time, which is what it was intended to be. As for it's liturgical use, the Alexandrian Rabbis did use it though they would've needed to orally clarify many points, but they even needed to do this with the Hebrew texts, and still need to do this with the MT today.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 14, 2010, 11:14:43 AM
Thanks Isa,

This what makes the most sense to me as a translator is going to serve the needs of his/her audience. Since the original recipients of the original Septuagint were not Jews but Ptolemy, the translators saw no need try to convey all the nuances and spiritual implications of the Hebrew text, so they just translated the text literally to the best of their ability. The result: a fine and accurate academic translation for it's time, which is what it was intended to be. As for it's liturgical use, the Alexandrian Rabbis did use it though they would've needed to orally clarify many points, but they even needed to do this with the Hebrew texts, and still need to do this with the MT today.

That would be a mistranslation. If you don't convey the sense of the text, then you distort the sense. All the more reprehensible, as then you are deceiving Ptolemy the employer.



Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 14, 2010, 12:21:50 PM
Thanks Isa,

This is what makes the most sense to me as a translator is going to serve the needs of his/her audience. Since the original recipients of the original Septuagint were not Jews but Ptolemy, the translators saw no need try to convey all the nuances and spiritual implications of the Hebrew text, so they just translated the text literally to the best of their ability. The result: a fine and accurate academic translation for it's time, which is what it was intended to be. As for it's liturgical use, the Alexandrian Rabbis did use it though they would've needed to orally clarify many points, but they even needed to do this with the Hebrew texts, and still need to do this with the MT today.
As the k'thiv and q're show.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: John Larocque on August 14, 2010, 12:23:04 PM
I consider the Stephanus 1550 to be the best copy of the autographs, rejecting completely the often unsound speculations of scholars.

Then apparently you disagree with the translators of the KJV. According to bible-researcher.com there's roughly 150 translatable points of difference between the KJV and  Stephanus 1550. By way of comparison, there's only 110 with Beza 1598, 25 with the Polyglott, and 1 (!) with Erasmus 1527.

In some ways, Textus Receptus can be seen as a Roman Catholic production, "made in Rome", aided and abetted by translators with high-church sympathies in the Church of England. I got a good chuckle out of this essay:

http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_kjv_a_catholic_bible.htm

I have a Roman Catholic apologetic link somewhere which lists specific passages of the KJV which owe its origins to the Douay version.

Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 14, 2010, 12:47:04 PM
Thanks Isa,

This what makes the most sense to me as a translator is going to serve the needs of his/her audience. Since the original recipients of the original Septuagint were not Jews but Ptolemy, the translators saw no need try to convey all the nuances and spiritual implications of the Hebrew text, so they just translated the text literally to the best of their ability. The result: a fine and accurate academic translation for it's time, which is what it was intended to be. As for it's liturgical use, the Alexandrian Rabbis did use it though they would've needed to orally clarify many points, but they even needed to do this with the Hebrew texts, and still need to do this with the MT today.

That would be a mistranslation. If you don't convey the sense of the text, then you distort the sense. All the more reprehensible, as then you are deceiving Ptolemy the employer.
No, he was just the sponser.  The Holy Spirit was the employer (cf. the legend of St. Symeon). As the Lord (as Isaiah tells us) hired Cyrus as his foreman, so too Ptolemy. As Ptolemy was a pagan Greek, he represented the pagan gentile world, His intended audience and market, to whom the Lord was preparing the Way for His Gospel, starting the movement of God-fearers (e.g. Acts 18:7), and the wide dissimination of the Law as preparation for the Gospel. As Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine, successor of St. Luke as historian of the Church, demonstrates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preparation_for_the_Gospel
Quote
These things the sons of the Hebrews were long ago inspired to prophesy to the whole world, one crying,

'All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn unto the LORD, and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before Him: for the kingdom is the LORD'S, and He is the ruler over the nations'; and again, 'Tell it out among the heathen that the LORD is king, for He hath also stablished the world, which shall not be moved'; and another saith, 'The LORD will appear among them, and will utterly destroy all the gods of the nations of the earth, and men shall worship Him, every one from his place.'

These promises, having been long ago laid up in divine oracles, have now shone forth upon our own age through the teaching of our Saviour Jesus Christ; so that the knowledge of God among all nations, which was both proclaimed of old and looked for by those who were not ignorant of these matters, is duly preached to us by the Word, who has lately come from heaven, and shows that the actual fulfilment corresponds with the voices of the men of old.

IN the preceding Book, I have traced the lives of the Hebrews of old time before the appearance of Moses, men beloved of God who proved that title true by crowning themselves with the rewards of every virtue. Their pious doctrines also and instructions I described, and moreover their perfectly true and religious beliefs concerning God, which we have confessed that we Christians had come to love and to desire. And now, following the order of succession, I will pass on to the civil polity in the time of Moses, which after that first stage in religion presents a second, namely that which, is provided with legal ordinances quite peculiar to the Jewish nation.

For we shall prove at the proper opportunity that the institutions of Moses were suited to Jews alone, and not to the other nations of the world, nor were possible to be observed by all men, I mean by those who dwelt at a distance from the land of Judaea, whether Greeks or barbarians.

But now I am going to set forth this mode of life, I mean the life in the time of Moses, not in words of my own, but as before only in the words of the very authors who have been approved among the Jews for their hereditary learning: for I think it is proper for me to present the testimonies on which my proofs rest, in the same way as I began, through the authors properly belonging to each subject.

As therefore I called up Phoenicians, and Egyptians, and Greeks as witnesses of the matters well known among themselves in their own country, so it seems to me that the present occasion properly claims these Jewish witnesses, and not that I should myself be supposed to be giving a superficial sketch of matters foreign to me.

But before coming to this point, I think it necessary to set plainly before my readers, how the oracles of the Jews passed to the Greeks, and what was the method settled for the interpretation of the sacred writings entrusted to them; showing also the number and character of the interpreters, and the great zeal of the king, whereby those oracles came to be translated into the Greek language; for the explanation of these matters also will not be unadvisable in regard to my proof of the Preparation for the Gospel.

For when the light of the salutary preaching of our Saviour was all but ready to shine forth unto all men in the Roman empire, more than ordinary reason required that the prophecies concerning Him, and the mode of life of the pious Hebrews of old, and the lessons of their religious teaching, hidden from long ages in their native tongue, should now at length come forth to all the nations, to whom the knowledge of God was about to be introduced; and then God Himself, the author of these blessings, anticipating the future by His foreknowledge as God, arranged that the predictions concerning Him who was to appear before long as the Saviour of all mankind, and to establish Himself as the teacher of the religion of the One Supreme God to all the nations under the sun, should be revealed to them all, and be brought into the light by being accurately translated, and set up in public libraries. So God put it into the mind of King Ptolemy to accomplish this, in preparation, as it seems, for that participation in them by all the nations which was so soon to take place.

For we should not otherwise have got from the Jews those oracles which they would have hidden away for their jealousy of us; but these in consequence of the divinely ordered interpretation were vouchsafed to us in a translation by the men who were approved among them for intelligence and hereditary culture.

These things are described by Aristeas, a man who besides being learned was moreover engaged in the transactions of the time of the second Ptolemy, surnamed Philadelphus, in whose reign the translation of the Jewish Scriptures, made through the zeal of the king, was awarded a place in the libraries of Alexandria. But it is time to listen to the author himself relating the matter word for word in the following manner:
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_01_book1.htm
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_08_book8.htm
thereupon follows the correspondance between the court of Alexandria and the Temple of Jerusalem.

The Apostles picked up where the 72 Elders left off.

And the 72 Elders gave the sense the Spirit wanted, not the rabbis. And He had the copyright, which He passed to the Church, not the rabbis.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 14, 2010, 06:39:23 PM
I consider the Stephanus 1550 to be the best copy of the autographs, rejecting completely the often unsound speculations of scholars.

Then apparently you disagree with the translators of the KJV. According to bible-researcher.com there's roughly 150 translatable points of difference between the KJV and  Stephanus 1550. By way of comparison, there's only 110 with Beza 1598, 25 with the Polyglott, and 1 (!) with Erasmus 1527.

In some ways, Textus Receptus can be seen as a Roman Catholic production, "made in Rome", aided and abetted by translators with high-church sympathies in the Church of England. I got a good chuckle out of this essay:

http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_kjv_a_catholic_bible.htm

I have a Roman Catholic apologetic link somewhere which lists specific passages of the KJV which owe its origins to the Douay version.



Yes I do...but the differences are mostly insignificant, meaningless. Its a good Byzantine mss.

After noticing the fallacies employed to "divine what rings true, seemeth right" I chucked the entire methodology and chose to believe the 'received text" is the correct text, that's the Massoretic and Stephanus...

I chose Stephanus because it contains the "Johanine comma", I believe its scripture therefore the best text would contain it.

If I am wrong trusting Christ and His apostles on this, then I will gladly pay for that on Judgment Day, buy I suspect my faith will be rewarded, not punished.

BUT I won't end up like Bart or those like him, who get so upset by the straw man all the mss must agree or that God's Word must be grammatically without error to communicate truth...that's nonsense...the book of Revelation case in point.

God doesn't possess people like demons do, He doesn't override free will, He fully loves the individual He is speaking through, and so doesn't destroy any part of him.

When God bore along the prophet, it was revelation, a "knowing" beyond words, then the prophet wrote using whatever language skills he had, God made sure the correct meaning was communicated.

So even if an autograph were found containing spelling errors etc, I would not care. The use of synonyms, different word order, no problem! A picture can be accurately described with thousands of different words. I actually like the variant readings, they may exist by divine providence. Which might eventually allow the Massoretic and LXX equal seat at the table, perhaps even the Peshitta.

BUT as I said, I have decided to have complete faith in Jesus and His apostles, therefore what happened to Bart and those like him will NEVER  happen to me. I have complete confidence when I quote scripture (the Textus Recptus), I am quoting God.

I have enough confidence in the Septuagint and Peshitta, to cite them as God's Word...reserving the right to correct these with the Massoretic, if I need to. Because the apostles did precisely that on occasion, I cannot agree with the Orthodox the changes must be inspired by God and must be accepted, even where it contradicts the Hebrew. If the apostles practiced that, I would also, but they did not. But it does not follow one cannot quote the Septuagint as "God's Word," the NT writers certainly did that, often.


TO sum up, you have no standing to critique my method for choosing, its predicated upon faith, not the latest theory of transmission. Only if Jesus were shown not to be the Christ, would my faith in the Textus Receptus be shaken...fat chance of that happening.



Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 14, 2010, 06:50:55 PM
I consider the Stephanus 1550 to be the best copy of the autographs, rejecting completely the often unsound speculations of scholars.

Then apparently you disagree with the translators of the KJV. According to bible-researcher.com there's roughly 150 translatable points of difference between the KJV and  Stephanus 1550. By way of comparison, there's only 110 with Beza 1598, 25 with the Polyglott, and 1 (!) with Erasmus 1527.

In some ways, Textus Receptus can be seen as a Roman Catholic production, "made in Rome", aided and abetted by translators with high-church sympathies in the Church of England. I got a good chuckle out of this essay:

http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_kjv_a_catholic_bible.htm

I have a Roman Catholic apologetic link somewhere which lists specific passages of the KJV which owe its origins to the Douay version.



Yes I do...but the differences are mostly insignificant, meaningless. Its a good Byzantine mss.

After noticing the fallacies employed to "divine what rings true, seemeth right" I chucked the entire methodology and chose to believe the 'received text" is the correct text, that's the Massoretic and Stephanus...

Received by whom? Not Christ's Church.


Quote
If I am wrong trusting Christ and His apostles on this, then I will gladly pay for that on Judgment Day, buy I suspect my faith will be rewarded, not punished.

BUT I won't end up like Bart or those like him, who get so upset by the straw man all the mss must agree or that God's Word must be grammatically without error to communicate truth...that's nonsense...the book of Revelation case in point.

God doesn't possess like demons do, when He bore along the prophet, it was revelation, a "knowing" beyond words, then the prophet wrote using whatever language skills he had. So even if an autograph were found containing spelling errors etc, I would not care. The use of synonyms, different word order, no problem! A picture can be accurately described with thousands of different words. I actually like the variant readings, they may exist by divine providence.

Too bad you don't belief the parent addage: a picture is worth a thousand words.

Quote
Which might eventually allow the Massoretic and LXX equal seat at the table, perhaps even the Peshitta.

BUT as I said, I have decided to have complete faith in Jesus and His apostles, therefore what happened to Bart and those like him will NEVER  happen to me. I have complete confidence when I quote scripture (the Textus Recptus), I am quoting God.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 14, 2010, 09:38:10 PM
I consider the Stephanus 1550 to be the best copy of the autographs, rejecting completely the often unsound speculations of scholars.
Received by whom? Not Christ's Church.

I'm perfectly willing to consider the Greek Orthodox Text of the New Testament the "received text of the NT," but I can't find any critical evaluations of it. Everywhere I check (its in Bibleworks 8.0), it seems to be the same as Stephanus 1550.

BUT there must be some difference,  there are 332 more words in Stephanus, 273 more unique words, and 1 extra verse. I'd wager none of these are significant.

Does a critical evaluation of the Orthodox New Testament exist, no hits on Google save a dead link.

 

Greek New Testament Text of the Greek Orthodox Church. 

This public domain text was digitized by the Orthodox Skite St. Spyridon and is used by permission.

Version Statistics:
Version ID: GOC
Description: Greek Orthodox Church NT
Language: Greek
Number of Books: 27
Number of Chapters: 260
Number of Verses: 7953
Number of Blank Verses: 2
Total Number of Words: 140390
Number of Unique Words: 17540
Current Verse: 30633
Database Type: Greek Text Version



Stephanus (Robert Estienne's) 1550 GNT, unaccented text. 

Copyright © 1994 by the Online Bible Foundation and Woodside Fellowship of Ontario, Canada. 

Accenting added by BibleWorks.

Text, as printed by Robert Estienne, taken chiefly from the fifth edition of Erasmus (1535) although the Complutensian Polyglot of 1522 was used. 

STE text is the source of the SCR "Textus Receptus."

Version Statistics:
Version ID: STE
Description: Stephanus (Robert Etienne's) (1550) NT
Language: Greek
Number of Books: 27
Number of Chapters: 260
Number of Verses: 7956
Number of Blank Verses: 1
Total Number of Words: 140722
Number of Unique Words: 17267
Current Verse: 30632
Database Type: Greek Text Version

Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: John Larocque on August 14, 2010, 09:48:26 PM
I'm currently putting the finishing touches on a critical apparatus listing the variations between the 1904 and TR. There's about 850 in all. Most are insignificant but some are interesting. There's a great deal of overlap between the so-called majority text, especially in Revelations. There are many, many readings in Revelations where TR stands on one side of the fence, and the critical witnesses, majority text, and 1904 on the other, which is to say, those three agree more often then they disagree. Late Andreas-family texts and the Clementine Vulgate feature many late readings and interpolations - both Catholics and Protestants arguably have been using defective texts for centuries. In my opinion, the best "base text" to orient TR towards the 1904 is actually the ASV.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 14, 2010, 09:55:09 PM
I'm currently putting the finishing touches on a critical apparatus listing the variations between the 1904 and TR. There's about 850 in all. Most are insignificant but some are interesting. There's a great deal of overlap between the so-called majority text, especially in Revelations. There are many, many readings in Revelations where TR stands on one side of the fence, and the critical witnesses, majority text, and 1904 on the other, which is to say, those three agree more often then they disagree. Late Andreas-family texts and the Clementine Vulgate feature many late readings and interpolations.

Excellent, I look forward to it. I trust the Byzantine family of mss, and chose Stephanus because it retained the Johnanine comma, and seemed to be a faithful representative of that family of mss. The Majority Text followed by the NKJ lacks it and a few other items I think important. But if the Orthodox have a better text, I'd certainly switch.

It seems odd they didn't get this done in the 1st century...or after the canon was set...its been a long wait.

Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: John Larocque on August 14, 2010, 09:57:26 PM
For online texts of the GOC NT, go here:

http://www.apostoliki-diakonia.gr/bible/bible.asp?contents=new_testament/contents.asp&main=
http://onlinechapel.goarch.org/biblegreek/

If you hunt around, this site has it as well under an original text variant alongside TR, WH and the rest:
http://biblos.com/

The Eastern Orthodox Bible NT is currently the only English one on the market, a revision of the NT is forthcoming later this year.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 14, 2010, 10:06:08 PM
For online texts of the GOC NT, go here:

http://www.apostoliki-diakonia.gr/bible/bible.asp?contents=new_testament/contents.asp&main=
http://onlinechapel.goarch.org/biblegreek/

If you hunt around, this site has it as well under an original text variant alongside TR, WH and the rest:
http://biblos.com/

The Eastern Orthodox Bible NT is currently the only English one on the market, a revision of the NT is forthcoming later this year.


Thanks, i'll bookmark those.

Bibleworks "GOC" Greek Orthodox Text of the NT is the 1904 version, "This public domain text was digitized by the Orthodox Skite St. Spyridon and is used by permission."

If you don't have Bibleworks 8.0 you are at a major disadvantage. With Bibleworks its possible to compare all these texts in parallel columns and do computer analysis of each, search for words, phrases, etc. Its an amazing program, worth more than what they ask for it.


http://www.bibleworks.com/
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 14, 2010, 10:48:29 PM
I consider the Stephanus 1550 to be the best copy of the autographs, rejecting completely the often unsound speculations of scholars.
Received by whom? Not Christ's Church.

I'm perfectly willing to consider the Greek Orthodox Text of the New Testament the "received text of the NT," but I can't find any critical evaluations of it. Everywhere I check (its in Bibleworks 8.0), it seems to be the same as Stephanus 1550.

BUT there must be some difference,  there are 332 more words in Stephanus, 273 more unique words, and 1 extra verse. I'd wager none of these are significant.

Does a critical evaluation of the Orthodox New Testament exist, no hits on Google save a dead link.

 

Greek New Testament Text of the Greek Orthodox Church. 

This public domain text was digitized by the Orthodox Skite St. Spyridon and is used by permission.

Version Statistics:
Version ID: GOC
Description: Greek Orthodox Church NT
Language: Greek
Number of Books: 27
Number of Chapters: 260
Number of Verses: 7953
Number of Blank Verses: 2
Total Number of Words: 140390
Number of Unique Words: 17540
Current Verse: 30633
Database Type: Greek Text Version



Stephanus (Robert Estienne's) 1550 GNT, unaccented text. 

Copyright © 1994 by the Online Bible Foundation and Woodside Fellowship of Ontario, Canada. 

Accenting added by BibleWorks.

Text, as printed by Robert Estienne, taken chiefly from the fifth edition of Erasmus (1535) although the Complutensian Polyglot of 1522 was used. 

STE text is the source of the SCR "Textus Receptus."

Version Statistics:
Version ID: STE
Description: Stephanus (Robert Etienne's) (1550) NT
Language: Greek
Number of Books: 27
Number of Chapters: 260
Number of Verses: 7956
Number of Blank Verses: 1
Total Number of Words: 140722
Number of Unique Words: 17267
Current Verse: 30632
Database Type: Greek Text Version



What does a blank verse look like?
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: theistgal on August 14, 2010, 11:24:48 PM
Milton's "Paradise Lost". :D
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Luke on August 15, 2010, 01:32:24 AM
I have a translation called the Stone Edition, which translates Exodus 32:14 as god, with a small "g."  If the translator meant to refer to the God we worship, he would have wroteGod, with a capital "G."  Correct me if I am wrong, but did the Greek distinguish between capital and small letters when the LXX was written?  If not, I think the Greek plural would be closer to what the author meant than the Greek singular.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Luke on August 15, 2010, 02:05:42 AM
OOps.  Exodus 32:4.  Sorry.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 15, 2010, 09:39:11 AM
Quote
Of the approximately 300 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, approximately 2/3 of them came from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) which included the deuterocanonical books that the Protestants later removed. This is additional evidence that Jesus and the apostles viewed the deuterocanonical books as part of canon of the Old Testament. Here are some examples:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 15, 2010, 09:45:21 AM
I have a translation called the Stone Edition, which translates Exodus 32:14 as god, with a small "g."  If the translator meant to refer to the God we worship, he would have wroteGod, with a capital "G."  Correct me if I am wrong, but did the Greek distinguish between capital and small letters when the LXX was written?  If not, I think the Greek plural would be closer to what the author meant than the Greek singular.
no. Capital letters didn't come into that type of usage until centuries later (the definite article was used to mark words that way). They were used to mark divisions in the codices IIRC. 
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Luke on August 15, 2010, 10:05:44 AM
I have a translation called the Stone Edition, which translates Exodus 32:14 as god, with a small "g."  If the translator meant to refer to the God we worship, he would have wroteGod, with a capital "G."  Correct me if I am wrong, but did the Greek distinguish between capital and small letters when the LXX was written?  If not, I think the Greek plural would be closer to what the author meant than the Greek singular.
no. Capital letters didn't come into that type of usage until centuries later (the definite article was used to mark words that way). They were used to mark divisions in the codices IIRC. 
Thank you.  I also left out that the Stone edition I have is a Hebrew translation.  If one wants to get literal, the beginning of the sentence, in Hebrew, does not say "this," but says, "these."  I think the main point is that this idol was not God, whether one uses the singular "god" or plural "gods."  Trying to argue that there is a difference between the MT and LXX in this verse is fruitless.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 15, 2010, 10:43:35 AM
I have a translation called the Stone Edition, which translates Exodus 32:14 as god, with a small "g."  If the translator meant to refer to the God we worship, he would have wroteGod, with a capital "G."  Correct me if I am wrong, but did the Greek distinguish between capital and small letters when the LXX was written?  If not, I think the Greek plural would be closer to what the author meant than the Greek singular.

The earliest copies of the Septuagint were all capital letters. Its not the use of upper or lower "g" that indicates the translator's interpretation, but whether the plural or singular is used.

Literally the text reads "gods" as both the Hebrew  אֱלֹהֶיךָ and Greek  θεοί are plurals. BUT ancient Hebrews used the plural "gods" when referring to the One God of Israel, evidently in a "plural of majesty", to show God is "more majestic than many gods."

So translators indicate if they believe the image was of the "gods of Egypt" or the "god" of the Bible by whether they render it plural or singular, as this commentary shows. It translates "god" (singular) but says the image was of the One "God" of Israel:


they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt—It is inconceivable that they, who but a few weeks before had witnessed such amazing demonstrations of the true God, could have suddenly sunk to such a pitch of infatuation and brutish stupidity, as to imagine that human art or hands could make a god that should go before them. But it must be borne in mind, that though by election and in name they were the people of God, they were as yet, in feelings and associations, in habits and tastes, little, if at all different, from Egyptians. They meant the calf to be an image, a visible sign or symbol of Jehovah, so that their sin consisted not in a breach of the FIRST [Ex 20:3], but of the SECOND commandment [Ex 20:4–6].
5, 6. Aaron made proclamation, and said, To-morrow is a feast to the Lord—a remarkable circumstance, strongly confirmatory of the view that they had not renounced the worship of Jehovah, but in accordance with Egyptian notions, had formed an image with which they had been familiar, to be the visible symbol of the divine presence. But there seems to have been much of the revelry that marked the feasts of the heathen.


Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997). A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments (Ex 32:4–6). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

While one cannot say for certain why Translations like the Stone Edition or NKJV used the little "g" while still rendering it singular "god," in the above commentary it does this because it says the image was borrowed from the Egyptian  god Apis.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 15, 2010, 11:26:22 AM
I consider the Stephanus 1550 to be the best copy of the autographs, rejecting completely the often unsound speculations of scholars.
Received by whom? Not Christ's Church.

I'm perfectly willing to consider the Greek Orthodox Text of the New Testament the "received text of the NT," but I can't find any critical evaluations of it. Everywhere I check (its in Bibleworks 8.0), it seems to be the same as Stephanus 1550.

BUT there must be some difference,  there are 332 more words in Stephanus, 273 more unique words, and 1 extra verse. I'd wager none of these are significant.

Does a critical evaluation of the Orthodox New Testament exist, no hits on Google save a dead link.

 

Greek New Testament Text of the Greek Orthodox Church. 

This public domain text was digitized by the Orthodox Skite St. Spyridon and is used by permission.

Version Statistics:
Version ID: GOC
Description: Greek Orthodox Church NT
Language: Greek
Number of Books: 27
Number of Chapters: 260
Number of Verses: 7953
Number of Blank Verses: 2
Total Number of Words: 140390
Number of Unique Words: 17540
Current Verse: 30633
Database Type: Greek Text Version



Stephanus (Robert Estienne's) 1550 GNT, unaccented text. 

Copyright © 1994 by the Online Bible Foundation and Woodside Fellowship of Ontario, Canada. 

Accenting added by BibleWorks.

Text, as printed by Robert Estienne, taken chiefly from the fifth edition of Erasmus (1535) although the Complutensian Polyglot of 1522 was used. 

STE text is the source of the SCR "Textus Receptus."

Version Statistics:
Version ID: STE
Description: Stephanus (Robert Etienne's) (1550) NT
Language: Greek
Number of Books: 27
Number of Chapters: 260
Number of Verses: 7956
Number of Blank Verses: 1
Total Number of Words: 140722
Number of Unique Words: 17267
Current Verse: 30632
Database Type: Greek Text Version



What does a blank verse look like?

Precisely that, after the verse number, no text.

For example, the NET Bible has 18 blank verses. Chapter and verse divisions are a man made addition to scripture, not inspired, first used in mss having more verses than others.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 15, 2010, 11:34:52 AM
I have a translation called the Stone Edition, which translates Exodus 32:14 as god, with a small "g."  If the translator meant to refer to the God we worship, he would have wroteGod, with a capital "G."  Correct me if I am wrong, but did the Greek distinguish between capital and small letters when the LXX was written?  If not, I think the Greek plural would be closer to what the author meant than the Greek singular.

Perhaps that wasn't the best commentary to quote, it translated "gods" plural but still in reference to God. Here's another:

These are your gods, O Israel is literally “These your [singular] gods, Israel.” The singular your is used because the word for Israel is singular, but it refers to all Israelites, so many translators will want to use the plural form. Gods is the word ’elohim, which is plural in form. It is not certain, however, whether the singular or plural meaning is intended, so translations are divided. However, it is recommended that translators use the singular here; for example, “This is your [plural] god [singular].” 32:4 TEV changes the pronoun from second person to first person (inclusive), “Israel, this is our god, who led us out of Egypt!” The meaning of brought you up out of the land of Egypt is the same as “brought you up” in verse 1. (See the comment there.)

Osborn, N. D., & Hatton, H. (1999). A handbook on Exodus. UBS handbook series; Helps for translators (751–752). New York: United Bible Societies.


ATTENTION! A Retraction....ATTENTION! A Retraction.

I just realized my Opening post's argument is refuted by these commentaries I cited. The use of "gods" plural doesn't indicate whether the translator interprets its the God of Israel, or pagan gods.

In the above, translations are divided, not because they quibble whether it refers to God of Israel or pagan gods, but because its uncertain if Aaron is redefining the One God of Israel as a plural....that is, if he now uses the plural ELOHIYM literally.

oops!

So this thread then hangs on the examples of Bible writers preferring the Hebrew reading over the Septuagint, they prove the apostles did not believe the Septuagint's changes must be accepted.

I've decided to research this further, as noted in the Acts 15 quote above, many of these "differences" may be only apparent, not actual.

Still, Bible writers choosing the Hebrew over the LXX does indicate they didn't believe the changes the Septuagint made against the Hebrew, are to be accepted .



Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on August 15, 2010, 11:13:11 PM
Why is Metropolitan Kallistos' stance on this the final word? I've never read or heard any catechism material that stated some dogmatized belief akin to what is being so hotly debated. In fact, the Metropolitan's book is the only place I have read anything about the way in which Orthodox understand the Septuagint versus other texts.

I think a simple enough way to understand it is that this is the book we've always used since the time of the apostles, and we're sticking with it.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Melodist on August 15, 2010, 11:38:53 PM
Another verse that may be of interest when comparing greek and hebrew OTs is Job 1:5.

KJV
And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.

SAAS (OSB)
When the days of their drinking were ended, Job sent and purified them; and he rose early in the morning and offered sacrifices for them according to their number, as well as one calf for the sins of their souls. For Job said, "Lest my sons consider evil things in their mind against God." Therefore Job did this continually.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 16, 2010, 01:10:45 AM
I have a translation called the Stone Edition, which translates Exodus 32:14 as god, with a small "g."  If the translator meant to refer to the God we worship, he would have wroteGod, with a capital "G."  Correct me if I am wrong, but did the Greek distinguish between capital and small letters when the LXX was written?  If not, I think the Greek plural would be closer to what the author meant than the Greek singular.

The earliest copies of the Septuagint were all capital letters. Its not the use of upper or lower "g" that indicates the translator's interpretation, but whether the plural or singular is used.

Literally the text reads "gods" as both the Hebrew  אֱלֹהֶיךָ and Greek  θεοί are plurals. BUT ancient Hebrews used the plural "gods" when referring to the One God of Israel, evidently in a "plural of majesty", to show God is "more majestic than many gods."

So translators indicate if they believe the image was of the "gods of Egypt" or the "god" of the Bible by whether they render it plural or singular,
No, not belief but grammar, as I've demonstrated above:
Btw, on the title: What changes?

The LXX text predates the Masoretic Text. Heck, the Vulgate text predates the Masoretic text. We have physical copies of the LXX in one codex that predate the eariest complete Masoretic scroll by over half a millenium. So how can the LXX change anything in the Masoretic text?

And rather than trying to twist texts, why don't you attack a more comprehensive issue, like the status of the Anagignoskomena?

Why not answer my argument instead of changing the subject.

Your argument had been refuted. Hence I moved on.

But since there's a commercial:....

....we could go through all of Exodus, but I'm not going to. It is enough here to show that the simple syntactical rule that the plural of majesty, taking singular agreement, conforms to all the singular "God" (or in 34:14, "god") in the LXX, where plural agreement means plurality of the noun, as in your "prooftext," Ex. 32:4.


Now, I know that doesn't fit your agenda, but it fits the grammar of Hebrew, the revelation of God, the teaching of the Apostles, and the Faith of the Church.

(http://betterwaytomakealiving.com/_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/square-peg-round-hole.jpg)
move away from the hammer.

Quote
as this commentary shows.

This commentary is wrong.

Quote
It translates "god" (singular) but says the image was of the One "God" of Israel:

The OT (i.e. the LXX) says "gods" (plural)
32:4
καὶ ἐδέξατο ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν αὐτῶν καὶ ἔπλασεν αὐτὰ ἐν τῇ γραφίδι καὶ ἐποίησεν αὐτὰ μόσχον χωνευτὸν καὶ εἶπεν οὗτοι οἱ θεοί σου ισραηλ οἵτινες ἀνεβίβασάν σε ἐκ γῆς αἰγύπτου
וַיִּקַּח מִיָּדָם וַיָּצַר אֹתֹו בַּחֶרֶט וַיַּעֲשֵׂהוּ עֵגֶל מַסֵּכָה וַיֹּאמְרוּ
 אֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר
הֶעֱלוּךָ
 מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם
"these are your gods O Israel who brought you out" It is plural agreement in the Hebrew, so not plural of majesty, conforming to the LXX.

Quote
they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt—It is inconceivable that they, who but a few weeks before had witnessed such amazing demonstrations of the true God, could have suddenly sunk to such a pitch of infatuation and brutish stupidity, as to imagine that human art or hands could make a god that should go before them.

Scripture and the teaching of the Apostles says otherwise.

Quote
But it must be borne in mind, that though by election and in name they were the people of God, they were as yet, in feelings and associations, in habits and tastes, little, if at all different, from Egyptians. They meant the calf to be an image, a visible sign or symbol of Jehovah, so that their sin consisted not in a breach of the FIRST [Ex 20:3], but of the SECOND commandment [Ex 20:4–6].

They broke both. They are not mutually exclusive.  St. John of Damsscus and the rest of the Fathers expound on that quite a bit.

Quote

5, 6. Aaron made proclamation, and said, To-morrow is a feast to the Lord—a remarkable circumstance, strongly confirmatory of the view that they had not renounced the worship of Jehovah, but in accordance with Egyptian notions, had formed an image with which they had been familiar, to be the visible symbol of the divine presence. But there seems to have been much of the revelry that marked the feasts of the heathen.
Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997). A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments (Ex 32:4–6). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Another Protestant theory that the archeologist's trowel has buried.

In Elephantine, the last of the pharaoh's garrisoned a fort with Hebrews, and a catch of Aramaic documents documents the society there. They built a temple to Yahweh (called Yahu in the documents), but He had to share honors with a number of Aramaean and Egyptian deities, though oaths were sworn almost exclusively in the LORD's name.  Their religion also reflects what the prophets of Israel condemned.
"The Religion of the Jews of Elephantine in Light of the Hermopolis Papyri"
http://www.jstor.org/pss/543317
The Elephantine papyri in English: Three Millennia of Cross-Cultural Continuity and Change. Bezalel Porten
http://books.google.nl/books?id=qdrO1O5UcD0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Elephantine+Papyri&source=bl&ots=o5QZ7wTotG&sig=EFhKjVfuYPFHAo3Ir4eYmivT61M&hl=nl&ei=ze5CTPfOAsuoOP2XoM4M&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false
Quote
1 To my brothers,
2 Yedaniah and his colleagues of the Judahite garrison, (from) your brother Hananiah. May the gods seek the welfare of my brothers.
3 Now this year, the 5th year of King Darius, word was sent from the king to Arsames, saying:
4 In the month of Nisan, let there be a Passover for the Judahite garrison. Now accordingly count fourteen
5 days of the month Nisan and keep the Passover, and from the 15th day to the 21st day of Nisan
6 are seven days of Unleavend Bread. Be clean and take heed. Do not work
7 on the 15th day and on the 21st day. Also, drink no intoxicants; and anything in which there is leaven,
8 do not eat, from the 15th day from sunset until the 21st day of Nisan, seven
9 days, let it not be seen among you; do not bring it into your houses, but seal it up during those days.
10 Let this be done as King Darius commanded.
11 To my brethren, Yedaniah and his colleagues of the Judahite garrison, (from) your brother Hananiah.  
http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/westsem/passover.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=LJ1c9We_ay8C&pg=PA420&lpg=PA420&dq=elephantine+worship+goddess+Jews&source=bl&ots=fL-SbJxWVq&sig=Ha0y6RI8gq405L2SbSF0i7-v9gA&hl=en&ei=jrFoTObzGMXunQeXwZzBBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=elephantine%20worship%20goddess%20Jews&f=false

Quote
While one cannot say for certain why Translations like the Stone Edition or NKJV used the little "g" while still rendering it singular "god," in the above commentary it does this because it says the image was borrowed from the Egyptian  god Apis.

I'll leave you to wonder. Standing firm on the Tradition of the Church received of the Apostles, I don't have to wonder about such things.


I have a translation called the Stone Edition, which translates Exodus 32:14 as god, with a small "g."  If the translator meant to refer to the God we worship, he would have wroteGod, with a capital "G."  Correct me if I am wrong, but did the Greek distinguish between capital and small letters when the LXX was written?  If not, I think the Greek plural would be closer to what the author meant than the Greek singular.

Perhaps that wasn't the best commentary to quote, it translated "gods" plural but still in reference to God. Here's another:

These are your gods, O Israel is literally “These your [singular] gods, Israel.” The singular your is used because the word for Israel is singular, but it refers to all Israelites, so many translators will want to use the plural form. Gods is the word ’elohim, which is plural in form. It is not certain, however, whether the singular or plural meaning is intended, so translations are divided.

Only those who neither know the Apostolic teaching nor Hebrew grammar. The number of the pronoun suffix "your" has nothing to do with the number of gods, which has plural agreement both in the LXX and the MT (Targumim).  
Though you can make appeal to the Peshitta.
Btw, an interesting study by St. Ephraim, the glory of Syriac:
Signs of Ephrem's Exegetical Techniques in his Homily on Our Lord:Verbal Links between Exodus 32-34 and Luke 7:36-50
http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol3No1/HV3N1Kim.html

Quote
However, it is recommended that translators use the singular here; for example, “This is your [plural] god [singular].” 32:4 TEV changes the pronoun from second person to first person (inclusive), “Israel, this is our god, who led us out of Egypt!” The meaning of brought you up out of the land of Egypt is the same as “brought you up” in verse 1. (See the comment there.)
Osborn, N. D., & Hatton, H. (1999). A handbook on Exodus. UBS handbook series; Helps for translators (751–752). New York: United Bible Societies.

This is the solution for a nonexistent problem. Unless you hold to the iconoclasm of Perssonism.


Quote
ATTENTION! A Retraction....ATTENTION! A Retraction.

You got our hopes up.

Quote
color=#7f0000]I just realized my Opening post's argument is refuted by these commentaries I cited[/color].

So you abandon your "authorities" when they don't support your argument.

Quote
The use of "gods" plural doesn't indicate whether the translator interprets its the God of Israel, or pagan gods.

In the above, translations are divided, not because they quibble whether it refers to God of Israel or pagan gods, but because its uncertain if Aaron is redefining the One God of Israel as a plural....that is, if he now uses the plural ELOHIYM literally.

oops!

Indeed.

Quote
So this thread then hangs on the examples of Bible writers preferring the Hebrew reading over the Septuagint,

No, you have hung yourself, because you haven't quoted a single Bible writer, but a bunch of translators 3,000 years later, authorities whom you know abandon, who you try to put in place of the inspired translators of the LXX.

Quote
they prove the apostles did not believe the Septuagint's changes must be accepted.

You prove you don't know what you are talking about: your statement isn't even substantiated by the first part of your sentence.

Quote
I've decided to research this further, as noted in the Acts 15 quote above, many of these "differences" may be only apparent, not actual.


Since you are fond of novelties, why not try something new (for you) for a change, and find out what the Church has always taught.

Quote
Still, Bible writers choosing the Hebrew over the LXX


You still haven't substantiated this unsubstantiatable assertion of yours.

Quote
does indicate they didn't believe the changes the Septuagint made against the Hebrew, are to be accepted .

We are still not Hindus.  Your mantra will not work.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 16, 2010, 01:51:38 AM

Still, Bible writers choosing the Hebrew over the LXX


You still haven't substantiated this unsubstantiatable assertion of yours.

Actually I have, but Paul is citing the Aramaic Targum, not the Hebrew:

To thy seed
Gn 12.7 quoted in Ga 3.16


Not quote, alluded to a text where "seed" appears. Its unlikely Gen 12:7 is it, that is God's promise Abraham's seed will inherit the land.

Paul probably refers to Gen 22:18 which does convey the idea of the earth being blessed by Abraham and Christ, but only if you already have Christ's appearance or Paul's argument in mind:

That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. (Gen 22:17-18 KJV)

surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is by the shore of the sea, and thy seed shall inherit the cities of their enemies. 18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast hearkened to my voice. (Gen 22:18 LXE)

These both read the same, "possessing the gate" is idiom for controlling a city.

The real difficulty (for both of us) is the Hebrew (זֶרַע  ) and Greek (σπέρμα) are singular in both verses 17 & 18, contradicting Paul's argument:

" He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ. (Gal 3:16 NKJ)

The only time "seeds" in Greek is plural is Gal 3:16, throughout the lxx (and Hebrew) the singular "seed" only appears, in reference to both single and plural descendants.

Hence Paul has been accused of a trick argument unworthy of an apostle.

Jerome affirms that the apostle made use of a false argument, which, although it might appear well enough to the stupid Galatians, would not be approved by wise or learned men.-- Chandler." Barnes' Notes on the Bible

That charge is false. The Aramaic Targums (Bibleworks NFM) has the Plural in verse 17, singular in verse 18, perfectly matching Paul's argument.

 "The Targums, in fact, take this corporate understanding of the promise so much for granted that they uniformly and unequivocally cast the expression in the plural: "and to your sons."-Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, Richard Longenecker (William B Eerdman's Pub Co, 1975, p. 123

[/color]

So when the Orthodox cite this text to prove Septuagint Primacy, they lose because Paul cites the Aramaic Targum, not the Septuagint at all.



THAT ancient Jews saw this difference in the Hebrew word for "seed" is proved by: 1)Paul's argument; 2)the Galatians acceptance of that argument; 3)the Aramaic Targums which consistently change the singular to plural when it refers to the descendants of Abraham.

That modern scholars miss this sense is irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent.

Therefore Paul didn't make a trick argument, he wasn't citing the Septuagint, and I have now substantiated that fact.
[/i]


Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 16, 2010, 02:37:25 AM
Another verse that may be of interest when comparing greek and hebrew OTs is Job 1:5.

KJV
And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.

SAAS (OSB)
When the days of their drinking were ended, Job sent and purified them; and he rose early in the morning and offered sacrifices for them according to their number, as well as one calf for the sins of their souls. For Job said, "Lest my sons consider evil things in their mind against God." Therefore Job did this continually.

I've added it to my list...it will be awhile.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 16, 2010, 02:43:22 AM
Why is Metropolitan Kallistos' stance on this the final word? I've never read or heard any catechism material that stated some dogmatized belief akin to what is being so hotly debated. In fact, the Metropolitan's book is the only place I have read anything about the way in which Orthodox understand the Septuagint versus other texts.

I think a simple enough way to understand it is that this is the book we've always used since the time of the apostles, and we're sticking with it.

If that is the case, I have no argument against the LXX, I like it, I thank God for it, the alternate readings are a blessing, not a curse. Often these explain the Hebrew, or present an implication that would be immediately apparent to a ancient Jewish reader, but is unseen by us who are accustomed to having every premise stated. Unlike us, the ancients didn't have entertainment in every possible form grabbing their attention, they had only scripture to meditate upon...hence they deduced from the symbols used, lots of things we miss. That is one of the chief reasons some suppose Paul is teaching things he never heard from Christ...on the contrary, everything in Paul is taught by Jesus, either explicitly or unseen by many, implicitly via symbols.

AND I have no quibble with you if you choose it over the Hebrew, because its what you always had and are sticking to it.

I can admire that conservatism.

Same is true of the Peshitta, neither would I insist it can't be used by those considering it scripture. FACT IS, I could use either to preach Christ risen from the dead, and consider it a blessing these versions exist.

My dispute is against the dogma the Septuagint's changes are inspired, and that these must be accepted without question. That contradicts what we see in the NT.


Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 16, 2010, 02:57:52 AM

Still, Bible writers choosing the Hebrew over the LXX


You still haven't substantiated this unsubstantiatable assertion of yours.

Actually I have, but Paul is citing the Aramaic Targum, not the Hebrew:

So now you have gone from Judaizer to an Aramaic primacist? And actually, if you are not saying that they cite the Aramaic, then you are abandoning what you claim in the same sentence to have "substantiated."

Quote
To thy seed
Gn 12.7 quoted in Ga 3.16


Not quote, alluded to a text where "seed" appears. Its unlikely Gen 12:7 is it, that is God's promise Abraham's seed will inherit the land.

Paul probably refers to Gen 22:18 which does convey the idea of the earth being blessed by Abraham and Christ, but only if you already have Christ's appearance or Paul's argument in mind:

That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. (Gen 22:17-18 KJV)

surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is by the shore of the sea, and thy seed shall inherit the cities of their enemies. 18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast hearkened to my voice. (Gen 22:18 LXE)

These both read the same, "possessing the gate" is idiom for controlling a city.

The real difficulty (for both of us) is the Hebrew (זֶרַע  ) and Greek (σπέρμα) are singular in both verses 17 & 18, contradicting Paul's argument:

" He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ. (Gal 3:16 NKJ)

The only time "seeds" in Greek is plural is Gal 3:16, throughout the lxx (and Hebrew) the singular "seed" only appears, in reference to both single and plural descendants.

Hence Paul has been accused of a trick argument unworthy of an apostle.

Jerome affirms that the apostle made use of a false argument, which, although it might appear well enough to the stupid Galatians, would not be approved by wise or learned men.-- Chandler." Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Proving yet again Jerome bears much of the blame for walking disoderly, and not in the Tradition received of the Apostles. Jerome, the hubris of "correcting" an Apostle.

Quote
That charge is false. The Aramaic Targums (Bibleworks NFM) has the Plural in verse 17, singular in verse 18, perfectly matching Paul's argument.

 "The Targums, in fact, take this corporate understanding of the promise so much for granted that they uniformly and unequivocally cast the expression in the plural: "and to your sons."-Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, Richard Longenecker (William B Eerdman's Pub Co, 1975, p. 123

[/color]

Yet again seeking solutions for nonexistent problems, creating problems: since no one Galatia was speaking Aramaic, but Greek and hence were reading the LXX, St. Paul's argument would be confusing, presupposing as you do the Targum.

One doesn't need to know the Targums (which the Galatians didn't) to follow St. Paul's argument.  Just the LXX, and knowledge of the Greek distinction between the singular and pluarl (which the Galatians did).

Quote
So when the Orthodox cite this text to prove Septuagint Primacy, they lose because Paul cites the Aramaic Targum, not the Septuagint at all.

Gen. 22:18 τῷ σπέρματί σου (LXX)
Gal.   3:16 τῷ σπέρματί σου

You might want to learn Greek, before attempting to make such arguments that are easily refuted.

Quote
THAT ancient Jews saw this difference in the Hebrew word for "seed" is proved by: 1)Paul's argument; 2)the Galatians acceptance of that argument; 3)the Aramaic Targums which consistently change the singular to plural when it refers to the descendants of Abraham.

Odd that you bring the ancient Jews in on this discussion, as the whole point of Galatians is that the Gentiles (to whom St. Paul is addressing in the Epistle) are to resist the idea that they have to become Jews to become Chrsitians.

Quote
That modern scholars miss this sense is irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent.

Then why do you never cease citing them as your authorities?

Quote
Therefore Paul didn't make a trick argument, he wasn't citing the Septuagint, and I have now substantiated that fact.[/b]

You just substantiated that you don't know what you are talking about. Again.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 16, 2010, 03:02:29 AM
Why is Metropolitan Kallistos' stance on this the final word? I've never read or heard any catechism material that stated some dogmatized belief akin to what is being so hotly debated. In fact, the Metropolitan's book is the only place I have read anything about the way in which Orthodox understand the Septuagint versus other texts.

I think a simple enough way to understand it is that this is the book we've always used since the time of the apostles, and we're sticking with it.

If that is the case, I have no argument against the LXX, I like it, I thank God for it, the alternate readings are a blessing, not a curse. Often these explain the Hebrew, or present an implication that would be immediately apparent to a ancient Jewish reader, but is unseen by us who are accustomed to having every premise stated. Unlike us, the ancients didn't have entertainment in every possible form grabbing their attention, they had only scripture to meditate upon...hence they deduced from the symbols used, lots of things we miss. That is one of the chief reasons some suppose Paul is teaching things he never heard from Christ...on the contrary, everything in Paul is taught by Jesus, either explicitly or unseen by many, implicitly via symbols.

AND I have no quibble with you if you choose it over the Hebrew, because its what you always had and are sticking to it.

I can admire that conservatism.

Same is true of the Peshitta, neither would I insist it can't be used by those considering it scripture. FACT IS, I could use either to preach Christ risen from the dead, and consider it a blessing these versions exist.

My dispute is against the dogma the Septuagint's changes are inspired, and that these must be accepted without question. That contradicts what we see in the NT.



No, it contradicts what your Protestants read into the NT.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 16, 2010, 03:06:39 AM
Gen. 22:18 τῷ σπέρματί σου (LXX)
Gal.   3:16 τῷ σπέρματί σου

You might want to learn Greek, before attempting to make such arguments that are easily refuted.

σπέρματί noun dative neuter singular from σπέρμα

The plural form (in Greek scripture) appears only in Galatians 3:16:

σπέρμασιν noun dative neuter plural from σπέρμα
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 16, 2010, 03:56:53 AM
Gen. 22:18 τῷ σπέρματί σου (LXX)
Gal.   3:16 τῷ σπέρματί σου

You might want to learn Greek, before attempting to make such arguments that are easily refuted.

σπέρματί noun dative neuter singular from σπέρμα

The plural form (in Greek scripture) appears only in Galatians 3:16:

σπέρμασιν noun dative neuter plural from σπέρμα
Yes, I am aware of that.   And the words before in Galatians 3:16? οὐ λέγει, καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν

Care to translate?
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 16, 2010, 11:35:53 AM
Gen. 22:18 τῷ σπέρματί σου (LXX)
Gal.   3:16 τῷ σπέρματί σου

You might want to learn Greek, before attempting to make such arguments that are easily refuted.

σπέρματί noun dative neuter singular from σπέρμα

The plural form (in Greek scripture) appears only in Galatians 3:16:

σπέρμασιν noun dative neuter plural from σπέρμα
Yes, I am aware of that.   And the words before in Galatians 3:16? οὐ λέγει, καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν

Care to translate?

This isn't about me, the Orthodox position LXX changes must be accepted, is clearly wrong, Paul based his argument on the Aramaic translation of this text, not the Septuagint.

If Paul AND the Galatians were using the Septuagint, he couldn't have made the argument he did in Gal 3:16.

 16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. (Gal 3:16 KJV)

The Septuagint does not have "seeds" in plural anywhere when referring to descendants, it always uses "seed" singular even where its "of many".


We can argue the sense Paul cites is in the Hebrew, the ancient Jews saw it there and conveyed it into their Aramaic translation, the same cannot be affirmed of the Septuagint, which is a translation of the Hebrew just as the Aramaic translations are.


Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 16, 2010, 01:09:44 PM
The Testimony of St. Justin Martyr (a native of Palestine), against the Jew Trypho c. 150
Revelation, truth, canon, and interpretation: studies in Justin Martyr's ... By Craig D. Allert
http://books.google.com/books?id=wGsJ8ndwDnQC&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=date+Dialogue+Trypho&source=bl&ots=-0SMKHsSWQ&sig=wQjZWOmMAfBzMh1lNRqv642c5Yw&hl=en&ei=9G5pTK7dINL-nAe48tHBBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CCsQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=date%20Dialogue%20Trypho&f=false
Dialogue with Trypho By Justin (Martyr, Saint.), Michael Slusser
http://books.google.com/books?id=WBXUNkYU_bwC&pg=PR12&lpg=PR12&dq=date+Dialogue+Trypho&source=bl&ots=HnhgJCFB57&sig=zgVEeqB-DEsc86yzrA7iuedKdqU&hl=en&ei=9G5pTK7dINL-nAe48tHBBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=date%20Dialogue%20Trypho&f=false
Quote
Chapter XIII.—History of the Septuagint.
But if any one says that the writings of Moses and of the rest of the prophets were also written in the Greek character, let him read profane histories, and know that Ptolemy, king of Egypt, when he had built the library in Alexandria, and by gathering books from every quarter had filled it, then learnt that very ancient histories written in Hebrew happened to be carefully preserved; and wishing to know their contents, he sent for seventy wise men from Jerusalem, who were acquainted with both the Greek and Hebrew language, and appointed them to translate the books; and that in freedom from all disturbance they might the more speedily complete the translation, he ordered that there should be constructed, not in the city itself, but seven stadia off (where the Pharos was built), as many little cots as there were translators, so that each by himself might complete his own translation; and enjoined upon those officers who were appointed to this duty, to afford them all attendance, but to prevent communication with one another, in order that the accuracy of the translation might be discernible even by their agreement. And when he ascertained that the seventy men had not only given the same meaning, but had employed the same words, and had failed in agreement with one another not even to the extent of one word; but had written the same things, and concerning the same things, he was struck with amazement, and believed that the translation had been written by divine power, and perceived that the men were worthy of all honour, as beloved of God; and with many gifts ordered them to return to their own country. And having, as was natural, marvelled at the books, and concluded them to be divine, he consecrated them in that library. These things, ye men of Greece, are no fable, nor do we narrate fictions; but we ourselves having been in Alexandria, saw the remains of the little cots at the Pharos still preserved, and having heard these things from the inhabitants, who had received them as part of their country’s tradition, we now tell to you what you can also learn from others, and specially from those wise and esteemed men who have written of these things, Philo and Josephus, and many others. But if any of those who are wont to be forward in contradiction should say that these books do not belong to us, but to the Jews, and should assert that we in vain profess to have learnt our religion froth them, let him know, as he may from those very things which are written in these books, that not to them, but to us, does the doctrine of them refer. That the books relating to our religion are to this day preserved among the Jews, has been a work of Divine Providence on our behalf; for lest, by producing them out of the Church, we should give occasion to those who wish to slander us to charge us with fraud, we demand that they be produced from the synagogue of the Jews, that from the very books still preserved among them it might clearly and evidently appear, that the laws which were written by holy men for instruction pertain to us.

Chapter LXXI.—The Jews reject the interpretation of the LXX., from which, moreover, they have taken away some passages.
“But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you. For you assent to those which I have brought before your attention, except that you contradict the statement, ‘Behold, the virgin shall conceive,’ and say it ought to be read, ‘Behold, the young woman shall conceive.’ And I promised to prove that the prophecy referred, not, as you were taught, to Hezekiah, but to this Christ of mine: and now I shall go to the proof.”

Here Trypho remarked, “We ask you first of all to tell us some of the Scriptures which you allege have been completely cancelled.”

The witness of St Irenaeus, who demonstrated the Apostolic preaching against the heresies:
Quote
Chapter XXI.—A vindication of the prophecy in Isa. vii. 14 against the misinterpretations of Theodotion, Aquila, the Ebionites, and the Jews. Authority of the Septuagint version. Arguments in proof that Christ was born of a virgin.
1. God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us the token of the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now presuming to expound the Scripture, [thus:] “Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son,” (Isa. vii. 14) as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, [NOTE: Epiphanius, in his De Mensuris, gives an account of these two men. The former published his version of the Old Testament in the year 181. The latter put forth his translation half a century earlier, about 129 a.d.]  both Jewish proselytes. The Ebionites, following these, assert that He was begotten by Joseph; thus destroying, as far as in them lies, such a marvellous dispensation of God, and setting aside the testimony of the prophets which proceeded from God. For truly this prediction was uttered before the removal of the people to Babylon; that is, anterior to the supremacy acquired by the Medes and Persians. But it was interpreted into Greek by the Jews themselves, much before the period of our Lord’s advent, that there might remain no suspicion that perchance the Jews, complying with our humour, did put this interpretation upon these words. They indeed, had they been cognizant of our future existence, and that we should use these proofs from the Scriptures, would themselves never have hesitated to burn their own Scriptures, which do declare that all other nations partake of [eternal] life, and show that they who boast themselves as being the house of Jacob and the people of Israel, are disinherited from the grace of God.
2. For before the Romans possessed their kingdom, while as yet the Macedonians held Asia, Ptolemy the son of Lagus, being anxious to adorn the library which he had founded in Alexandria, with a collection of the writings of all men, which were [works] of merit, made request to the people of Jerusalem, that they should have their Scriptures translated into the Greek language. And they—for at that time they were still subject to the Macedonians—sent to Ptolemy seventy of their elders, who were thoroughly skilled in the Scriptures and in both the languages, to carry out what he had desired—God having accomplished what He intended. But he, wishing to test them individually, and fearing lest they might perchance, by taking counsel together, conceal the truth in the Scriptures, by their interpretation, separated them from each other, and commanded them all to write the same translation. He did this with respect to all the books. But when they came together in the same place before Ptolemy, and each of them compared his own interpretation with that of every other, God was indeed glorified, and the Scriptures were acknowledged as truly divine. For all of them read out the common translation [which they had prepared] in the very same words and the very same names, from beginning to end, so that even the Gentiles present perceived that the Scriptures had been interpreted by the inspiration of God. [See Justin Martyr, To the Greeks, cap. xiii. The testimony of Justin naturalized this Jewish legend among Christians.] And there was nothing astonishing in God having done this,—He who, when, during the captivity of the people under Nebuchadnezzar, the Scriptures had been corrupted, and when, after seventy years, the Jews had returned to their own land, then, in the times of Artaxerxes king of the Persians, inspired Esdras the priest, of the tribe of Levi, to recast all the words of the former prophets, and to re-establish with the people the Mosaic legislation.
3. Since, therefore, the Scriptures have been interpreted with such fidelity, and by the grace of God, and since from these God has prepared and formed again our faith towards His Son, and has preserved to us the unadulterated Scriptures in Egypt, where the house of Jacob flourished, fleeing from the famine in Canaan; where also our Lord was preserved when He fled from the persecution set on foot by Herod; and [since] this interpretation of these Scriptures was made prior to our Lord’s descent [to earth], and came into being before the Christians appeared —for our Lord was born about the forty-first year of the reign of Augustus; but Ptolemy was much earlier, under whom the Scriptures were interpreted;—[since these things are so, I say,] truly these men are proved to be impudent and presumptuous, who would now show a desire to make different translations, when we refute them out of these Scriptures, and shut them up to a belief in the advent of the Son of God. But our faith is stedfast, unfeigned, and the only true one, having clear proof from these Scriptures, which were interpreted in the way I have related; and the preaching of the Church is without interpolation. For the apostles, since they are of more ancient date than all these [heretics], agree with this aforesaid translation; and the translation harmonizes with the tradition of the apostles. For Peter, and John, and Matthew, and Paul, and the rest successively, as well as their followers, did set forth all prophetical [announcements], just as the interpretation of the elders contains them.
4. For the one and the same Spirit of God, who proclaimed by the prophets what and of what sort the advent of the Lord should be, did by these elders give a just interpretation of what had been truly prophesied; and He did Himself, by the apostles, announce that the fulness of the times of the adoption had arrived, that the kingdom of heaven had drawn nigh, and that He was dwelling within those that believe on Him who was born Emmanuel of the Virgin. To this effect they testify, [saying,] that before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity, “she was found with child of the Holy Ghost;” (Matt. i. 18) and that the angel Gabriel said unto her, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God;” (Luke i. 35) and that the angel said to Joseph in a dream, “Now this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, Behold, a virgin shall be with child.” (Matt. i. 23) But the elders have thus interpreted what Esaias said: “And the Lord, moreover, said unto Ahaz, Ask for thyself a sign from the Lord thy God out of the depth below, or from the height above. And Ahaz said, I will not ask, and I will not tempt the Lord. And he said, It is not a small thing for you to weary men; and how does the Lord weary them? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son; and ye shall call His name Emmanuel. Butter and honey shall He eat: before He knows or chooses out things that are evil, He shall exchange them for what is good; for before the child knows good or evil, He shall not consent to evil, that He may choose that which is good.” (Isa. vii. 10–17) Carefully, then, has the Holy Ghost pointed out, by what has been said, His birth from a virgin, and His essence, that He is God (for the name Emmanuel indicates this). And He shows that He is a man, when He says, “Butter and honey shall He eat;” and in that He terms Him a child also, [in saying,] “before He knows good and evil;” for these are all the tokens of a human infant. But that He “will not consent to evil, that He may choose that which is good,”—this is proper to God; that by the fact, that He shall eat butter and honey, we should not understand that He is a mere man only, nor, on the other hand, from the name Emmanuel, should suspect Him to be God without flesh.
5. And when He says, “Hear, O house of David,” (Isa. vii. 13) He performed the part of one indicating that He whom God promised David that He would raise up from the fruit of his belly (ventris) an eternal King, is the same who was born of the Virgin, herself of the lineage of David. For on this account also, He promised that the King should be “of the fruit of his belly,” which was the appropriate [term to use with respect] to a virgin conceiving, and not “of the fruit of his loins,” nor “of the fruit of his reins,” which expression is appropriate to a generating man, and a woman conceiving by a man. In this promise, therefore, the Scripture excluded all virile influence; yet it certainly is not mentioned that He who was born was not from the will of man. But it has fixed and established “the fruit of the belly,” that it might declare the generation of Him who should be [born] from the Virgin, as Elisabeth testified when filled with the Holy Ghost, saying to Mary, “Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy belly;” (Luke i. 42) the Holy Ghost pointing out to those willing to hear, that the promise which God had made, of raising up a King from the fruit of [David’s] belly, was fulfilled in the birth from the Virgin, that is, from Mary. Let those, therefore, who alter the passage of Isaiah thus, “Behold, a young woman shall conceive,” and who will have Him to be Joseph’s son, also alter the form of the promise which was given to David, when God promised him to raise up, from the fruit of his belly, the horn of Christ the King. But they did not understand, otherwise they would have presumed to alter even this passage also.
6. But what Isaiah said, “From the height above, or from the depth beneath,” (Isa. vii. 11) was meant to indicate, that “He who descended was the same also who ascended.” (Eph. iv. 10) But in this that he said, “The Lord Himself shall give you a sign,” he declared an unlooked-for thing with regard to His generation, which could have been accomplished in no other way than by God the Lord of all, God Himself giving a sign in the house of David. For what great thing or what sign should have been in this, that a young woman conceiving by a man should bring forth,—a thing which happens to all women that produce offspring? But since an unlooked-for salvation was to be provided for men through the help of God, so also was the unlooked-for birth from a virgin accomplished; God giving this sign, but man not working it out.
7. On this account also,  (Dan. ii. 34) foreseeing His advent, said that a stone, cut out without hands, came into this world. For this is what “without hands” means, that His coming into this world was not by the operation of human hands, that is, of those men who are accustomed to stone-cutting; that is, Joseph taking no part with regard to it, but Mary alone co-operating with the pre-arranged plan. For this stone from the earth derives existence from both the power and the wisdom of God. Wherefore also Isaiah says: “Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I deposit in the foundations of Zion a stone, precious, elect, the chief, the corner-one, to be had in honour.” (Isa. xxviii. 16) So, then, we understand that His advent in human nature was not by the will of a man, but by the will of God.
8. Wherefore also Moses giving a type, cast his rod upon the earth, (Ex. vii. 9) in order that it, by becoming flesh, might expose and swallow up all the opposition of the Egyptians, which was lifting itself up against the pre-arranged plan of God; (Ex. viii. 19) that the Egyptians themselves might testify that it is the finger of God which works salvation for the people, and not the son of Joseph. For if He were the son of Joseph, how could He be greater than Solomon, or greater than Jonah, (Matt. xii. 41, 42) or greater than David, (Matt. xxii. 43) when He was generated from the same seed, and was a descendant of these men? And how was it that He also pronounced Peter blessed, because he acknowledged Him to be the Son of the living God? (Matt. xvi. 17)
9. But besides, if indeed He had been the son of Joseph, He could not, according to Jeremiah, be either king or heir. For Joseph is shown to be the son of Joachim and Jechoniah, as also Matthew sets forth in his pedigree. (Matt. i. 12–16) But Jechoniah, and all his posterity, were disinherited from the kingdom; Jeremiah thus declaring, “As I live, saith the Lord, if Jechoniah the son of Joachim king of Judah had been made the signet of my right hand, I would pluck him thence, and deliver him into the hand of those seeking thy life.” (Jer. xxii. 24, 25) And again: “Jechoniah is dishonoured as a useless vessel, for he has been cast into a land which he knew not. Earth, hear the word of the Lord: Write this man a disinherited person; for none of his seed, sitting on the throne of David, shall prosper, or be a prince in Judah.” (Jer. xxii. 28, etc.) And again, God speaks of Joachim his father: “Therefore thus saith the Lord concerning Joachim his father, king of Judea, There shall be from him none sitting upon the throne of David: and his dead body shall be cast out in the heat of day, and in the frost of night. And I will look upon him, and upon his sons, and will bring upon them, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, upon the land of Judah, all the evils that I have pronounced against them.” (Jer. xxxvi. 30, 31) Those, therefore, who say that He was begotten of Joseph, and that they have hope in Him, do cause themselves to be disinherited from the kingdom, failing under the curse and rebuke directed against Jechoniah and his seed. Because for this reason have these things been spoken concerning Jechoniah, the [Holy] Spirit foreknowing the doctrines of the evil teachers; that they may learn that from his seed—that is, from Joseph—He was not to be born but that, according to the promise of God, from David’s belly the King eternal is raised up, who sums up all things in Himself, and has gathered into Himself the ancient formation [of man].
10. For as by one man’s disobedience sin entered, and death obtained [a place] through sin; so also by the obedience of one man, righteousness having been introduced, shall cause life to fructify in those persons who in times past were dead. (Rom. v. 19) And as the protoplast himself Adam, had his substance from untilled and as yet virgin soil (“for God had not yet sent rain, and man had not tilled the ground” (Gen. ii. 5.), and was formed by the hand of God, that is, by the Word of God, for “all things were made by Him,” (John i. 3) and the Lord took dust from the earth and formed man; so did He who is the Word, recapitulating Adam in Himself, rightly receive a birth, enabling Him to gather up Adam [into Himself], from Mary, who was as yet a virgin. If, then, the first Adam had a man for his father, and was born of human seed, it were reasonable to say that the second Adam was begotten of Joseph. But if the former was taken from the dust, and God was his Maker, it was incumbent that the latter also, making a recapitulation in Himself, should be formed as man by God, to have an analogy with the former as respects His origin. Why, then, did not God again take dust, but wrought so that the formation should be made of Mary? It was that there might not be another formation called into being, nor any other which should [require to] be saved, but that the very same formation should be summed up [in Christ as had existed in Adam], the analogy having been preserved.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 16, 2010, 01:32:42 PM
Gen. 22:18 τῷ σπέρματί σου (LXX)
Gal.   3:16 τῷ σπέρματί σου

You might want to learn Greek, before attempting to make such arguments that are easily refuted.

σπέρματί noun dative neuter singular from σπέρμα

The plural form (in Greek scripture) appears only in Galatians 3:16:

σπέρμασιν noun dative neuter plural from σπέρμα
Yes, I am aware of that.   And the words before in Galatians 3:16? οὐ λέγει, καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν

Care to translate?
This isn't about me,

Glad that you finally admit that:
It is Orthodox position the LXX translation is inspired...I believe

You don't get it. No one cares what you believe.

The original Nicene Creed said "We believe."  We now say "I beleive." We receive the Faith of the Church, we do not dictate it to the Church.  We are baptized into the Church.  We don't make the Church up as we go along.

Rule of thumb: if you come up with an interpretation that no one else in 3,000 years has not come up with, it could be wrong. IF it contradicts the teaching of the Church, it is wrong. Taze Russell didn't learn that.

Quote
the Orthodox position LXX changes must be accepted, is clearly wrong,

It is clearly right, for those who can see.

Quote
Paul based his argument on the Aramaic translation of this text, not the Septuagint.

τῷ δὲ Ἀβραὰμ ἐρρέθησαν αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ· οὐ λέγει, καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν, ὡς ἐπὶ πολλῶν, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐφ’ ἑνός, καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου, ὅς ἐστι Χριστός
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made He saith not "And to seeds" [your hyposthetica Aramaic citation] as of many but as of one "And to thy seed" [LXX] which is Christ

Quote
If Paul AND the Galatians were using the Septuagint,

Which they were, Greek being their only language in common, and the quote is quoted from the LXX, as shown above.

Quote
he couldn't have made the argument he did in Gal 3:16.

Obviously he could, because he did in Gal. 3:16.  You need only know Greek to follow it.

Quote
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. (Gal 3:16 KJV)

I'm being to wonder about your grasp of English.

Quote
The Septuagint does not have "seeds" in plural anywhere when referring to descendants, it always uses "seed" singular even where its "of many".

Hence St. Paul's argument.

Quote
We can argue the sense Paul cites is in the Hebrew,

Knock yourself out. I'll let you chase your tail on how this helps your "argument" for the MT.

Quote
the ancient Jews saw it there and conveyed it into their Aramaic translation, the same cannot be affirmed of the Septuagint, which is a translation of the Hebrew just as the Aramaic translations are.

So the inspired NT depends on the LXX translation, which (accepting your authorities) contradicts the Aramaic. Hence, for the NT to be inspired, it depends on the LXX being the correct translation.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 16, 2010, 07:01:20 PM
σπέρματί noun dative neuter singular from σπέρμα
The plural form (in Greek scripture) appears only in Galatians 3:16:
σπέρμασιν noun dative neuter plural from σπέρμα
τῷ δὲ Ἀβραὰμ ἐρρέθησαν αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ• οὐ λέγει, καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν, ὡς ἐπὶ πολλῶν, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐφ’ ἑνός, καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου, ὅς ἐστι Χριστός
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made He saith not "And to seeds" [your hyposthetica Aramaic citation] as of many but as of one "And to thy seed" [LXX] which is Christ
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. (Gal 3:16 KJV)


As the Septuagint NEVER uses  σπέρμασιν  Paul cannot argue its absence is significant in Gen 22:18.

In other words, Paul's argument is refuted by scripture:

LXE  Genesis 22:17 surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is by the shore of the sea, and thy seed shall inherit the cities of their enemies. (Gen 22:17 LXE)

If the singular "seed" is Christ then God will multiply Christs as the stars of heaven, as the sand on the shore, and Christs will inherit the cities of their enemies.

As that is absurd, Paul's argument is absurd, UNLESS he is arguing from the Aramaic Targum, which does have the plural "seeds" in vs 17 and singular "seed" vs 18.



17 therefore, blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thy sons as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the sea shore; and thy sons shall inherit the cities of their enemies.
 18 And all the peoples of the earth shall be blessed through thy son: forasmuch as thou hast received My word.- Gen 22:17-18 OKE Targum Onkelos on the Pentateuch (English)


17 that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy sons as the stars of the heavens, and they shall be as the sand which is upon the shore of the sea, and thy sons shall inherit the cities before their enemies.
 18 And all the peoples of the earth shall be blessed through the righteousness of thy son, because thou hast obeyed My word. -Gen 22:17-18 PJE Targum Pseudo Jonathan on the Pentateuch




  NFT Genesis 22:17 ארי מברכה אברך יתך ומסגיא אסגי ית  זרעיית בנך ככוכבי שׁמיא וכחלא די על־גף ימא  וירתון  בניך  וירתן זרעיית בנך ית קירי בעלי־דבביהון
 
זרעי noun common no gender plural construct twice.-NFM

  NFT Genesis 22:18 והתברכון  בזרעיתיך  כל  אומיא  דעראעא  דארעא בזרעית בניך כל אומה דא  חלף  חולף די שׁמעת בקל ממריה
 
זרעי noun common no gender singular determined-NFM


NFT  Bibleworks Aramaic Old Testament in Hebrew characters.
NFM Bibleworks Aramaic Old Testament morphology in Hebrew characters.


Both Paul and the Galatians were using the Aramaic Targums of this text, not the Septuagint. Paul's argument cannot be made from the Septuagint because it never uses the plural "seeds" and therefore that its not plural in vs 18 would mean nothing.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 16, 2010, 07:33:54 PM
σπέρματί noun dative neuter singular from σπέρμα
The plural form (in Greek scripture) appears only in Galatians 3:16:
σπέρμασιν noun dative neuter plural from σπέρμα
τῷ δὲ Ἀβραὰμ ἐρρέθησαν αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ• οὐ λέγει, καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν, ὡς ἐπὶ πολλῶν, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐφ’ ἑνός, καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου, ὅς ἐστι Χριστός
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made He saith not "And to seeds" [your hyposthetica Aramaic citation] as of many but as of one "And to thy seed" [LXX] which is Christ
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. (Gal 3:16 KJV)


As the Septuagint NEVER uses  σπέρμασιν  Paul cannot argue its absence is significant in Gen 22:18.

Sure he can. Just because it doesn't appear in the LXX, it didn't disappear (as Galatians show) from the Greek language.

Quote
In other words, Paul's argument is refuted by scripture:

John 10:34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law [actually the Psalms] "I said, Ye are gods?" 35If He called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

See the silliness you get yourself into?

Quote
LXE  Genesis 22:17 surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is by the shore of the sea, and thy seed shall inherit the cities of their enemies. (Gen 22:17 LXE)

If the singular "seed" is Christ then God will multiply Christs as the stars of heaven, as the sand on the shore, and Christs will inherit the cities of their enemies.

As that is absurd, Paul's argument is absurd, UNLESS he is arguing from the Aramaic Targum, which does have the plural "seeds" in vs 17 and singular "seed" vs 18.

You just said Genesis 22:17 is absurd (God forbid!). 

And since St. Paul's is arguing that God DID NOT SAY "seeds," he obviously isn't sighting the Armaic Targum.

He says that in plain Greek, which it seems you do not understand. It is translated into English, which seems to be giving you trouble, but it baffles me why.  I'd remedy that before worrying about Aramaic and Hebrew.

Quote
17 therefore, blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thy sons as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the sea shore; and thy sons shall inherit the cities of their enemies.
 18 And all the peoples of the earth shall be blessed through thy son: forasmuch as thou hast received My word.- Gen 22:17-18 OKE Targum Onkelos on the Pentateuch (English)


17 that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy sons as the stars of the heavens, and they shall be as the sand which is upon the shore of the sea, and thy sons shall inherit the cities before their enemies.
 18 And all the peoples of the earth shall be blessed through the righteousness of thy son, because thou hast obeyed My word. -Gen 22:17-18 PJE Targum Pseudo Jonathan on the Pentateuch

So you are arguing that the promise was to all the descendants of Abraham. LOL. I'm flattered, being one, but you would be better off getting circumcized by your rabbis and join Judaism. Saying that it was not Christ to Whom God was refering, you contradict St. Paul and reject the Tradition received of the Apostles. Not the first time. Not by far.

  
Quote
NFT Genesis 22:17 ארי מברכה אברך יתך ומסגיא אסגי ית  זרעיית בנך ככוכבי שׁמיא וכחלא די על־גף ימא  וירתון  בניך  וירתן זרעיית בנך ית קירי בעלי־דבביהון
 
זרעי noun common no gender plural construct twice.

ALL Hebrew nouns have gender. This one is masculine.
http://books.google.com/books?id=u0ATAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA282&lpg=PA282&dq=Gesenius+Lexicon+seed&source=bl&ots=yCNLAlXfa4&sig=bjnBdFHuo_G_HCzX0uRgvgb7n_w&hl=en&ei=BMlpTOn6I4bfnQfr1LDBBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Quote
  NFT Genesis 22:18 והתברכון  בזרעיתיך  כל  אומיא  דעראעא  דארעא בזרעית בניך כל אומה דא  חלף  חולף די שׁמעת בקל ממריה
 
זרעי noun common no gender singular determined


 (Gen 22:18 NFT)

NFT  Bibleworks Aramaic Old Testament in Hebrew characters.

Quote
Both Paul and the Galatians were using the Aramaic Targums of this text,

No, they were not, as the Galatians didn't speak Aramaic. Hence the name, "Galatians."

Quote
not the Septuagint.


He quotes it. And explicitely rules out a quote from your Targum.

Quote
Paul's argument cannot be made from the Septuagint

Take it up with him.

Quote
because it never uses the plural "seeds" and therefore that its not plural in vs 18 would mean nothing.

Both St. Paul and the Galatians, unlike you, spoke Greek.  No problem with the argument by those who also understand it.  For those who want to make problems, well, they are on their own.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 16, 2010, 07:45:34 PM

As the Septuagint NEVER uses  σπέρμασιν  Paul cannot argue its absence is significant in Gen 22:18.

Sure he can. Just because it doesn't appear in the LXX, it didn't disappear (as Galatians show) from the Greek language.


No he cannot. If you cite different wording as significant, then the wording has to be different.

In the Septuagint the wording is not different, its singular "seed" throughout.

Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 16, 2010, 08:12:06 PM
I got other examples where the NT doesn't follow that rule, therefore the rule isn't "apostolic".

on the Apostolic rule by those who know what they are talking about.

some of my thoughts on the matter, and related issues
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19095.0.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19811.0.html

More importantly, the statements by those who know the meaning of "apostolic":

St. Irenaeus, who demonstrated the Apostolic preaching against the heresies
Quote
Bk III Chapter II.—The heretics follow neither Scripture nor tradition.
1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, “But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world.” (1 Cor. ii. 6.) And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.
2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.
3. Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, my very dear friend, endeavouring like slippery serpents to escape at all points. Where-fore they must be opposed at all points, if per-chance, by cutting off their retreat, we may succeed in turning them back to the truth. For, though it is not an easy thing for a soul under the influence of error to repent, yet, on the other hand, it is not altogether impossible to escape from error when the truth is brought alongside it.

Bk III Chapter XVI.—Proofs from the apostolic writings, that Jesus Christ was one and the same, the only begotten Son of God, perfect God and perfect man.
1. But there are some who say that Jesus was merely a receptacle of Christ, upon whom the Christ, as a dove, descended from above, and that when He had declared the unnameable Father He entered into the Pleroma in an incomprehensible and invisible manner: for that He was not comprehended, not only by men, but not even by those powers and virtues which are in heaven, and that Jesus was the Son, but that (See book i. 12, 4) Christ was the Father, and the Father of Christ, God; while others say that He merely suffered in outward appearance, being naturally impassible. The Valentinians, again, maintain that the dispensational Jesus was the same who passed through Mary, upon whom that Saviour from the more exalted [region] descended, who was also termed Pan, (See also book ii. c. xii. s. 6) because He possessed the names (vocabula) of all those who had produced Him; but that [this latter] shared with Him, the dispensational one, His power and His name; so that by His means death was abolished, but the Father was made known by that Saviour who had descended from above, whom they do also allege to be Himself the receptacle of Christ and of the entire Pleroma; confessing, indeed, in tongue one Christ Jesus, but being divided in [actual] opinion: for, as I have already observed, it is the practice of these men to say that there was one Christ, who was produced by Monogenes, for the confirmation of the Pleroma; but that another, the Saviour, was sent [forth] for the glorification of the Father; and yet another, the dispensational one, and whom they represent as having suffered, who also bore [in himself] Christ, that Saviour who returned into the Pleroma. I judge it necessary therefore to take into account the entire mind of the apostles regarding our Lord Jesus Christ, and to show that not only did they never hold any such opinions regarding Him; but, still further, that they announced through the Holy Spirit, that those who should teach such doctrines were agents of Satan, sent forth for the purpose of overturning the faith of some, and drawing them away from life.
2. That John knew the one and the same Word of God, and that He was the only begotten, and that He became incarnate for our salvation, Jesus Christ our Lord, I have sufficiently proved from the word of John himself. And Matthew, too, recognising one and the same Jesus Christ, exhibiting his generation as a man from the Virgin, (Ps. cxxxii. 11) even as God did promise David that He would raise up from the fruit of his body an eternal King, having made the same promise to Abraham a long time previously, says: “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” (Matt. i. 1) Then, that he might free our mind from suspicion regarding Joseph, he says: “But the birth of Christ (Matt. i. 18) was on this wise. When His mother was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” Then, when Joseph had it in contemplation to put Mary away, since she proved with child, [Matthew tells us of] the angel of God standing by him, and saying: “Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins. Now this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which is, God with us;” clearly signifying that both the promise made to the fathers had been accomplished, that the Son of God was born of a virgin, and that He Himself was Christ the Saviour whom the prophets had foretold; not, as these men assert, that Jesus was He who was born of Mary, but that Christ was He who descended from above. Matthew might certainly have said, “Now the birth of Jesus was on this wise;” but the Holy Ghost, foreseeing the corrupters [of the truth], and guarding by anticipation against their deceit, says by Matthew, “But the birth of Christ was on this wise;” and that He is Emmanuel, lest perchance we might consider Him as a mere man: for “not by the will of the flesh nor by the will of man, but by the will of God was the Word made flesh;” (John i. 13, 14) [Schaff's note: From this, and also a quotation of the same passage in chap. xix. of this book, it appears that Irenæus must have read ὃς … ἐγεννήθη here, and not οἳ … ἐγεννήθησαν. Tertullian quotes the verse to the same effect (Lib. de Carne Christi, cap. 19 and 24)]. and that we should not imagine that Jesus was one, and Christ another, but should know them to be one and the same.
5. Therefore did the Lord also say to His disciples after the resurrection, “O thoughtless ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into His glory?” (Luke xxiv. 25) And again does He say to them: “These are the words which I spoke unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning Me. Then opened He their understanding, that they should understand the Scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead, and that repentance for the remission of sins be preached in His name among all nations.” (Luke xxiv. 44), etc. Now this is He who was born of Mary; for He says: “The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected, and crucified, and on the third day rise again.” (Mark viii. 31 and Luke ix. 22) The Gospel, therefore, knew no other son of man but Him who was of Mary, who also suffered; and no Christ who flew away from Jesus before the passion; but Him who was born it knew as Jesus Christ the Son of God, and that this same suffered and rose again, as John, the disciple of the Lord, verifies, saying: “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have eternal life in His name,” (John xx. 31)—foreseeing these blasphemous systems which divide the Lord, as far as lies in their power, saying that He was formed of two different substances. For this reason also he has thus testified to us in his Epistle: “Little children, it is the last time; and as ye have heard that Antichrist doth come, now have many antichrists appeared; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but [they departed], that they might be made manifest that they are not of us. Know ye therefore, that every lie is from without, and is not of the truth. Who is a liar, but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist.” (1 John ii. 18, etc., loosely quoted)
6. But inasmuch as all those before mentioned, although they certainly do with their tongue confess one Jesus Christ, make fools of themselves, thinking one thing and saying another;  for their hypotheses vary, as I have already shown, alleging, [as they do,] that one Being suffered and was born, and that this was Jesus; but that there was another who descended upon Him, and that this was Christ, who also ascended again; and they argue, that he who proceeded from the Demiurge, or he who was dispensational, or he who sprang from Joseph, was the Being subject to suffering; but upon the latter there descended from the invisible and ineffable [places] the former, whom they assert to be incomprehensible, invisible, and impassible: they thus wander from the truth, because their doctrine departs from Him who is truly God, being ignorant that His only-begotten Word, who is always present with the human race, united to and mingled with His own creation, according to the Father’s pleasure, and who became flesh, is Himself Jesus Christ our Lord, who did also suffer for us, and rose again on our behalf, and who will come again in the glory of His Father, to raise up all flesh, and for the manifestation of salvation, and to apply the rule of just judgment to all who were made by Him. There is therefore, as I have pointed out, one God the Father, and one Christ Jesus, who came by means of the whole dispensational arrangements [connected with Him], and gathered together all things in Himself. (Eph. i. 10) But in every respect, too, He is man, the formation of God; and thus He took up man into Himself, the invisible becoming visible, the incomprehensible being made comprehensible, the impassible becoming capable of suffering, and the Word being made man, thus summing up all things in Himself: so that as in super-celestial, spiritual, and invisible things, the Word of God is supreme, so also in things visible and corporeal He might possess the supremacy, and, taking to Himself the pre-eminence, as well as constituting Himself Head of the Church, He might draw all things to Himself at the proper time.
 announced, and the Word of God, who became incarnate when the fulness of time had come, at which the Son of God had to become the Son of man.
8. All, therefore, are outside of the [Christian] dispensation, who, under pretext of knowledge, understand that Jesus was one, and Christ another, and the Only-begotten another, from whom again is the Word, and that the Saviour is another, whom these disciples of error allege to be a production of those who were made Æons in a state of degeneracy. Such men are to outward appearance sheep; for they appear to be like us, by what they say in public, repeating the same words as we do; but inwardly they are wolves. Their doctrine is homicidal, conjuring up, as it does, a number of gods, and simulating many Fathers, but lowering and dividing the Son of God in many ways. These are they against whom the Lord has cautioned us beforehand; and His disciple, in his Epistle already mentioned, commands us to avoid them, when he says: “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Take heed to them, that ye lose not what ye have wrought.” (2 John 7, 8 ) And again does he say in the Epistle: “Many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God; and every spirit which separates Jesus Christ is not of God, but is of antichrist.” (1 John iv. 1, 2) These words agree with what was said in the Gospel, that “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” Wherefore he again exclaims in his Epistle, “Every one that believeth that Jesus is the Christ, has been born of God;” (1 John v. 1) knowing Jesus Christ to be one and the same, to whom the gates of heaven were opened, because of His taking upon Him flesh: who shall also come in the same flesh in which He suffered, revealing the glory of the Father.
9. Concurring with these statements, Paul, speaking to the Romans, declares: “Much more they who receive abundance of grace and righteousness for [eternal] life, shall reign by one, Christ Jesus.” (Rom. v. 17) It follows from this, that he knew nothing of that Christ who flew away from Jesus; nor did he of the Saviour above, whom they hold to be impassible. For if, in truth, the one suffered, and the other remained incapable of suffering, and the one was born, but the other descended upon him who was born, and left him again, it is not one, but two, that are shown forth. But that the apostle did know Him as one, both who was born and who suffered, namely Christ Jesus, he again says in the same Epistle: “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized in Christ Jesus were baptized in His death? that like as Christ rose from the dead, so should we also walk in newness of life.” (Rom. vi. 3, 4) But again, showing that Christ did suffer, and was Himself the Son of God, who died for us, and redeemed us with His blood at the time appointed beforehand, he says: “For how is it, that Christ, when we were yet without strength, in due time died for the ungodly? But God commendeth His love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more, then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son; much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.” (Rom. v. 6–10)  He declares in the plainest manner, that the same Being who was laid hold of, and underwent suffering, and shed His blood for us, was both Christ and the Son of God, who did also rise again, and was taken up into heaven, as he himself [Paul] says: “But at the same time, [it, is] Christ [that] died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God.” (Rom. viii. 34) And again, “Knowing that Christ, rising from the dead, dieth no more:” (Rom. vi. 9) for, as himself foreseeing, through the Spirit, the subdivisions of evil teachers [with regard to the Lord’s person], and being desirous of cutting away from them all occasion of cavil, he says what has been already stated, [and also declares:] “But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies.” (Rom. viii. 11) This he does not utter to those alone who wish to hear: Do not err, [he says to all:] Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is one and the same, who did by suffering reconcile us to God, and rose from the dead; who is at the right hand of the Father, and perfect in all things; “who, when He was buffeted, struck not in return; who, when He suffered, threatened not;” (1 Pet. ii. 23) and when He underwent tyranny, He prayed His Father that He would forgive those who had crucified Him. For He did Himself truly bring in salvation: since He is Himself the Word of God, Himself the Only-begotten of the Father, Christ Jesus our Lord.

BK IV Preface.

3. For their system is blasphemous above all [others], since they represent that the Maker and Framer, who is one God, as I have shown, was produced from a defect or apostasy. They utter blasphemy, also, against our Lord, by cutting off and dividing Jesus from Christ, and Christ from the Saviour, and again the Saviour from the Word, and the Word from the Only-begotten. And since they allege that the Creator originated from a defect or apostasy, so have they also taught that Christ and the Holy Spirit were emitted on account of this defect, and that the Saviour was a product of those Æons who were produced from a defect; so that there is nothing but blasphemy to be found among them. In the preceding book, then, the ideas of the apostles as to all these points have been set forth, [to the effect] that not only did they, “who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word” (Luke i. 2) of truth, hold no such opinions, but that they did also preach to us to shun these doctrines,(2 Tim. ii. 23) foreseeing by the Spirit those weak-minded persons who should be led astray. [Schaff's note: The solemnity of the apostolic testimonies against the crop of tares that was to spring up receives great illustration from Irenæus. 1 John ii. 18.]
4. For as the serpent beguiled Eve, by promising her what he had not himself, [2 Pet. ii. 19.] so also do these men, by pretending [to possess] superior knowledge, and [to be acquainted with] ineffable mysteries; and, by promising that admittance which they speak of as taking place within the Pleroma, plunge those that believe them into death, rendering them apostates from Him who made them. And at that time, indeed, the apostate angel, having effected the disobedience of mankind by means of the serpent, imagined that he escaped the notice of the Lord; wherefore God assigned him the form [Rev. xii. 9] and name [of a serpent]. But now, since the last times are [come upon us], evil is spread abroad among men, which not only renders them apostates, but by many machinations does [the devil] raise up blasphemers against the Creator, namely, by means of all the heretics already mentioned. For all these, although they issue forth from diverse regions, and promulgate different [opinions], do nevertheless concur in the same blasphemous design, wounding [men] unto death, by teaching blasphemy against God our Maker and Supporter, and derogating from the salvation of man. Now man is a mixed organization of soul and flesh, who was formed after the likeness of God, and moulded by His hands, that is, by the Son and Holy Spirit, to whom also He said, “Let Us make man.” (Gen. i. 26) This, then, is the aim of him who envies our life, to render men disbelievers in their own salvation, and blasphemous against God the Creator. For whatsoever all the heretics may have advanced with the utmost solemnity, they come to this at last, that they blaspheme the Creator, and disallow the salvation of God’s workmanship, which the flesh truly is; on behalf of which I have proved, in a variety of ways, that the Son of God accomplished the whole dispensation [of mercy], and have shown that there is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of all, and the Son, and those who possess the adoption.

Bk. IV Chapter XXIV.—The conversion of the Gentiles was more difficult than that of the Jews; the labours of those apostles, therefore who engaged in the former task, were greater than those who undertook the latter.
1. Wherefore also Paul, since he was the apostle of the Gentiles, says, “I laboured more than they all.” (1 Cor. xv. 10) For the instruction of the former, [viz., the Jews,] was an easy task, because they could allege proofs from the Scriptures, and because they, who were in the habit of hearing Moses and the prophets, did also readily receive the First-begotten of the dead, and the Prince of the life of God,—Him who, by the spreading forth of hands, did destroy Amalek, and vivify man from the wound of the serpent, by means of faith which was [exercised] towards Him. As I have pointed out in the preceding book, the apostle did, in the first place, instruct the Gentiles to depart from the superstition of idols, and to worship one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and the Framer of the whole creation; and that His Son was His Word, by whom He founded all things; and that He, in the last times, was made a man among men; that He reformed the human race, but destroyed and conquered the enemy of man, and gave to His handiwork victory against the adversary. But although they who were of the circumcision still did not obey the words of God, for they were despisers, yet they were previously instructed not to commit adultery, nor fornication, nor theft, nor fraud; and that whatsoever things are done to our neighbours’ prejudice, were evil, and detested by God. Wherefore also they did readily agree to abstain from these things, because they had been thus instructed.
2. But they were bound to teach the Gentiles also this very thing, that works of such a nature were wicked, prejudicial, and useless, and destructive to those who engaged in them. Wherefore he who had received the apostolate to the Gentiles, [Schaff's note: A clear note of recognition on the part of our author, that St. Paul’s mission was world-wide, while St. Peter’s was limited.] did labour more than those who preached the Son of God among them of the circumcision. For they were assisted by the Scriptures, which the Lord confirmed and fulfilled, in coming such as He had been announced; but here, [in the case of the Gentiles,] there was a certain foreign erudition, and a new doctrine [to be received, namely], that the gods of the nations not only were no gods at all, but even the idols of demons; and that there is one God, who is “above all principality, and dominion, and power, and every name which is named;” (Eph. i. 21) and that His Word, invisible by nature, was made palpable and visible among men, and did descend “to death, even the death of the cross;” (Phil. ii. 8 ) also, that they who believe in Him shall be incorruptible and not subject to suffering, and shall receive the kingdom of heaven. These things, too, were preached to the Gentiles by word, without [the aid of] the Scriptures: wherefore, also, they who preached among the Gentiles underwent greater labour. But, on the other hand, the faith of the Gentiles is proved to be of a more noble description, since they followed the word of God without the instruction [derived] from the [sacred] writings.

Chapter XXXII.—That one God was the author of both Testaments, is confirmed by the authority of a presbyter who had been taught by the apostles.
1. After this fashion also did a presbyter, a disciple of the apostles, reason with respect to the two testaments, proving that both were truly from one and the same God. For [he maintained] that there was no other God besides Him who made and fashioned us, and that the discourse of those men has no foundation who affirm that this world of ours was made either by angels, or by any other power whatsoever, or by another God. For if a man be once moved away from the Creator of all things, and if he grant that this creation to which we belong was formed by any other or through any other [than the one God], he must of necessity fall into much inconsistency, and many contradictions of this sort; to which he will [be able to] furnish no explanations which can be regarded as either probable or true. And, for this reason, those who introduce other doctrines conceal from us the opinion which they themselves hold respecting God, because they are aware of the untenable and absurd nature of their doctrine, and are afraid lest, should they be vanquished, they should have some difficulty in making good their escape. But if any one believes in [only] one God, who also made all things by the Word, as Moses likewise says, “God said, Let there be light: and there was light;” (Gen. i. 3) and as we read in the Gospel, “All things were made by Him; and without Him was nothing made;” (John i. 3) and the Apostle Paul [says] in like manner, “There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father, who is above all, and through all, and in us all” (Eph. iv. 5, 6)—this man will first of all “hold the head, from which the whole body is compacted and bound together, and, through means of every joint according to the measure of the ministration of each several part, maketh increase of the body to the edification of itself in love.” (Eph. iv. 16; Col. ii. 19)  And then shall every word also seem consistent to him, if he for his part diligently read the Scriptures in company with those who are presbyters in the Church, among whom is the apostolic doctrine, as I have pointed out.
2. For all the apostles taught that there were indeed two testaments among the two peoples; but that it was one and the same God who appointed both for the advantage of those men (for whose sakes the testaments were given) who were to believe in God, I have proved in the third book from the very teaching of the apostles; and that the first testament was not given without reason, or to no purpose, or in an accidental sort of manner; but that it subdued those to whom it was given to the service of God, for their benefit (for God needs no service from men), and exhibited a type of heavenly things, inasmuch as man was not yet able to see the things of God through means of immediate vision; and foreshadowed the icons of those things which [now actually] exist in the Church, in order that our faith might be firmly established; [Schaff's note: If this and the former chapter seem to us superfluous, we must reflect that such testimony, from the beginning, has established the unity of Holy Scripture, and preserved to us—the Bible.] and contained a prophecy of things to come, in order that man might learn that God has foreknowledge of all things.

Quote
Bk V. Preface: In the four preceding books, my very dear friend, which I put forth to thee, all the heretics have been exposed, and their doctrines brought to light, and these men refuted who have devised irreligious opinions. [I have accomplished this by adducing] something from the doctrine peculiar to each of these men, which they have left in their writings, as well as by using arguments of a more general nature, and applicable to them all Then I have pointed out the truth, and shown the preaching of the Church, which the prophets proclaimed (as I have already demonstrated), but which Christ brought to perfection, and the apostles have handed down, from whom the Church, receiving [these truths], and throughout all the world alone preserving them in their integrity (bene), has transmitted them to her sons. Then also—having disposed of all questions which the heretics propose to us, and having explained the doctrine of the apostles, and clearly set forth many of those things which were said and done by the Lord in parables—I shall endeavour, in this the fifth book of the entire work which treats of the exposure and refutation of knowledge falsely so called, to exhibit proofs from the rest of the Lord’s doctrine and the apostolical epistles: [thus] complying with thy demand, as thou didst request of me (since indeed I have been assigned a place in the ministry of the word); and, labouring by every means in my power to furnish thee with large assistance against the contradictions of the heretics, as also to reclaim the wanderers and convert them to the Church of God, to confirm at the same time the minds of the neophytes, that they may preserve stedfast the faith which they have received, guarded by the Church in its integrity, in order that they be in no way perverted by those who endeavour to teach them false doctrines, and lead them away from the truth. It will be incumbent upon thee, however, and all who may happen to read this writing, to peruse with great attention what I have already said, that thou mayest obtain a knowledge of the subjects against which I am contending. For it is thus that thou wilt both controvert them in a legitimate manner, and wilt be prepared to receive the proofs brought forward against them, casting away their doctrines as filth by means of the celestial faith; but following the only true and stedfast Teacher, the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 16, 2010, 08:16:27 PM

As the Septuagint NEVER uses  σπέρμασιν  Paul cannot argue its absence is significant in Gen 22:18.

Sure he can. Just because it doesn't appear in the LXX, it didn't disappear (as Galatians show) from the Greek language.


No he cannot. If you cite different wording as significant, then the wording has to be different.

In the Septuagint the wording is not different, its singular "seed" throughout.
Yes, I am aware that sola scriptura is painting you into a corner.

But since neither Christ, His Church, St. Paul nor the scriptures teach sola scriptura, that's your problem.

St. Paul cites a verse (LXX) and a nonexistent verse (at least outside the Targum).  Greek has a different plural for "seed," that is all the significance St. Paul needed.  Anyone who spoke Greek (as the Galatians did) have no problem following the argument.  If you don't, again, that's your problem.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 16, 2010, 08:51:44 PM

As the Septuagint NEVER uses  σπέρμασιν  Paul cannot argue its absence is significant in Gen 22:18.

Sure he can. Just because it doesn't appear in the LXX, it didn't disappear (as Galatians show) from the Greek language.


No he cannot. If you cite different wording as significant, then the wording has to be different.

In the Septuagint the wording is not different, its singular "seed" throughout.
Yes, I am aware that sola scriptura is painting you into a corner.

But since neither Christ, His Church, St. Paul nor the scriptures teach sola scriptura, that's your problem.

St. Paul cites a verse (LXX) and a nonexistent verse (at least outside the Targum).  Greek has a different plural for "seed," that is all the significance St. Paul needed.  Anyone who spoke Greek (as the Galatians did) have no problem following the argument.  If you don't, again, that's your problem.

You are trying to evade the issue changing the subject.


Paul cited a difference as significant, if he is using the Septuagint there is no difference.

Paul said this is different than those texts where "seeds" is plural, because here its singular.

NKJ  Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.
 (Gal 3:16 NKJ)

But as that is not true for the Septuagint, "seed" is singular everywhere it occurs, THEREFORE Paul was not referring to the Septuagint when he said this, the Bible he was referring to has this difference.


To illustrate:

For the statement "Red apples are best" to be true, "not red apples" must exist so a contrast can be made. If all the apples are red, the statement is a trick.

For Paul's statement "as seed is singular it refers to Christ" to be true, "not singular seed" must exist so a contrast can be made. If all the occurrences of "seed" are singular, Paul's argument is a trick.


In the Aramaic Targums "seed" is found both singular and plural, therefore with it Paul can argue the singular has a different reference than the plural:

17 therefore, blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thy sons as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the sea shore; and thy sons shall inherit the cities of their enemies.
 18 And all the peoples of the earth shall be blessed through thy son: forasmuch as thou hast received My word.- Gen 22:17-18 OKE Targum Onkelos on the Pentateuch (English)


17 that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy sons as the stars of the heavens, and they shall be as the sand which is upon the shore of the sea, and thy sons shall inherit the cities before their enemies.
 18 And all the peoples of the earth shall be blessed through the righteousness of thy son, because thou hast obeyed My word. -Gen 22:17-18 PJE Targum Pseudo Jonathan on the Pentateuch:
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: theistgal on August 16, 2010, 09:32:53 PM
You are trying to evade the issue changing the subject.

No, it's the same subject that it's been all along, in all your threads:  the Orthodox (and the Catholics) do not look at Scripture in the same way that you do.

Therefore, telling them that this or that verse of Scripture supports or negates against a particular theological point you're trying to make is of no use, unless you can back it up with evidence from Tradition, showing that the historical Church has always interpreted that verse in the same way you do.

That's all there is to it, but I'm sure we'll see another twenty or thirty pages before you concede that point (if ever).  ::)
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 16, 2010, 10:53:11 PM
You are trying to evade the issue changing the subject.

No, it's the same subject that it's been all along, in all your threads:  the Orthodox (and the Catholics) do not look at Scripture in the same way that you do.

Therefore, telling them that this or that verse of Scripture supports or negates against a particular theological point you're trying to make is of no use, unless you can back it up with evidence from Tradition, showing that the historical Church has always interpreted that verse in the same way you do.

That's all there is to it, but I'm sure we'll see another twenty or thirty pages before you concede that point (if ever).  ::)

Apostolic oral tradition, that should be very weighty to every believer:

NKJ  Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.
 (Gal 3:16 NKJ)

Its certain Paul and the Galatians use a translation that has both the singular and plural "seed" in it, the Septuagint does not.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 16, 2010, 10:57:00 PM

As the Septuagint NEVER uses  σπέρμασιν  Paul cannot argue its absence is significant in Gen 22:18.

Sure he can. Just because it doesn't appear in the LXX, it didn't disappear (as Galatians show) from the Greek language.


No he cannot. If you cite different wording as significant, then the wording has to be different.

In the Septuagint the wording is not different, its singular "seed" throughout.
Yes, I am aware that sola scriptura is painting you into a corner.

But since neither Christ, His Church, St. Paul nor the scriptures teach sola scriptura, that's your problem.

St. Paul cites a verse (LXX) and a nonexistent verse (at least outside the Targum).  Greek has a different plural for "seed," that is all the significance St. Paul needed.  Anyone who spoke Greek (as the Galatians did) have no problem following the argument.  If you don't, again, that's your problem.

You are trying to evade the issue changing the subject.

No, you're trying to evade the fact that neither your flavor of sola scriptura nor Aramaic primacy can fit.
(http://betterwaytomakealiving.com/_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/square-peg-round-hole.jpg)
move away from the hammer.


Quote
Paul cited a difference as significant, if he is using he Septuagint there is no difference.

He's using Greek, which distinguishes between singular (one subject) and plural (2/3 or more subjects): there used to be a dual in Attic (2 subjects), but it fell into disuse by the time of the LXX. Hebrew has the same numbers.  English has only singular and plural, and the dual only in "both." Some languages make no, or limited, distinctions in number.

I won't be going over the grammar again.

Quote
Paul said this is different than those texts where "seeds" is plural, because here its singular.

Greek "ou", Hebrew "lo" and English "not" all negate verbs, meaning "didn't happen." so when he says "He does not say" So thre is nothing to cite.

I'm not going to discuss nonexistent texts anymore.

Quote
NKJ  Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.
 (Gal 3:16 NKJ)

But as that is not true for the Septuagint, "seed" is singular everywhere it occurs, Paul was not referring to the Septuagint when he said this.

He cites the LXX, which is singular. That you have difficultry with proof staring you in the face is your problem.

I'm not going to state the obvious again.

Quote
o illustrate:
For the statement "Red apples are best" to be true, "not red apples" must exist so a comparison can be made. If all the apples are red, the statement is a trick.

Not really, but I'm not going to get sidetracked on that, and will just give you this for sake of argument.

Quote
For Paul's statement "as seed is singular it refers to Christ" to be true, "not singular seed" must exist so a comparison can be made. If all the occurrences of "seed" are singular, Paul's argument is a trick.[/b]

see how sola scriptura has warped your ability to reason from the scriputures., trying to twist the scriptures into it?
(http://betterwaytomakealiving.com/_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/square-peg-round-hole.jpg)
move away from the hammer.
looking for verses that neither exist nor are needed.

If the plural didn't exist in Greek (or English), then the comparison wouldn't be valid. To use your example, if I say these red apples are the best, and then you complain that they can't be, because I didn't get them from Alaska, your point wouldn't be valid: there are plenty of red apples in WA and MI.

Really, the analogy would be "I did not say purple apples are best, but that red apples are the best."  As long as there are red apples, whether purple apples exist or not is relevant.  In fact whether red apples exist or not doesn't mater either, as the statement is only dealing with the fact that I said that "I said 'they were best,." not the simple declaration "red apples are best."

I'm not sqeezing your apples anymore to make orange juice.

Quote
But Paul is right, you are wrong, its not the Septuagint he is referring to, but the Aramaic Targums:

Paul is right: it refers to one, namely Christ. You are your rabbis are out of luck.  The quote from the LXX is unequivocal.

Again I won't state the obvious anymore.

I will discuss why it is impossible that St. Paul is citing the Targums, any Targum.

Quote
17 therefore, blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thy sons as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the sea shore; and thy sons shall inherit the cities of their enemies.
 18 And all the peoples of the earth shall be blessed through thy son: forasmuch as thou hast received My word.- Gen 22:17-18 OKE Targum Onkelos on the Pentateuch (English)


17 that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy sons as the stars of the heavens, and they shall be as the sand which is upon the shore of the sea, and thy sons shall inherit the cities before their enemies.
 18 And all the peoples of the earth shall be blessed through the righteousness of thy son, because thou hast obeyed My word. -Gen 22:17-18 PJE Targum Pseudo Jonathan on the Pentateuch:
Yes, well if you want to cling to the veil of Moses, and take the rabbis as your masters, and walk disorderly according to the traditions of men you receive of them, that's your choice.  So if you want to agree with the sons of the bondswoman, simply get circumcized, go the mikvah and find a nice shul (someone here has done that).

The Galatians prefered, like us, be to sons of the freewoman and of the heavenly Jerusalem. St. Paul argued the Jews erred in thinking the promise applied all the progeny of Abraham, instead of the Son of Abraham. You choose the Pharisees, we choose the Aposltes.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 16, 2010, 11:02:43 PM
You are trying to evade the issue changing the subject.

No, it's the same subject that it's been all along, in all your threads:  the Orthodox (and the Catholics) do not look at Scripture in the same way that you do.

Therefore, telling them that this or that verse of Scripture supports or negates against a particular theological point you're trying to make is of no use, unless you can back it up with evidence from Tradition, showing that the historical Church has always interpreted that verse in the same way you do.

That's all there is to it, but I'm sure we'll see another twenty or thirty pages before you concede that point (if ever).  ::)

Apostolic oral tradition, that should be very weighty to every believer:

NKJ  Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.
 (Gal 3:16 NKJ)

Its certain Paul and the Galatians use a translation that has both the singular and plural "seed" in it.
Or a language that does. Your sola scriptura binders, not being binding, are irrelevant.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 16, 2010, 11:04:20 PM
You are trying to evade the issue changing the subject.

No, it's the same subject that it's been all along, in all your threads:  the Orthodox (and the Catholics) do not look at Scripture in the same way that you do.

Therefore, telling them that this or that verse of Scripture supports or negates against a particular theological point you're trying to make is of no use, unless you can back it up with evidence from Tradition, showing that the historical Church has always interpreted that verse in the same way you do.

That's all there is to it, but I'm sure we'll see another twenty or thirty pages before you concede that point (if ever).  ::)
For the verse in question, we don't need to look it diferently.  Only be able tor read Greek. Or for that matter, English.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 17, 2010, 05:08:07 AM

Quote
Paul cited a difference as significant, if he is using he Septuagint there is no difference.

He's using Greek, which distinguishes between singular (one subject) and plural (2/3 or more subjects): there used to be a dual in Attic (2 subjects), but it fell into disuse by the time of the LXX. Hebrew has the same numbers.  English has only singular and plural, and the dual only in "both." Some languages make no, or limited, distinctions in number.

I won't be going over the grammar again.


Quote
Paul said this is different than those texts where "seeds" is plural, because here its singular.


Greek "ou", Hebrew "lo" and English "not" all negate verbs, meaning "didn't happen." so when he says "He does not say" So thre is nothing to cite.

I'm not going to discuss nonexistent texts anymore.

NKJ  Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.
 (Gal 3:16 NKJ)

But as that is not true for the Septuagint, "seed" is singular everywhere it occurs, Paul was not referring to the Septuagint when he said this.

He cites the LXX, which is singular. That you have difficultry with proof staring you in the face is your problem.

I'm not going to state the obvious again.


You contradict yourself, you say Paul is citing ancient Attic which wasn't in use, but I thought you were trying to prove Paul cited the LXX which was in use?

And your ditty about "seeds" plural is confused, you say "no" means it didn't exist but then affirm it did in ancient Attic and the Galatians were supposed to know this. If "no" means it didn't exist, how can that be a contrast to what does exist?  In other words, you have Paul saying "seed" has a different reference than "nothing", it refers to Christ.


Rather than parse a confused apologetic, lets look at  ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου in context:

NKJ  Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.
 (Gal 3:16 NKJ)

Paul argues that God does not use the plural "seeds", as if the promise extended to many persons, but to "seed" the singular number, as if one was intended; and that one must be Christ.

Paul is claiming the use of the singular "seed" instead of the plural "seeds", indicates the promise related to Christ, not the descendants of Abraham.

So Paul is identifying the singular "seed" as referring to Christ.

BUT every occurrence of  "seed" in the LXX is singular! Therefore Paul's argument means ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου refers to Christ in these texts also:


LXE  Genesis 26:4 And I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven; and I will give to thy seed all this land, and all the nations of the earth shall be blest in thy seed(ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου). (Gen 26:4 LXE)

LXE  Genesis 28:14 And thy seed shall be as the sand of the earth; and it shall spread abroad to the sea, and the south, and the north, and to the east; and in thee and in thy seed (ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου) shall all the tribes of the earth be blessed. (Gen 28:14 LXE)

LXE  Deuteronomy 28:46 And these things shall be signs in thee, and wonders among thy seed (ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου) for ever; (Deu 28:46 LXE)

LXE  2 Kings 5:27 The leprosy also of Naiman shall cleave to thee, and to thy seed (ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου) for ever. And he went out from his presence leprous, like snow. (2Ki 5:27 LXE)

Clearly Christ is NOT the "seed" in these texts at all, refuting Paul's argument....even though "seed" is singular in number, Christ is not meant.

So "seeds" plural must exist in the context Paul is referring to because he is making a distinction in the appearance of both, while "seeds" plural in one verse refers to Abraham's descendants, when God speaks of Christ, He "says not" seeds plural, but "seed" singular.

The only translations having both are Aramaic:


17 therefore, blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thy sons as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the sea shore; and thy sons shall inherit the cities of their enemies.
 18 And all the peoples of the earth shall be blessed through thy son: forasmuch as thou hast received My word.- Gen 22:17-18 OKE Targum Onkelos on the Pentateuch (English)


17 that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy sons as the stars of the heavens, and they shall be as the sand which is upon the shore of the sea, and thy sons shall inherit the cities before their enemies.
 18 And all the peoples of the earth shall be blessed through the righteousness of thy son, because thou hast obeyed My word. -Gen 22:17-18 PJE Targum Pseudo Jonathan on the Pentateuch


With this version Paul's argument makes perfect sense.

It stretches credulity to suppose Paul hinges his argument on Attic conventions long since forgotten...

Paul cites a text the Galatians can read for themselves, see the use of both the plural "seeds" and singular "seed" and see how the reference is Christ.

When I read it, Paul's argument is sound, clearly Christ is the Seed.

Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 17, 2010, 05:58:06 AM

Quote
Paul cited a difference as significant, if he is using he Septuagint there is no difference.

He's using Greek, which distinguishes between singular (one subject) and plural (2/3 or more subjects): there used to be a dual in Attic (2 subjects), but it fell into disuse by the time of the LXX. Hebrew has the same numbers.  English has only singular and plural, and the dual only in "both." Some languages make no, or limited, distinctions in number.

I won't be going over the grammar again.


Quote
Paul said this is different than those texts where "seeds" is plural, because here its singular.


Greek "ou", Hebrew "lo" and English "not" all negate verbs, meaning "didn't happen." so when he says "He does not say" So thre is nothing to cite.

I'm not going to discuss nonexistent texts anymore.

NKJ  Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.
 (Gal 3:16 NKJ)

But as that is not true for the Septuagint, "seed" is singular everywhere it occurs, Paul was not referring to the Septuagint when he said this.

He cites the LXX, which is singular. That you have difficultry with proof staring you in the face is your problem.

I'm not going to state the obvious again.

You contradict yourself, you say Paul is citing ancient Attic

If you read what I wrote, you will see that I did not. At least not here (he does in Acts )..

Quote
which wasn't in use, but I thought you were trying to prove Paul cited the LXX which was in use?

One neeed only compare the texts.

So when the Orthodox cite this text to prove Septuagint Primacy, they lose because Paul cites the Aramaic Targum, not the Septuagint at all.

Gen. 22:18 τῷ σπέρματί σου (LXX)
Gal.   3:16 τῷ σπέρματί σου

You might want to learn Greek, before attempting to make such arguments that are easily refuted.

Quote
And your ditty about οὐ λέγει "not say" is confused, you say "no" means it didn't exist but then affirm it did in Attic....???

No, I did not say that.  St. Paul did not say that. Galatians does not say that. The LXX does not say that, hence God did not say that.

Quote
If "no" means it didn't exist,

The verse didn't exist, as St. Paul points out.

Quote
how can what doesn't exist be proof of anything?

For one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction

Quote
Rather than parse a confused apologetic, lets look at οὐ λέγει in context:

NKJ  Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.
 (Gal 3:16 NKJ)

In other words, God does not use the plural "seeds", as if the promise extended to many persons, but to "seed" the singular number, as if one was intended; and that one must be Christ.

Paul is claiming the use of the singular "seed" instead of the plural "seeds", indicates the promise related to Christ, not the descendants of Abraham.

So Paul is identifying the singular "seed" as referring to Christ. The problem is every occurrence of  "seed" is singular, therefore Paul's argument means ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου necessitates Christ is the seed in all these texts:

Where does St. Paul cite them?  

Quote
LXE  Genesis 26:4 And I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven; and I will give to thy seed all this land, and all the nations of the earth shall be blest in thy seed(ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου). (Gen 26:4 LXE)

LXE  Genesis 28:14 And thy seed shall be as the sand of the earth; and it shall spread abroad to the sea, and the south, and the north, and to the east; and in thee and in thy seed (ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου) shall all the tribes of the earth be blessed. (Gen 28:14 LXE)

LXE  Deuteronomy 28:46 And these things shall be signs in thee, and wonders among thy seed (ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου) for ever; (Deu 28:46 LXE)

LXE  2 Kings 5:27 The leprosy also of Naiman shall cleave to thee, and to thy seed (ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου) for ever. And he went out from his presence leprous, like snow. (2Ki 5:27 LXE)

Clearly Christ is NOT the "seed" in all these texts, even though "seed" is singular in number.

Where does St. Paul speak of Naman?

Quote
So "seeds" plural must exist in the context Paul is referring to because he is making a distinction in the appearance of both, while "seeds" plural in one verse refers to Abraham's descendants, "seed" singular in another refers to Christ.

The only texts having both are the Aramaic:

17 that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy sons as the stars of the heavens, and they shall be as the sand which is upon the shore of the sea, and thy sons shall inherit the cities before their enemies.
 18 And all the peoples of the earth shall be blessed through the righteousness of thy son, because thou hast obeyed My word. -Gen 22:17-18 PJE Targum Pseudo Jonathan on the Pentateuch:

With this version Paul's argument makes perfect sense.
It stretches credulity to suppose Paul hinges his argument on Attic conventions long since forgotten...

The plural, in contrast to the dual, was alive and well in Koine.

Quote
He is citing a text they can read and see there the distinction, and when you do read it in the Aramaic, the reference to Christ is clear.
None of the Galatians spoke Aramaic, nor did they read it, nor had it been read in Galatia for three centuries by St. Paul's day.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Keble on August 17, 2010, 01:52:11 PM
You do understand that the earliest LXX manuscript we have pre-dates the earliest MT manuscript we have, right?  And that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which also pre-date the earliest MT manuscrupt, "gel" more with the LXX, right?  So you do know that you are begging the question, which manuscript reflects the earlier text: the LXX, or the MT, which is technically a translation, since the PMT didn't have the vowels, and thus required interpretation in order to translate it from Hebrew without vowels to Hebrew with vowels.

That's somewhat true, but not entirely true. There are some significant differences between the DSS and MT readings where the LXX follows the former rather than the latter; therefore one might prefer, in English, to translate the LXX/DSS reading instead of the MT, though of course one cannot determine whether it is the DSS or the MT which deviates from the ur-text. Far more common, however, are places where the LXX appears to mistranslate the MT, and the DSS reading is the same as the latter. In these cases one would tend to prefer to retranslate the Hebrew and ignore the Greek.

I personally see no real reason to invest in belief in an inerrant text, given that (a) I personally have to read it in translation, and (b) it is manifestly necessary to appeal to interpretation, offering another opportunity to introduce error.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 17, 2010, 02:58:51 PM
You do understand that the earliest LXX manuscript we have pre-dates the earliest MT manuscript we have, right?  And that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which also pre-date the earliest MT manuscrupt, "gel" more with the LXX, right?  So you do know that you are begging the question, which manuscript reflects the earlier text: the LXX, or the MT, which is technically a translation, since the PMT didn't have the vowels, and thus required interpretation in order to translate it from Hebrew without vowels to Hebrew with vowels.

That's somewhat true, but not entirely true. There are some significant differences between the DSS and MT readings where the LXX follows the former rather than the latter; therefore one might prefer, in English, to translate the LXX/DSS reading instead of the MT, though of course one cannot determine whether it is the DSS or the MT which deviates from the ur-text. Far more common, however, are places where the LXX appears to mistranslate the MT, and the DSS reading is the same as the latter. In these cases one would tend to prefer to retranslate the Hebrew and ignore the Greek.

I personally see no real reason to invest in belief in an inerrant text, given that (a) I personally have to read it in translation, and (b) it is manifestly necessary to appeal to interpretation, offering another opportunity to introduce error.

Good argument. I was reviewing some verses cited earlier in support of the lxx:

τῷ θεῷ καὶ οὐχ ηὑρίσκετο ὅτι μετέθηκεν αὐτὸν ὁ θεός

Jacob ... worshipped, leaning on the top of his staff
Gen 47.31 quoted in Heb 11.21


Net Bible footnote shows the consonants are the same, vowel points different:

6 tc The MT reads מִטָּה (mittah, “bed, couch”). The LXX reads the word as מַטֶּה (matteh, “staff, rod”) and interprets this to mean that Jacob bowed down in worship while leaning on the top of his staff. The LXX reading was used in turn by the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews (Heb 11:21).- Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press

Rather than conclude either text is wrong,  perhaps they  are both right as a picture can be accurately described by different words. The point is he worshiped God. He may have done this while leaning on  the top of his staff, at the bed's head.

I rejoice in alternate readings, they don't seem to adversely affect doctrine, but often provide depth to the event or entity described.

By faith I default to the Hebrew and Greek autographs being inerrant, and accept the Masoretic vowel points preserve inspired vocalization. If believing Christ and His apostles the word of God stands forever, will be punished, then so be it. But I suspect faith in Christ, the apostles, His Word, will be rewarded. IN the interrm, because my confidence is in God to guide me into the truth, alternate readings are a blessing, not a curse.



Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 17, 2010, 03:33:43 PM
You do understand that the earliest LXX manuscript we have pre-dates the earliest MT manuscript we have, right?  And that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which also pre-date the earliest MT manuscrupt, "gel" more with the LXX, right?  So you do know that you are begging the question, which manuscript reflects the earlier text: the LXX, or the MT, which is technically a translation, since the PMT didn't have the vowels, and thus required interpretation in order to translate it from Hebrew without vowels to Hebrew with vowels.

That's somewhat true, but not entirely true. There are some significant differences between the DSS and MT readings where the LXX follows the former rather than the latter;

That's somewhat true, but not entirely true. As the LXX predates the DSS and MT, it doesn't follow either, although it might agree with either.  Btw, another problem for the MT and the Protestant canon is the DSS contain  Sirach, Tobit as (juding from the Talmud, which includes knowledge of Judith and Maccabbees) included by the Jews in the canon, and books like Baruch (in Greek!).

Quote
therefore one might prefer, in English, to translate the LXX/DSS reading instead of the MT, though of course one cannot determine whether it is the DSS or the MT which deviates from the ur-text. Far more common, however, are places where the LXX appears to mistranslate the MT,

Since the MT didn't come into being until centuries after physical texts we still have of the LXX (e.g. Sinaiticus, Vatiicanus, Alexandrinusj etc.), the LXX couldn't possibly mistranslate (or, for that matter, translaate) the MT.

Quote
and the DSS reading is the same as the latter. In these cases one would tend to prefer to retranslate the Hebrew and ignore the Greek.

So "a young woman" shall conceive"? No chance.

Quote
I personally see no real reason to invest in belief in an inerrant text, given that (a) I personally have to read it in translation, and (b) it is manifestly necessary to appeal to interpretation, offering another opportunity to introduce error.
Or correct it.  I'm rereading Melito of Sardis "On Pascha," from around 180. It expounds a lot on typology, and in the process demolishes the claim of the Jehovah Witnesseses and other neo-Arians to any antiquity.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 17, 2010, 04:31:13 PM
You do understand that the earliest LXX manuscript we have pre-dates the earliest MT manuscript we have, right?  And that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which also pre-date the earliest MT manuscrupt, "gel" more with the LXX, right?  So you do know that you are begging the question, which manuscript reflects the earlier text: the LXX, or the MT, which is technically a translation, since the PMT didn't have the vowels, and thus required interpretation in order to translate it from Hebrew without vowels to Hebrew with vowels.

That's somewhat true, but not entirely true. There are some significant differences between the DSS and MT readings where the LXX follows the former rather than the latter; therefore one might prefer, in English, to translate the LXX/DSS reading instead of the MT, though of course one cannot determine whether it is the DSS or the MT which deviates from the ur-text. Far more common, however, are places where the LXX appears to mistranslate the MT, and the DSS reading is the same as the latter. In these cases one would tend to prefer to retranslate the Hebrew and ignore the Greek.

I personally see no real reason to invest in belief in an inerrant text, given that (a) I personally have to read it in translation, and (b) it is manifestly necessary to appeal to interpretation, offering another opportunity to introduce error.

Good argument. I was reviewing some verses cited earlier in support of the lxx:

τῷ θεῷ καὶ οὐχ ηὑρίσκετο ὅτι μετέθηκεν αὐτὸν ὁ θεός

Jacob ... worshipped, leaning on the top of his staff
Gen 47.31 quoted in Heb 11.21


Net Bible footnote shows the consonants are the same, vowel points different:

6 tc The MT reads מִטָּה (mittah, “bed, couch”). The LXX reads the word as מַטֶּה (matteh, “staff, rod”) and interprets this to mean that Jacob bowed down in worship while leaning on the top of his staff. The LXX reading was used in turn by the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews (Heb 11:21).- Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press

Rather than conclude either text is wrong,  perhaps they  are both right as a picture can be accurately described by different words. The point is he worshiped God. He may have done this while leaning on  the top of his staff, at the bed's head.

I rejoice in alternate readings, they don't seem to adversely affect doctrine, but often provide depth to the event or entity described.

Oh?  St. John of Damascus quotes Pope St. Athansius the Great in defense of the Holy Icons:
Quote
We, who are of the faithful, do not worship images as gods, as the heathens did, God forbid, but we mark our lovingdesire alone to see the face of the person represented in image. Hence, when it is obliterated, we are wont to throw the image as so much wood into the fire. Jacob, when he was about to die, worshipped on the point of Joseph's staff, not honouring the staff but its owner. Just in the same way do we greet images as we should embrace our children and parents to signify our affection. Thus the Jew, too, worshipped the tablets of the law, and the two golden cherubim in carved work, not because he honoured gold or stone for itself, but the Lord who had ordered them to be made.

and St. Leontinus of Neapolis in defense of the Holy Icons:
Quote
If you, O Jew, reproach me saying that I adore the wood of the Cross as God, why do you not reproach Jacob, who worshipped on the point of his staff ? Now it is evident that he was not worshipping wood. So with us ; we are worshipping Christ through the Cross, not the wood of the Cross.

Commentary.—If we adore the Cross, made of whatever wood it may be, how shall we not adore the image of the Crucified ?

Abraham worshipped the impious men who sold him the cave, and bent his knee to the ground, yet did not worship them as gods. Jacob praised Pharao, an impious idolator, yet not as God. and he fell down at the feet of Esau, yet did not worship him as God. And again, How does God order us to worship the earth and mountains? 'Exalt the Lord your God and worship Him upon His holy mountain, and adore His footstool, that is, the earth. For heaven is My throne, He says, and the earth My footstool. How was it that Moses worshipped Jothor, an idolator, and Daniel, Nabuchodonosor ? How can you reproach me because I honour those who honour God and show Him service ? Tell me, is it not fitting to worship the saints, rather than to throw stones at them as you do? Is it not right to worship them, rather than to attack them, and to fling your benefactors into the mire ? If you loved God, you. would be ready to honour His servants also. And if the bones of the just are unclean, why were the bones of Jacob and Joseph brought with all honour from Egypt? How was it that a dead man arose again on touching the bones of Eliseus ? If God works wonders through bones, it is evident that He can work them through images, and stones, and many other things, as in the case of Eliseus, who gave his staff to his servant, saying, ' With this go and raise from the dead the son of the Sunamitess.' With his staff Moses chastised Pharao, parted the waters, struck the rock, and drew forth the stream. And Solomon said, ' Blessed is the wood by which justice cometh.' Eliseus took iron out of the Jordan with a piece of wood. And again, the wood is the wood of life, and the wood of Sabec, that is, of remission. Moses humbled the serpent with wood and saved the people. The blossoming rod in the tabernacle confirmed the priesthood of Aaron. Perhaps, O Jew, you will tell me that God prescribed to Moses beforehand all the things of the testimony in the tabernacle. Now, I say to you that Solomon made a great variety of things in the temple in carvings and sculpture, which God had not ordered him to do. Nor did the tabernacle of the testimony contain them, nor the temple which God showed to Ezechiel, nor was Solomon to be blamed in this. He had had these sculptured images made for the glory of God as we do. You, too, had many and varied images and signs in the Old Testament to serve as a reminder of God, if you had not lost them through ingratitude. For instance, the rod of Moses, the tablets of the law, the burning bush, the rock giving forth water, the ark containing the manna, the altar set on fire from above, the lamina bearing the divine name, the ephod, the tabernacle overshadowed by God. If you had prepared all these things by day and by night, saying, ' Glory be to Thee, O Almighty God, who hast done wonders in Israel through all these things'; if through all these ordinances of the law, carried out of old, you had fallen on your knees to adore God, you would see that worship is given to Him by images.  And further on:—He who truly loves a friend or the king, and especially his benefactor, if he sees that benefactor's son, or his staff, or his chair, or his crown, or his house, or his servant, he holds them fast in his embrace, and if he honours his benefactor, and king, how much more God. Again I repeat it, would that you had made images according to the law of Moses and the prophet-:, and that day by day you had worshipped the God of images. Whenever, then, you see Christians adoring the Cross, know that thoy are adoring the Crucified Christ, not the mere wood.  If, indeed, they honoured wood as wood, they would be bound to worship trees of whatever kind, as you, O Israel, worshipped them of old, saying to the tree and to the stone, 'Thou art my God and didst bring me forth.' We do not speak either to the Cross or to the representations of the saints in this way. They are not our gods, but books which He open and are venerated in churches in order to remind us of God and to lead us to worship Him. He who honours the martyr honours Gocl, to whom the martyr bore testimony. He who worships the apostle of Christ worships Him who sent the apostle. He who falls at the feet of Christ's mother most certainly shows honour to her 'Son. There is no God but one, He who is known and adored in the Trinity.

On this account I depict Christ and His sufferings in churches, and houses, and public places, and images, on clothes, and store-houses, and in every available place, so that ever before me, I may bear them in lasting memory, and not be unmindful, as you are, of my Lord God. In worshipping the book of the law, you are not worshipping parchment or colour, but God's words contained in it. So do I worship the image of Christ, neither wood nor colouring for themselves. Adoring an inanimate figure of Christ through the Cross, I seem to possess and to adore Christ. Jacob received Joseph's cloak of many colours from his brothers who had sold him, and he caressed it with tears as he gazed at it. He did not weep over the cloak, but considered it a way of showing his love for Joseph and of embracing him. Thus do we Christians embrace with our lips the image of Christ, or the apostles, or the martyrs, whilst in spirit we deem that we are embracing Christ Himself or His martyr. As I have often said, the end in view must always be considered in all greeting and worship. If you upbraid me because I worship the wood of the Cross, why do you not upbraid Jacob for worshipping on the point of Joseph's staff? It is evident that it was not the wood he honoured by his worship, but Joseph, as we adore Christ through the Cross. Abraham worshipped impious men who sold him the cave, and bent his knee to the ground, yet he did not worship them as gods. And again, Jacob magnified impious Pharao and idolatrous Esau seven times, yet not as God. How many salutations and worshippings I have put before you, both natural and scriptural which are not to be condemned, and you no sooner see any one worshipping the image of Christ or His Immaculate Mother or a saint than you are angry and blaspheme and call me an idolator. Have you no shame, seeing me as you do day by day pulling down the temples of idols in the whole world and raising churches to martyrs ? If I worship idols, why do I honour martyrs, their destroyers ? If I glorify wood, as you say, why do I honour the saints who have pulled down the wooden statues of demons? If I glorify stones, how can I glorify the apostles who broke the stone idols ? If I honour the images of false gods, how can I praise and glorify and keep the feast of the three children at Babylon who would not worship the golden statue ? How greatly foolish people err, and how blind they are! What shamelessness is yours, O Jew! what impiety! You sin indeed against the truth. Arise, O God, and justify Thy cause. Judge and justify us from people, not all people, but from senseless and hostile people who constantly provoke Thee.
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA48&dq=John+of+Damascus+Jacob+staff&id=ibnUAAAAMAAJ#v=onepage&q=jacob%20staff&f=false


Quote
By faith I default to the Hebrew and Greek autographs being inerrant, and accept the Masoretic vowel points preserve inspired vocalization.

So Perssonims teaches that Our Lord withheld inspiration from the Holy Spirit who had come down upon her 10 days after Christ's Ascension, but He inspired the rabbis who denied Him as Messiah and who blasphemed against the Holy Spirit.

Quote
If believing Christ and His apostles the word of God stands forever, will be punished, then so be it. But I suspect faith in Christ, the apostles, His Word, will be rewarded.

Expressing disbelief in Christ and His Apostles, and accusing the word of God of corruption is not Faith in Christ, His Apostles, His Church and His Word meriting a reward. Rather, it begs for punishment.

Quote
IN the interrm, because my confidence is in God to guide me into the truth, alternate readings are a blessing, not a curse.
Your confidence is not misplaced, but your "understanding" is misguided, which renders alternative readings a snare.

II Peter 3:15 Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 18But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 17, 2010, 05:56:31 PM
Oh?  St. John of Damascus quotes Pope St. Athansius the Great in defense of the Holy Icons:
Quote
We, who are of the faithful, do not worship images as gods, as the heathens did, God forbid, but we mark our lovingdesire alone to see the face of the person represented in image. Hence, when it is obliterated, we are wont to throw the image as so much wood into the fire. Jacob, when he was about to die, worshipped on the point of Joseph's staff, not honouring the staff but its owner. Just in the same way do we greet images as we should embrace our children and parents to signify our affection. Thus the Jew, too, worshipped the tablets of the law, and the two golden cherubim in carved work, not because he honoured gold or stone for itself, but the Lord who had ordered them to be made.

Nope, don't buy it. He lost his credibility when he cites pseudo Dionysius as Dionysius. Athanasius had nothing to do with icons.



Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Keble on August 17, 2010, 06:00:13 PM
You do understand that the earliest LXX manuscript we have pre-dates the earliest MT manuscript we have, right?  And that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which also pre-date the earliest MT manuscrupt, "gel" more with the LXX, right?  So you do know that you are begging the question, which manuscript reflects the earlier text: the LXX, or the MT, which is technically a translation, since the PMT didn't have the vowels, and thus required interpretation in order to translate it from Hebrew without vowels to Hebrew with vowels.

That's somewhat true, but not entirely true. There are some significant differences between the DSS and MT readings where the LXX follows the former rather than the latter;

That's somewhat true, but not entirely true. As the LXX predates the DSS and MT, it doesn't follow either, although it might agree with either.  Btw, another problem for the MT and the Protestant canon is the DSS contain  Sirach, Tobit as (juding from the Talmud, which includes knowledge of Judith and Maccabbees) included by the Jews in the canon, and books like Baruch (in Greek!).

Well, this Protestant has the Apocrypha in his bible, so you need not argue against a point I did not make. Also, you appear to mean "follow" in a different sense than I do: when I am speaking of the LXX "following" one of the Hebrew versions I mean that it appears to be translating the same Hebrew original as is found in that Hebrew version. That is also what I mean when I say that the LXX appears to mistranslate the MT: if there is no deviation among the Hebrew versions then one would ordinarily give some credence to the possibility of a mistranslation, particularly where the form of the difference suggests a misunderstanding.

Quote
Quote
and the DSS reading is the same as the latter. In these cases one would tend to prefer to retranslate the Hebrew and ignore the Greek.

So "a young woman" shall conceive"? No chance.

If that's the only difference you care about, who else cares? In my opinion pretty much everyone who gets in a wrestling match over that word at that point is engaging in a sort of scripture-twisting. The interpretation of one word in Isaiah is not going to overturn the testimony of Matthew and Luke concerning the virgin birth.

Quote
Quote
I personally see no real reason to invest in belief in an inerrant text, given that (a) I personally have to read it in translation, and (b) it is manifestly necessary to appeal to interpretation, offering another opportunity to introduce error.

Or correct it.  I'm rereading Melito of Sardis "On Pascha," from around 180. It expounds a lot on typology, and in the process demolishes the claim of the Jehovah Witnesses and other neo-Arians to any antiquity.

All you have to know about the JWs and scripture you can find by trying to read the NWT. It is so manifestly awful, it trumpets the translators' ignorance of the Hebrew and Greek languages.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 17, 2010, 06:49:04 PM
Oh?  St. John of Damascus quotes Pope St. Athansius the Great in defense of the Holy Icons:
Quote
We, who are of the faithful, do not worship images as gods, as the heathens did, God forbid, but we mark our lovingdesire alone to see the face of the person represented in image. Hence, when it is obliterated, we are wont to throw the image as so much wood into the fire. Jacob, when he was about to die, worshipped on the point of Joseph's staff, not honouring the staff but its owner. Just in the same way do we greet images as we should embrace our children and parents to signify our affection. Thus the Jew, too, worshipped the tablets of the law, and the two golden cherubim in carved work, not because he honoured gold or stone for itself, but the Lord who had ordered them to be made.

Nope, don't buy it.

Rev.  3:17Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: 18I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. 19As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

If you want to render you coin to others, that's your choice.

Quote
He lost his credibility when he cites pseudo Dionysius as Dionysius.

LOL. Christ we know, and the Apostles we know, and St. Dionysius we know (and even pseudo-Dionysius we know) and St. John of Damascus we know, but who are you?

Rather presumptios of you, in particular as St. John makes no dependence on the writer of the corpus being identical to the first century bishop.
btw, John Sandopoulos on his Mystagogy has an interesting post on the Dionysian corpus
Quote
[Below are two classic writings by the Rev. John Parker who defended the authenticity of the Areopagite corpus as first century texts with apostolic authority. Though written a little over a hundred years ago, the arguments have yet to be refuted by his many critics who delight in deriding him. The interesting question he asks is whether St. Dionysius was influenced by the Alexandrian School and the Neoplatonists or was it in fact the other way around. The Rev. Parker translated St. Dionysius in the late 19th century into English both very accurately and literally which means that it is often unintelligable, but the benefit of this translation is that it maintains first century terminology that all later translations ignore. This is curious, because even if the writings are the work of "Pseudo-Dionysius", these terms must have been stylistically important as archaisms meant to enhance the feeling of authenticity, and thus worth noting. Though his arguments need to be a bit refined and expanded upon to suit contemporay scholarship, I consider it to still be a credible argument at least worth considering, as it also defends the majority of the opinions of the Church Fathers. - J.S.]
http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2009/10/genuiness-of-writings-of-dionysius.html

Quote
Athanasius had nothing to do with icons.

His holy testimony says otherwise.




[/quote]
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 17, 2010, 07:53:59 PM
You do understand that the earliest LXX manuscript we have pre-dates the earliest MT manuscript we have, right?  And that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which also pre-date the earliest MT manuscrupt, "gel" more with the LXX, right?  So you do know that you are begging the question, which manuscript reflects the earlier text: the LXX, or the MT, which is technically a translation, since the PMT didn't have the vowels, and thus required interpretation in order to translate it from Hebrew without vowels to Hebrew with vowels.

That's somewhat true, but not entirely true. There are some significant differences between the DSS and MT readings where the LXX follows the former rather than the latter;

That's somewhat true, but not entirely true. As the LXX predates the DSS and MT, it doesn't follow either, although it might agree with either.  Btw, another problem for the MT and the Protestant canon is the DSS contain  Sirach, Tobit as (juding from the Talmud, which includes knowledge of Judith and Maccabbees) included by the Jews in the canon, and books like Baruch (in Greek!).

Well, this Protestant has the Apocrypha in his bible,

Apocrypha? Interesting choice of words.

Quote
so you need not argue against a point I did not make.

Your choice of words makes me think otherwise.

Quote
Also, you appear to mean "follow" in a different sense than I do: when I am speaking of the LXX "following" one of the Hebrew versions I mean
but that is not what you said. Some (not naming names  ::)) are not so careful, and refer to the MT as the Hebrew original.

Quote
that it appears to be translating the same Hebrew original as is found in that Hebrew version. That is also what I mean when I say that the LXX appears to mistranslate the MT: if there is no deviation among the Hebrew versions then one would ordinarily give some credence to the possibility of a mistranslation, particularly where the form of the difference suggests a misunderstanding.
In the stemma of the text types
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/TextsOT.PNG)
only the hypothetical (hypothetical becaue it is reconstructed) archtype (not to be confused with the Hebrew and Aramaic autographs) and the later Hebrew hyparchtype predates Christ and His Apostles. What the Jews did off on the side with the MT isn't of interest to those who hold fast to the Tradition received of the Apostles.

Quote
Quote
Quote
and the DSS reading is the same as the latter. In these cases one would tend to prefer to retranslate the Hebrew and ignore the Greek.

So "a young woman" shall conceive"? No chance.

If that's the only difference you care about, who else cares?

The Jews and their followers. They have been fighting us on that (and other spots) for going on two thousand years.

Quote
In my opinion pretty much everyone who gets in a wrestling match over that word at that point is engaging in a sort of scripture-twisting. The interpretation of one word in Isaiah is not going to overturn the testimony of Matthew and Luke concerning the virgin birth.

It has provided a staple of polemic to those who don't accept Matthew and Luke, ostensibly for that reason. The B'nei Noach are just one of many. It also determines whose authority you accept, the Apostles, the rabbis or the "higher critics."

Quote
Quote
Quote
I personally see no real reason to invest in belief in an inerrant text, given that (a) I personally have to read it in translation, and (b) it is manifestly necessary to appeal to interpretation, offering another opportunity to introduce error.

Or correct it.  I'm rereading Melito of Sardis "On Pascha," from around 180. It expounds a lot on typology, and in the process demolishes the claim of the Jehovah Witnesses and other neo-Arians to any antiquity.

All you have to know about the JWs and scripture you can find by trying to read the NWT. It is so manifestly awful, it trumpets the translators' ignorance of the Hebrew and Greek languages.
Melito is more straightforward stake through the JW heart.  Using the NWT can be tedious, and for much of the argument depends on the Christian and the JW knowing Greek.  The former is common, the latter nearly unheard of (including the NWT translators).
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 17, 2010, 10:13:35 PM
Rather than parse a confused apologetic, lets look at οὐ λέγει in context:

NKJ  Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.
 (Gal 3:16 NKJ)
...

So Paul is identifying the singular "seed" as referring to Christ. The problem is every occurrence of  "seed" is singular, therefore Paul's argument means ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου necessitates Christ is the seed in all these texts:

]LXE  Genesis 26:4 And I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven; and I will give to thy seed all this land, and all the nations of the earth shall be blest in thy seed(ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου). (Gen 26:4 LXE)

LXE  Genesis 28:14 And thy seed shall be as the sand of the earth; and it shall spread abroad to the sea, and the south, and the north, and to the east; and in thee and in thy seed (ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου) shall all the tribes of the earth be blessed. (Gen 28:14 LXE)

LXE  Deuteronomy 28:46 And these things shall be signs in thee, and wonders among thy seed (ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου) for ever; (Deu 28:46 LXE)

LXE  2 Kings 5:27 The leprosy also of Naiman shall cleave to thee, and to thy seed (ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου) for ever. And he went out from his presence leprous, like snow. (2Ki 5:27 LXE)

Clearly Christ is NOT the "seed" in all these texts, even though "seed" is singular in number.

Where does St. Paul cite them?  
Where does St. Paul speak of Naman?

Paul argued the singular is Christ, therefore verses having the singular where it is not Christ prove Paul wrong.

Paul is wrong according to his own argument, the singular does NOT refer to Christ...OFTEN, in the LXX.

Paul argued a spelling difference shows when it applies to Christ. That spelling difference doesn't exist in the LXX.


But in the Aramaic Targums, Paul's argument is sound:

17 therefore, blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thy sons as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the sea shore; and thy sons shall inherit the cities of their enemies.
 18 And all the peoples of the earth shall be blessed through thy son: forasmuch as thou hast received My word.- Gen 22:17-18 OKE Targum Onkelos on the Pentateuch (English)


17 that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy sons as the stars of the heavens, and they shall be as the sand which is upon the shore of the sea, and thy sons shall inherit the cities before their enemies.
 18 And all the peoples of the earth shall be blessed through the righteousness of thy son, because thou hast obeyed My word. -Gen 22:17-18 PJE Targum Pseudo Jonathan on the Pentateuch

Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Shlomlokh on August 17, 2010, 10:46:12 PM
You do understand that the earliest LXX manuscript we have pre-dates the earliest MT manuscript we have, right?  And that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which also pre-date the earliest MT manuscrupt, "gel" more with the LXX, right?  So you do know that you are begging the question, which manuscript reflects the earlier text: the LXX, or the MT, which is technically a translation, since the PMT didn't have the vowels, and thus required interpretation in order to translate it from Hebrew without vowels to Hebrew with vowels.

I focused on one text to make my point, lest we go all over the map on this and get no where.

It is Orthodox position the LXX translation is inspired...I believe Exodus 32:4 proves it is not, if it were, "gods" would read "god".

Aaron was providing for their need of the sensible, hoping to retain worship of the true God via the image, that is clear in vvs 32:4-6.
[Emphasis mine] This is really all the proof we need, right?  ;D

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 17, 2010, 11:00:05 PM
You do understand that the earliest LXX manuscript we have pre-dates the earliest MT manuscript we have, right?  And that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which also pre-date the earliest MT manuscrupt, "gel" more with the LXX, right?  So you do know that you are begging the question, which manuscript reflects the earlier text: the LXX, or the MT, which is technically a translation, since the PMT didn't have the vowels, and thus required interpretation in order to translate it from Hebrew without vowels to Hebrew with vowels.

I focused on one text to make my point, lest we go all over the map on this and get no where.

It is Orthodox position the LXX translation is inspired...I believe Exodus 32:4 proves it is not, if it were, "gods" would read "god".

Aaron was providing for their need of the sensible, hoping to retain worship of the true God via the image, that is clear in vvs 32:4-6.
[Emphasis mine] This is really all the proof we need, right?  ;D

In Christ,
Andrew

Not that argument, the one right above your post is all the proof you need Paul didn't use the LXX.

That his translators may have used the Septuagint when putting his Aramaic arguments into Greek, seems to be the case. But its clear from his argument, both he and the Galatians were using an Aramaic Translation.

I happen to like the LXX, not the apocrypha in it however. I don't believe I'd be materially harmed if it were the only translation available to me.

I sympathize with those who choose the Septuagint over the Hebrew...we all will be judged by our conscience...and if your conscience says that is correct, for you it is..

I do not judge you at all, in fact, I applaud your consistency with what you know is right. (Ac 23:1; 24:16; Rom 2:15)

BUT when the Orthodox claim the LXX changes are inspired, and must be accepted, that wasn't what Paul the apostle believed, and practiced.

Therefore I object, my conscience forces me to.


 
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: bogdan on August 17, 2010, 11:22:58 PM
Eh...consciences (A.K.A. feelings) are fickle and arbitrary things. It's a good thing Christ has given us objective standards and concrete realities to live in, and does not leave us to our own devices. Just imagine what the Church would look like if everyone judged everything by their own consciences! :D

Oh wait.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 17, 2010, 11:31:44 PM
Eh...consciences (A.K.A. feelings) are fickle and arbitrary things. It's a good thing Christ has given us objective standards and concrete realities to live in, and does not leave us to our own devices. Just imagine what the Church would look like if everyone lived by their own consciences! :D

Oh wait.

Again you contradict apostolic doctrine, Paul doesn't say he obeyed objective standards and concrete realities, but his conscience:

NKJ  Acts 23:1 Then Paul, looking earnestly at the council, said, "Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day." (Act 23:1 NKJ)

NKJ  Acts 24:16 "This being so, I myself always strive to have a conscience without offense toward God and men.
 (Act 24:16 NKJ)

NKJ  Romans 2:15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) (Rom 2:15 NKJ)

Living according to conscience is apostolic doctrine:

 27 If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience' sake.
 28 But if anyone says to you, "This was offered to idols," do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience' sake; for "the earth is the LORD'S, and all its fullness."
 29 "Conscience, " I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man's conscience?
 (1Co 10:27-29 NKJ)

If your conscience is you do right sticking with the LXX, then stick with it you should. If your conscience says bowing down to God before images is right, then for you it is.

 18 Pray for us; for we are confident that we have a good conscience, in all things desiring to live honorably. (Heb 13:18 NKJ)


But when the Orthodox teach incorrectly against the objective standards and concrete reality in holy Scripture, apostolic doctrine, then my conscience says I must object to the error.

Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: bogdan on August 17, 2010, 11:39:00 PM
The well-formed conscience of a Holy Apostle is different from the demon-courting conscience of your average Bogdan.

And he certainly is not telling people to contradict dogma based on their consciences (note, eating meat offered to idols is not a dogma, so that is where your analogy breaks down). More often than not, our gut feelings and base instincts are 180 degrees out of phase with what God wants.

And besides, they can't both be right. The LXX and MT can't be "the most true" depending on the beholder's conscience. Iconography can't be both idol worship and a Christian obligation. It's one or the other.

John Spong doesn't believe in the resurrection. It breaks with his conscience. But that doesn't make his beliefs legitimate. Someone can be a very sincere heretic. Church history is full of them.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: bogdan on August 17, 2010, 11:49:47 PM
The difference with your example from 1 Corinthians is that the Church has never said that icons are optional. They aren't. Viz this megalynarion from the Paraklesis to the Theotokos:

Speechless be the lips of the impious, who refuse to reverence the revered icon, which is known by the name "Directress", and which hath been depicted for us by the Apostle, Luke the Evangelist.

Not only did St Luke himself paint this icon (which nukes the argument that the Apostles didn't have icons), but those who refuse to reverence it are impious—unrighteous, irreverent before God.

(Lest someone bewail the fact that the Bible doesn't mention icons, bear in mind that the Gospels collectively only account for about 18 days of Jesus' life, and the rest of the NT are only a handful of letters dealing with specific problems. It's hardly comprehensive, and an argument from silence does not work therefore.)
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 17, 2010, 11:59:46 PM
Rather than parse a confused apologetic, lets look at οὐ λέγει in context:

NKJ  Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.
 (Gal 3:16 NKJ)
...

So Paul is identifying the singular "seed" as referring to Christ. The problem is every occurrence of  "seed" is singular, therefore Paul's argument means ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου necessitates Christ is the seed in all these texts:

]LXE  Genesis 26:4 And I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven; and I will give to thy seed all this land, and all the nations of the earth shall be blest in thy seed(ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου). (Gen 26:4 LXE)

LXE  Genesis 28:14 And thy seed shall be as the sand of the earth; and it shall spread abroad to the sea, and the south, and the north, and to the east; and in thee and in thy seed (ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου) shall all the tribes of the earth be blessed. (Gen 28:14 LXE)

LXE  Deuteronomy 28:46 And these things shall be signs in thee, and wonders among thy seed (ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου) for ever; (Deu 28:46 LXE)

LXE  2 Kings 5:27 The leprosy also of Naiman shall cleave to thee, and to thy seed (ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου) for ever. And he went out from his presence leprous, like snow. (2Ki 5:27 LXE)

Clearly Christ is NOT the "seed" in all these texts, even though "seed" is singular in number.

Where does St. Paul cite them?  
Where does St. Paul speak of Naman?

REPEATS ARGUMENT ALREADY REFUTED
Stick to what St. Paul cites, and stop twisting his words to your own destruction.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 18, 2010, 12:01:30 AM
The well-formed conscience of a Holy Apostle is different from the demon-courting conscience of your average Bogdan.

And he certainly is not telling people to contradict dogma based on their consciences (note, eating meat offered to idols is not a dogma, so that is where your analogy breaks down). More often than not, our gut feelings and base instincts are 180 degrees out of phase with what God wants.

And besides, they can't both be right. The LXX and MT can't be "the most true" depending on the beholder's conscience. Iconography can't be both idol worship and a Christian obligation. It's one or the other.

John Spong doesn't believe in the resurrection. It breaks with his conscience. But that doesn't make his beliefs legitimate. Someone can be a very sincere heretic. Church history is full of them.

You are confusing conscience, with subjective decision making, they are not the same. Of course belief doesn't make something right or wrong. It can only make it right or wrong to those having the belief.

The conscience is trained by God's Word, improved by the Holy Spirit's ministry...it "informs us" when we are doing right or wrong. Its not a decision maker, its a judge. God's judge in us.


5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience' sake. (Rom 13:5 NKJ)

We all will be judged on how well we obeyed our conscience, not on how well we obeyed dogma:

 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel (Rom 2:16 NKJ)

 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us-- baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (1Pe 3:21 NKJ)


Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 18, 2010, 12:13:57 AM
Rather than parse a confused apologetic, lets look at οὐ λέγει in context:

NKJ  Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.
 (Gal 3:16 NKJ)
...

So Paul is identifying the singular "seed" as referring to Christ. The problem is every occurrence of  "seed" is singular, therefore Paul's argument means ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου necessitates Christ is the seed in all these texts:

]LXE  Genesis 26:4 And I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven; and I will give to thy seed all this land, and all the nations of the earth shall be blest in thy seed(ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου). (Gen 26:4 LXE)

LXE  Genesis 28:14 And thy seed shall be as the sand of the earth; and it shall spread abroad to the sea, and the south, and the north, and to the east; and in thee and in thy seed (ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου) shall all the tribes of the earth be blessed. (Gen 28:14 LXE)

LXE  Deuteronomy 28:46 And these things shall be signs in thee, and wonders among thy seed (ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου) for ever; (Deu 28:46 LXE)

LXE  2 Kings 5:27 The leprosy also of Naiman shall cleave to thee, and to thy seed (ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου) for ever. And he went out from his presence leprous, like snow. (2Ki 5:27 LXE)

Clearly Christ is NOT the "seed" in all these texts, even though "seed" is singular in number.

Where does St. Paul cite them?  
Where does St. Paul speak of Naman?

REPEATS ARGUMENT ALREADY REFUTED
Stick to what St. Paul cites, and stop twisting his words to your own destruction.

I twisted nothing. Paul says the singular is Christ, but that is incorrect when I inspect the Septuagint...lots of times the singular refers to others.

In another post I recall you questioned how the Galatians would know Aramaic. That shows you never studied the book, Galatia was Jewish convert church, and Galatians one of the first books written. They spoke Aramaic and Paul is arguing Christ is the fulfillment of the law, because they are wavering:

 6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, (Gal 1:6 NKJ)

Peter's apostolic oral doctrine was antichristian heresy, JEWS from James (Aramaic speakers) bullied him into it....and Paul was sent by God to intervene and fix it:


11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;
 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.
 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
 (Gal 2:11-13 NKJ)

Hence the foolish idea the church cannot defect from the truth is absurd...of course they can, they have free will. Peter almost did, God in His mercy, sent Paul to stop him.



Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 18, 2010, 12:32:20 AM
The difference with your example from 1 Corinthians is that the Church has never said that icons are optional. They aren't. Viz this megalynarion from the Paraklesis to the Theotokos:

Speechless be the lips of the impious, who refuse to reverence the revered icon, which is known by the name "Directress", and which hath been depicted for us by the Apostle, Luke the Evangelist.

Not only did St Luke himself paint this icon (which nukes the argument that the Apostles didn't have icons), but those who refuse to reverence it are impious—unrighteous, irreverent before God.

(Lest someone bewail the fact that the Bible doesn't mention icons, bear in mind that the Gospels collectively only account for about 18 days of Jesus' life, and the rest of the NT are only a handful of letters dealing with specific problems. It's hardly comprehensive, and an argument from silence does not work therefore.)

I don't believe the legend true...and if it were correct that Luke drew images on his gospel, that still does not prove he venerated them as the Orthodox do.

I discussed all this thoroughly on another thread, I'll not be repeating that material here.

As I said, if your conscience is reverence icons, then that is right for you.

Its not right for me, I know better:

 47 "And that servant who knew his master's will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
 48 "But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.
 (Luk 12:47-48 NKJ)

Punishment is according to one's knowing what is correct, according to one's conscience about the thing. For example, the Israelis died immediately for idolatry, as they were privy to the revelation of God delivering them out of Egypt and so had to know the truth:

 27 And he said to them, "Thus says the LORD God of Israel:`Let every man put his sword on his side, and go in and out from entrance to entrance throughout the camp, and let every man kill his brother, every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.'" (Exo 32:27 NKJ)

But the same idolatry by the nations, was overlooked for a time:

 30 "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, (Act 17:30 NKJ)

Again, Jesus said about His generation (which saw His glory) "few would be saved", but people from the nations would be saved:

23 Then one said to Him, "Lord, are there few who are saved?" And He said to them,
 24 "Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able.
 25 "When once the Master of the house has risen up and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock at the door, saying,`Lord, Lord, open for us,' and He will answer and say to you,`I do not know you, where you are from,'
 26 "then you will begin to say,`We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets.'
 27 "But He will say,`I tell you I do not know you, where you are from. Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity.'
 28 "There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves thrust out.
 29 "They will come from the east and the west, from the north and the south, and sit down in the kingdom of God.
 (Luk 13:23-29 NKJ)

The saved will be so many they cannot be numbered:

 9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands,
 10 and crying out with a loud voice, saying, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!"
 (Rev 7:9-10 NKJ)

Because Great is God's mercy...He judges righteously, not according to dogma, but according to the revelation of Christ in each one of us, and how well we obeyed that revelation. Those who know the full objective truth because they study His Word, are judged with great severeness:

NKJ  James 3:1 My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment. (Jam 3:1 NKJ)

If your conscience ever bears you witness icons are not right according to apostolic doctrine, then you must obey your conscience and repent, or suffer severely  for your rebellion against God.

God speaks to  us through our conscience.

 22 Then Samuel said: "Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, As in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams.
 23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry
. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, He also has rejected you from being king."
 (1Sa 15:22-23 NKJ)


Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 18, 2010, 12:34:54 AM
You do understand that the earliest LXX manuscript we have pre-dates the earliest MT manuscript we have, right?  And that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which also pre-date the earliest MT manuscrupt, "gel" more with the LXX, right?  So you do know that you are begging the question, which manuscript reflects the earlier text: the LXX, or the MT, which is technically a translation, since the PMT didn't have the vowels, and thus required interpretation in order to translate it from Hebrew without vowels to Hebrew with vowels.

I focused on one text to make my point, lest we go all over the map on this and get no where.

It is Orthodox position the LXX translation is inspired...I believe Exodus 32:4 proves it is not, if it were, "gods" would read "god".

Aaron was providing for their need of the sensible, hoping to retain worship of the true God via the image, that is clear in vvs 32:4-6.
[Emphasis mine] This is really all the proof we need, right?  ;D

In Christ,
Andrew

Not that argument, the one right above your post is all the proof you need Paul didn't use the LXX.

Only if you can't read Greek. Or match letters.
One neeed only compare the texts.
So when the Orthodox cite this text to prove Septuagint Primacy, they lose because Paul cites the Aramaic Targum, not the Septuagint at all.

Gen. 22:18 τῷ σπέρματί σου (LXX)
Gal.   3:16 τῷ σπέρματί σου

You might want to learn Greek, before attempting to make such arguments that are easily refuted.

Quote
That his translators may have used the Septuagint when putting his Aramaic arguments into Greek, seems to be the case. But its clear from his argument, both he and the Galatians were using an Aramaic Translation.

St. Paul spoke Aramaic, but the Galatians did not.  Official support for Aramaic disappeared from what would be in Galatia with Alexander and the Selucids, and then the Celtic speaking Galatians obliterated what was before, then adopting the Greek around them.  One need not assume any translation when the original was Greek, quoting the Greek LXX.

Quote
I happen to like the LXX, not the apocrypha in it however.

The Anagignoskomena you mean? The same books that Our Lord, His Apostles and their Church accepted, and the Jews accepted for centuries? Indeed the Jews still obey Maccabees in celebrating Hanukah, follow Judith in commanding women to celebrate and light the Hanukkah candles (Halakha rarely enjoins commandments on women), the framework of the amidah from Sirach, etc...

Quote
I don't believe I'd be materially harmed if it were the only translation available to me.

I'm not sure any version is safe.

Quote
I sympathize with those who choose the Septuagint over the Hebrew...we all will be judged by our conscience...and if your conscience says that is correct, for you it is..


For my thoughts are not your thoughts neither are your ways my ways saith the LORD. Isaiah 55:8

25 My soul cleaveth unto the dust: quicken thou me according to thy word. 26I have declared my ways, and thou heardest me: teach me thy statutes. 27Make me to understand the way of thy precepts: so shall I talk of thy wondrous works. 28My soul melteth for heaviness: strengthen thou me according unto thy word. 29Remove from me the way of lying: and grant me thy law graciously. 30I have chosen the way of truth: thy judgments have I laid before me. 31I have stuck unto thy testimonies: O LORD, put me not to shame. 32I will run the way of thy commandments, when thou shalt enlarge my heart. 33HE. Teach me, O LORD, the way of thy statutes; and I shall keep it unto the end. 34Give me understanding, and I shall keep thy law; yea, I shall observe it with my whole heart. 35Make me to go in the path of thy commandments; for therein do I delight. 36Incline my heart unto thy testimonies, and not to covetousness. 37Turn away mine eyes from beholding vanity; and quicken thou me in thy way.
38Stablish thy word unto thy servant, who is devoted to thy fear.  Ps. 118 (119)

Quote
I do not judge you at all, in fact, I applaud your consistency with what you know is right. (Ac 23:1; 24:16; Rom 2:15)

Quote
BUT when the Orthodox claim the LXX changes are inspired, and must be accepted, that wasn't what Paul the apostle believed, and practiced.


There's that twisting again.

Quote
Therefore I object, my conscience forces me to.[/b]
I'd look into that.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: theistgal on August 18, 2010, 12:36:32 AM
Icons are not idols.  Orthodox do not worship icons as idols.  Please prove otherwise or stop making thus unfounded accusation.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 18, 2010, 12:43:44 AM
Icons are not idols.  Orthodox do not worship icons as idols.  Please prove otherwise or stop making thus unfounded accusation.

I believe I discussed icons thoroughly on another thread...and proved that they have the same affect on the believer, and God. When you render the infinite transcendent Christ into a finite form, a picture, you have destroyed any hope of speaking to Him personally.

He is infinite, and all images, whether idols or icons, make Him finite to the soul...

That defiles the relationship, and Christ must leave where there is defilement, He is Holy:

 6 Furthermore He said to me, "Son of man, do you see what they are doing, the great abominations that the house of Israel commits here, to make Me go far away from My sanctuary? (Eze 8:6 NKJ)

I'll not participate in changing the subject from my opening post. This is the last time I allow myself to veer off from the topic of this thread.


I'm still going through the "proofs for the Septuagint" posted earlier...as I find something relevant, I will be sure to discuss it here.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: theistgal on August 18, 2010, 12:49:05 AM
No, you didn't prove anything.  Asserting is not proving.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 18, 2010, 12:55:00 AM
Eh...consciences (A.K.A. feelings) are fickle and arbitrary things. It's a good thing Christ has given us objective standards and concrete realities to live in, and does not leave us to our own devices. Just imagine what the Church would look like if everyone judged everything by their own consciences! :D

Oh wait.
simplified:
(http://www.bible.ca/orthodox-church-historical-timeline.gif)
(http://cominganarchy.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/timeline-protestant-branches.jpg)
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 18, 2010, 01:32:34 AM
Eh...consciences (A.K.A. feelings) are fickle and arbitrary things. It's a good thing Christ has given us objective standards and concrete realities to live in, and does not leave us to our own devices. Just imagine what the Church would look like if everyone lived by their own consciences! :D

Oh wait.

Again you contradict apostolic doctrine, Paul doesn't say he obeyed objective standards and concrete realities, but his conscience:

NKJ  Acts 23:1 Then Paul, looking earnestly at the council, said, "Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day." (Act 23:1 NKJ)

NKJ  Acts 24:16 "This being so, I myself always strive to have a conscience without offense toward God and men.
 (Act 24:16 NKJ)

NKJ  Romans 2:15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) (Rom 2:15 NKJ)

Gal. 2:1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain... 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

Quote
Living according to conscience is apostolic doctrine:

 27 If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience' sake.
 28 But if anyone says to you, "This was offered to idols," do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience' sake; for "the earth is the LORD'S, and all its fullness."
 29 "Conscience, " I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man's conscience?
 (1Co 10:27-29 NKJ)

Acts 15:2 Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question. 6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. 13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me: 19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. 22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas,[e] and Silas, leading men among the brethren. 23 They wrote this, letter by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:Greetings.  25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.  If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.
21:17 And when we had come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; 21 but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. 24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. 25 But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except  that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.”

Quote
If your conscience is you do right sticking with the LXX, then stick with it you should. If your conscience says bowing down to God before images is right, then for you it is.

 18 Pray for us; for we are confident that we have a good conscience, in all things desiring to live honorably. (Heb 13:18 NKJ)

Heb 1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person...6 when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all the angels of God bow down in worship before Him... 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.

Quote
But when the Orthodox teach incorrectly against the objective standards and concrete reality in holy Scripture, apostolic doctrine, then my conscience says I must object to the error.

John 14:7 “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.”
8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.”
9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. 11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.

Matthew 16:21 From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.
22 Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!”
23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 18, 2010, 01:37:28 AM
The well-formed conscience of a Holy Apostle is different from the demon-courting conscience of your average Bogdan.

And he certainly is not telling people to contradict dogma based on their consciences (note, eating meat offered to idols is not a dogma, so that is where your analogy breaks down). More often than not, our gut feelings and base instincts are 180 degrees out of phase with what God wants.

And besides, they can't both be right. The LXX and MT can't be "the most true" depending on the beholder's conscience. Iconography can't be both idol worship and a Christian obligation. It's one or the other.

John Spong doesn't believe in the resurrection. It breaks with his conscience. But that doesn't make his beliefs legitimate. Someone can be a very sincere heretic. Church history is full of them.

You are confusing conscience, with subjective decision making, they are not the same. Of course belief doesn't make something right or wrong. It can only make it right or wrong to those having the belief.

The conscience is trained by God's Word, improved by the Holy Spirit's ministry...it "informs us" when we are doing right or wrong. Its not a decision maker, its a judge. God's judge in us.


5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience' sake. (Rom 13:5 NKJ)

We all will be judged on how well we obeyed our conscience, not on how well we obeyed dogma:

 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel (Rom 2:16 NKJ)

 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us-- baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (1Pe 3:21 NKJ)
And where is the only place you can get that baptism? Hint:
John 4:2 (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples)
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 18, 2010, 02:13:28 AM
Rather than parse a confused apologetic, lets look at οὐ λέγει in context:

NKJ  Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.
 (Gal 3:16 NKJ)
...

So Paul is identifying the singular "seed" as referring to Christ. The problem is every occurrence of  "seed" is singular, therefore Paul's argument means ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου necessitates Christ is the seed in all these texts:

]LXE  Genesis 26:4 And I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven; and I will give to thy seed all this land, and all the nations of the earth shall be blest in thy seed(ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου). (Gen 26:4 LXE)

LXE  Genesis 28:14 And thy seed shall be as the sand of the earth; and it shall spread abroad to the sea, and the south, and the north, and to the east; and in thee and in thy seed (ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου) shall all the tribes of the earth be blessed. (Gen 28:14 LXE)

LXE  Deuteronomy 28:46 And these things shall be signs in thee, and wonders among thy seed (ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου) for ever; (Deu 28:46 LXE)

LXE  2 Kings 5:27 The leprosy also of Naiman shall cleave to thee, and to thy seed (ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου) for ever. And he went out from his presence leprous, like snow. (2Ki 5:27 LXE)

Clearly Christ is NOT the "seed" in all these texts, even though "seed" is singular in number.

Where does St. Paul cite them?  
Where does St. Paul speak of Naman?

REPEATS ARGUMENT ALREADY REFUTED
Stick to what St. Paul cites, and stop twisting his words to your own destruction.

I twisted nothing. Paul says the singular is Christ, REPEATS IRRELEVANT/REFUTED ARGUMENT.

In another post I recall you questioned how the Galatians would know Aramaic. That shows you never studied the book, Galatia was Jewish convert church,


Uncircumcized Jews who worship those which are not gods? You haven't studied Judaism (if you read Maccabbees, you could remedy that).

Gal 3: 1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among youas crucified? 2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?....4:8 But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods. 9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain. 17 They zealously court you, but for no good; yes, they want to exclude you, that you may be zealous for them. 18 But it is good to be zealous in a good thing always, and not only when I am present with you. 19 My little children, for whom I labor in birth again until Christ is formed in you, 20 I would like to be present with you now and to change my tone; for I have doubts about you....5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free,[a] and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. 2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. 4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.  7 You ran well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? 8 This persuasion does not come from Him who calls you. 9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump. 10 I have confidence in you, in the Lord, that you will have no other mind; but he who troubles you shall bear his judgment, whoever he is.
11 And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased. 12 I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off!

Quote
and Galatians one of the first books written.


I tend to agree with your chronology, but what does that have to do with your misidentification of its original language?

Quote
They spoke Aramaic

No, they did not.  Try to cough up some evidence that they did.

Quote
and Paul is arguing Christ is the fulfillment of the law, because they are wavering:

6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, (Gal 1:6 NKJ)

No, because Hebrew Christians were trying to make Hebrews out of them.

Acts 15: 1 And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”

Quote
Peter's apostolic oral doctrine was antichristian heresy

This Apostolic oral doctrine?
Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth [i.e. ORAL] and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. 35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. 36 The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ—He is Lord of all— 37 that word you know, which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached: 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. 39 And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they[e] killed by hanging on a tree. 40 Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly, 41 not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God, even to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. 42 And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. 43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.” 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, 47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

Acts 15:6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. 7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ[ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.”

Quote
JEWS


No, Hebrew Christians.

Quote
from James (Aramaic speakers)


(your proof?)

Quote
bullied him into it....and Paul was sent by God to intervene and fix it:
11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;
 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.
 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
 (Gal 2:11-13 NKJ)

Quote
Hence the foolish idea the church cannot defect from the truth is absurd

Only if you submit to the Vatican's teaching Peter=the Church.

Quote
...of course they can, they have free will. Peter almost did, God in His mercy, sent Paul to stop him.

And St. Paul was also authorized by the Church.
Acts 13: 1 Now in the church that was at Antioch there were certain prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 As they celebrated liturgy to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, “Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them [i.e. consecrate], they sent them away.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 18, 2010, 03:17:13 AM
The difference with your example from 1 Corinthians is that the Church has never said that icons are optional. They aren't. Viz this megalynarion from the Paraklesis to the Theotokos:

Speechless be the lips of the impious, who refuse to reverence the revered icon, which is known by the name "Directress", and which hath been depicted for us by the Apostle, Luke the Evangelist.

Not only did St Luke himself paint this icon (which nukes the argument that the Apostles didn't have icons), but those who refuse to reverence it are impious—unrighteous, irreverent before God.

(Lest someone bewail the fact that the Bible doesn't mention icons, bear in mind that the Gospels collectively only account for about 18 days of Jesus' life, and the rest of the NT are only a handful of letters dealing with specific problems. It's hardly comprehensive, and an argument from silence does not work therefore.)

I don't believe the legend true...and if it were correct that Luke drew images on his gospel, that still does not prove he venerated them as the Orthodox do.

I discussed all this thoroughly on another thread, I'll not be repeating that material here.

We have, from tradition, the Apostle Luke painting several icons as well.

Without proof, you have nothing.

The fact copies of Luke's gospel never had icons is an overwhelming mass of irrefutable evidence the autograph didn't have them either.

The irrefutable evidence is that the autograph of Luke had no attribution to St. Luke on it.  The Church put it there.  The same Church with the icons.

Quote
What icon venerating Orthodox Christian would fail to copy Luke's icons perfectly, so that every extent copy had icons?

Yes, we have to remember that your faith came into existence after the age of printing, so you are hazzy on the concept of manuscripts.

You see, before Mr. Gutenberg, instead of setting one printing press and printing copy after copy, which can be done relatively cheaply, every book had to be written out by hand. Labor intensive, it made books quite expensive, so there were few of them. Illlustrating a book would make it cost prohibitive, so even few were illustrated. So few that only a hand full have survived, among them the Ambrosian Iliad, Vergilius Vaticanus and the Vergilius Romanus, and the Quedlinburg Itala fragment and Cotton Genesis, all of them of the 5th century, the last two being from Bibles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quedlinburg_Itala_fragment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_Genesis
dating nearly as far back of the earliest full Bibles we have (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) which predate the illuminated Bibles by only a few decades. So I guess you have to admit, as documented by the previous three centuries, that the complete Bible didn't exist until the second half of the 4th century, within the lifetime of the earliest illuminated Biblical (actually, any) manuscript codices that survive-which doesn't say the first ones to be produced. The evidence indicates otherwise.

You also should read more carefullly. Shanghaiski said nothing about St. Luke's Gospel being illuminated, nor does the Church.  The Tradition states he wrote (the conventional term) several icons, in addition to writing the Gospel and Acts. You have confused the two acts.

Even works that you would expect to have illustrations, like Ptolemy and Strabo works on geography and astronomy lack illustrations like maps.  Sometimes the most schematic of maps are inserted by later copyists. In the case of the Gospels, why they were neither bound in one volume nor illuminated is not hard to understand why icon venerating and Bible loving Orthodox Christian would fail to copy Luke's icons perfectly, so that every extent copy had icons:Even if the extreme expense could be overcome, they faced the risk of all that expense going up in smoke.  Book burning wasn't invented with printing. Several of the Roman persecusions focused specifically on seizing Bibles and consigning them to the flames. And that is before the ravages of time.

Do have the slightest idea of the extent of available evidence for anything in antiquity?

What the Church tradition teaches is that St. Luke practiced panal painting, which we know was extremely popular in antiquity but of which very, very few examples of any sort have survived.  The largest catch of this art form is the Fayyum portraits, which survive because of being buried (and hence not in use where they can be lost, destroyed, worn out, whatever) in the dry climate, and they number under a thousand over nearly half a millenium. Not much. Several panals survive which are venerated  as St. Luke's work (I venerated one in Saidnay, Syria. In the neighborhood they still speak Aramaic). Unfortunately, like all panal icons from antiquity, they have suffered from well intentioned but ill executed restorations.

I have a Bible in Church Slavonic, reprinted by authroity of the Holy Governing Synod in 1900 on the 1756 edition.  Not a single icon in it (the idea was for mass distribution, illustrations still increase the cost of producing a book considerably).  So I guess that I can conclude that Orthodox Russia in the 18th and 19th centuries didn't venerate icons. I also have a reprint of the 1688 Bucharest Bible, which also doesn't have a single icon in it (altough it does have the coat of arms of the sponsoring prince and the Romanian principalities on it.  So I guess the Romanian Orthodox of the 17th century didn't venerate images either.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Klages_-_Interior_of_Cathedral_of_Christ_Saviour_in_Moscow.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Romania_Sucevita_Monestry.JPG)
I guess not.

Quote
So your argument icon veneration was practiced by Luke fails on many levels, but most importantly, where it matters, you have no proof, therefore you have nothing, only a claim.

On the same basis, the same can be said of your claim that St. Luke wrote the Gospel that the Church attributes to him. And your Muslim friends do say that.

And oh, btw, to get back to St.John the purported subject of this thread, he doesn't mention the tradition of St. Luke's icon, although it was well know and we have records of it centuries before St. John's time, and the tradition appears from India to Ethiopia to the Netherlands, and Rome, Constantinople, Syria, etc. inbetween.  The first glorified saint identified as an iconographer is St. Lazarus of Constantinople: 800?-867, i.e. a century after the rise of the iconoclasts: prior to that, it seems writing icons wasn't seen as significant a cause for canonization, being taken for granted.

Quote
As I said, if your conscience is reverence icons, then that is right for you.

21 Then they asked Him, saying, “Teacher, we know that You say and teach rightly, and You do not show personal favoritism, but teach the way of God in truth: 22 Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” 24 Show Me a denarius. Whose icon and inscription does it have?” They answered and said, “Caesar’s.” 25 And He said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

Quote
Its not right for me, I know better:
 47 "And that servant who knew his master's will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
 48 "But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.
 (Luk 12:47-48 NKJ)

Isaiah 7:10 Moreover the LORD spoke again to Ahaz, saying, 11 “Ask a sign for yourself from the LORD your God; ask it either in the depth or in the height above.” 12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, nor will I test the LORD!” 13 Then he said, “Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.
(http://english.op.org/uploaded_images/Our-Lady-of-the-Sign2-708776.jpg)
Heb 1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person...6 when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all the angels of God bow down in worship before Him

Quote
Punishment is according to one's knowing what is correct, according to one's conscience about the thing. For example, the Israelis died immediately for idolatry, as they were privy to the revelation of God delivering them out of Egypt and so had to know the truth:

 27 And he said to them, "Thus says the LORD God of Israel:`Let every man put his sword on his side, and go in and out from entrance to entrance throughout the camp, and let every man kill his brother, every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.'" (Exo 32:27 NKJ)

Heb 12:1 Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, 2 looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
18 For you have not come to the mountain that may be touched and that burned with fire, and to blackness and darkness and tempest, 19 and the sound of a trumpet and the voice of words, so that those who heard it begged that the word should not be spoken to them anymore. 20 (For they could not endure what was commanded: “And if so much as a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned[e] or shot with an arrow.”21 And so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, “I am exceedingly afraid and trembling.”)
22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.  25 See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven, 26 whose voice then shook the earth; but now He has promised, saying, “Yet once more I shake not only the earth, but also heaven.” 27 Now this, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of those things that are being shaken, as of things that are made, that the things which cannot be shaken may remain. 28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear. 29 For our God is a consuming fire.
II Peter 1:16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” 18 And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

Quote
But the same idolatry by the nations, was overlooked for a time:

John 5:30 "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, (Act 17:30 NKJ)
31 “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true. 32 There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is true. 33 You have sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. 34 Yet I do not receive testimony from man, but I say these things that you may be saved. 35 He was the burning and shining lamp, and you were willing for a time to rejoice in his light. 36 But I have a greater witness than John’s; for the works which the Father has given Me to finish—the very works that I do—bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me. 37 And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. 38 But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. 39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.
41 “I do not receive honor from men. 42 But I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you. 43 I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. 44 How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from the only God? 45 Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

12:37 But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him, 38 that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke: " Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?”39 Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: 40 “ He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.”  41 These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him.  42 Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue; 43 for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.
44 Then Jesus cried out and said, “He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me. 45 And he who sees Me sees Him who sent Me.[ 46 I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness. 47 And if anyone hears My words and does not believe,I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. 48 He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day. 49 For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. 50 And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak.”

24 So they again called the man who was blind, and said to him, “Give God the glory! We know that this Man is a sinner.” 25 He answered and said, “Whether He is a sinner or not I do not know. One thing I know: that though I was blind, now I see.” 26 Then they said to him again, “What did He do to you? How did He open your eyes?” 27 He answered them, “I told you already, and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you also want to become His disciples?” 28 Then they reviled him and said, “You are His disciple, but we are Moses’ disciples. 29 We know that God spoke to Moses; as for this fellow, we do not know where He is from.” 30 The man answered and said to them, “Why, this is a marvelous thing, that you do not know where He is from; yet He has opened my eyes! 31 Now we know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He hears him. 32 Since the world began it has been unheard of that anyone opened the eyes of one who was born blind. 33 If this Man were not from God, He could do nothing.” 34 They answered and said to him, “You were completely born in sins, and are you teaching us?” And they cast him out. 35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when He had found him, He said to him, “Do you believe in the Son of God?” 36 He answered and said, “Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?” 37 And Jesus said to him, “You have both seen Him and it is He who is talking with you.”
38 Then he said, “Lord, I believe!” And he worshiped Him. 39 And Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind.” 40 Then some of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these words, and said to Him, “Are we blind also?”
41 Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘We see.’ Therefore your sin remains."


Quote
Because Great is God's mercy...He judges righteously, not according to dogma, but according to the revelation of Christ in each one of us, and how well we obeyed that revelation. Those who know the full objective truth because they study His Word, are judged with great severeness:

NKJ  James 3:1 My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment. (Jam 3:1 NKJ)

If your conscience ever bears you witness icons are not right according to apostolic doctrine, then you must obey your conscience and repent, or suffer severely  for your rebellion against God.

God speaks to  us through our conscience.

 22 Then Samuel said: "Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, As in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams.
 23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry
. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, He also has rejected you from being king."
 (1Sa 15:22-23 NKJ)
No, He speaks to us through His Church.

Luke 10:16 He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.”
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 18, 2010, 03:46:18 AM
Icons are not idols.  Orthodox do not worship icons as idols.  Please prove otherwise or stop making thus unfounded accusation.

I believe I discussed icons thoroughly on another thread...

you prattled a lot, but as for discussing...does evasion count?

Quote
and proved that they have the same affect on the believer, and God. When you render the infinite transcendent Christ into a finite form,


Like in the Incarnation?

Quote
a picture, you have destroyed any hope of speaking to Him personally.

He is infinite, and all images, whether idols or icons, make Him finite to the soul...

Heb 1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person...6 when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all the angels of God bow down in worship before Him." Col. 1:15 He is the icon of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness of the Godhead should dwell.

So much for His the fullness of His infinity baring Him from being finite to the soul.


Quote
That defiles the relationship, and Christ must leave where there is defilement, He is Holy:

 6 Furthermore He said to me, "Son of man, do you see what they are doing, the great abominations that the house of Israel commits here, to make Me go far away from My sanctuary? (Eze 8:6 NKJ)

Phillippians 2:5 Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

So much for Christ leaving. What He left was the heights of divinity.

Quote
I'll not participate in changing the subject from my opening post. This is the last time I allow myself to veer off from the topic of this thread.

You already tipped your hand:
Instead of another multi-page thread, how about you just tell us your point, Alfred? Why is it so important to you to discredit the OT used by the Orthodox?  What's in it that you dislike?

I dislike untruth, declaring the Septuagint inspired, claiming its changes to the Hebrew "were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation" is not true.
Remove not the ancient landmark which thy fathers have set. Prov. 22:28.

Ooops! Forgot. The Apostles and Fathers are not your Fathers.

Quote
Once one swallows that error, then all the apocrypha becomes scripture,

Sooo your disingenous accusations of changing the subject
Btw, on the title: What changes?
The LXX text predates the Masoretic Text. Heck, the Vulgate text predates the Masoretic text. We have physical copies of the LXX in one codex that predate the eariest complete Masoretic scroll by over half a millenium. So how can the LXX change anything in the Masoretic text?
And rather than trying to twist texts, why don't you attack a more comprehensive issue, like the status of the Anagignoskomena?
Why not answer my argument instead of changing the subject.
were not based on any rape of purity, but out of anger that I exposed your ulterior motives.

Btw, as witnessed by the Hebrew Church, the Spirit, Christ, His Apostles and His Church, the Anagignoskomena.

Quote
and all the unscriptural ideas in them become dogma

TRANSLATION: the Anagignoskomena/Deuterocanonicals further expose the heretical ideas that Perssonism tries to read into the scripture, so we must condemn them and remove them from the Bible.

Quote
...and before you know it, your bowing down to icons believing that is what God would have you do.

When the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld the icon of the invisible God, the Father said "let all the angels of God worship Him." John 1:14, Col. 1:15, Heb. 1:6
so the kind of game you want to play is known. Your hand has been called.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Robert W on August 18, 2010, 06:47:39 AM
When you render the infinite transcendent Christ into a finite form, a picture, you have destroyed any hope of speaking to Him personally.

He is infinite, and all images, whether idols or icons, make Him finite to the soul...

Like in the Incarnation?

Yep, I believe you are correct ialmisry. Alfred Persson has now convinced me that none of the twelve disciples spoke with Christ personally. This is because the Father committed heresy and had the Son appear in a finite incarnate form. Any personal relationship would have been impossible.

...another attempt at a reductio ad absurdum argument :angel:
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 18, 2010, 11:23:58 AM
Eh...consciences (A.K.A. feelings) are fickle and arbitrary things. It's a good thing Christ has given us objective standards and concrete realities to live in, and does not leave us to our own devices. Just imagine what the Church would look like if everyone judged everything by their own consciences! :D

Oh wait.
simplified:
(http://www.bible.ca/orthodox-church-historical-timeline.gif)
(http://cominganarchy.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/timeline-protestant-branches.jpg)

I like the chart, but it left out a significant event, when Constantine about AD 312 opened the gates of the church to the unsaved, and tares overran the wheat:


 24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field;
 25 "but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way.
 26 "But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared.
 27 "So the servants of the owner came and said to him,`Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?'
 28 "He said to them,`An enemy has done this.' The servants said to him,`Do you want us then to go and gather them up?'
 29 "But he said,`No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them.
 30 `Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn."'"
 (Mat 13:24-30 NKJ)

 33 Another parable He spoke to them: "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal till it was all leavened." (Mat 13:33 NKJ)

 31 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field,
 32 "which indeed is the least of all the seeds; but when it is grown it is greater than the herbs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches."
 (Mat 13:31-32 NKJ)


 2 And he cried mightily with a loud voice, saying, "Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and has become a dwelling place of demons, a prison for every foul spirit, and a cage for every unclean and hated bird! (Rev 18:2 NKJ)
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on August 18, 2010, 12:13:13 PM
Granted that they were there in unprecedentedly high numbers but tares did not overrun the wheat. The fact that the Orthodox Church continued to be the True Faith, the Body of Christ, is due to the Holy Spirit guiding her and protecting her during the centuries that She was entangled with the state. In the centuries leading up to the Edict of Milan, the Church was also persecuted by the state and many (most) apostatized, but She remained true. We have always had tares with the wheat--even during the days of the apostles.

On the other thread I had recommended reading some conversion stories. I think I should give you more concrete recommendations. Please start with the following:

Frederica Mathewes-Green's interview with Father Deacon Barnabas (Charles) Powell, a former associate of Dr. Charles Stanley (In Touch Ministries). You could also benefit a lot from reading her essays on that same site. http://www.frederica.com/writings/dn-barnabas-powell.html#entry8547789 (http://www.frederica.com/writings/dn-barnabas-powell.html#entry8547789)

Father Peter Gillquist's book, Becoming Orthodox: A Journey to the Ancient Christian Faith, published by the Conciliar Press, which has many other publications by the former Evangelicals who joined the True Church. Here is the link to the Conciliar Press: http://www.conciliarpress.com/ (http://www.conciliarpress.com/)

Thirsting For God in a Land of Shallow Wells by Matthew Gallatin, a former Calvary Chapel minister. This book is also published by Conciliar Press.

Continuing to pray for your conversion, I remain your brother in Christ.


Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: theistgal on August 18, 2010, 01:35:43 PM
I like the chart, but it left out a significant event, when Constantine about AD 312 opened the gates of the church to the unsaved, and tares overran the wheat:

Actually, it was Christ Himself who opened the door to the "tares among the wheat" - ever heard of a fellow named Judas Iscariot?  ;)
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 18, 2010, 01:52:25 PM
I like the chart, but it left out a significant event, when Constantine about AD 312 opened the gates of the church to the unsaved, and tares overran the wheat:

Actually, it was Christ Himself who opened the door to the "tares among the wheat" - ever heard of a fellow named Judas Iscariot?  ;)

That's horrible, even if joking.

An enemy sowed the tares, not Christ.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 18, 2010, 02:16:33 PM
Eh...consciences (A.K.A. feelings) are fickle and arbitrary things. It's a good thing Christ has given us objective standards and concrete realities to live in, and does not leave us to our own devices. Just imagine what the Church would look like if everyone judged everything by their own consciences! :D

Oh wait.
simplified:
(http://www.bible.ca/orthodox-church-historical-timeline.gif)
(http://cominganarchy.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/timeline-protestant-branches.jpg)

I like the chart, but it left out a significant event, when Constantine about AD 312 opened the gates of the church to the unsaved
So your voice is among the cacophony of the rabble "blame [the Holy Emperor] Constantine" for your "Great Apostacy?
(http://static.newworldencyclopedia.org/thumb/e/e3/Dream_of_Constantine_Milvius_BnF_MS_Gr510_fol440.jpg/300px-Dream_of_Constantine_Milvius_BnF_MS_Gr510_fol440.jpg)
(http://www.atlantaserbs.com/web/ikone/june09/StsConstantineHelen.jpg)
IN THIS SIGN CONQUER

Quote
and tares overran the wheat:
Arius thought so.
(http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/storage/Council%20of%20Nicea.jpg)
(http://ocafs.oca.org/Icons/Pascha/fathersecumenicalcouncils.jpg)
no filioque there.

Quote
24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field;
 25 "but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way.
 26 "But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared.
 27 "So the servants of the owner came and said to him,`Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?'
 28 "He said to them,`An enemy has done this.' The servants said to him,`Do you want us then to go and gather them up?'
 29 "But he said,`No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them.
 30 `Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn."'"
 (Mat 13:24-30 NKJ)


Quote
33 Another parable He spoke to them: "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal till it was all leavened." (Mat 13:33 NKJ)

 31 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field,
 32 "which indeed is the least of all the seeds; but when it is grown it is greater than the herbs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches."
 (Mat 13:31-32 NKJ)

Indeed, the Church increased more than three fold, and many nations came to nest in its branches.

Btw, I am aware of the twisting of these verses by your likeminded, to the destruction of their sense.

Scripture readings for the Glorious Feast of SS Constantine and Helen Equal-to-the-Apostles:
22 Then Solomon stood before the altar of the LORD in the presence of all the assembly of Israel, and spread out his hands toward heaven; 23 and he said: “LORD God of Israel, there is no God in heaven above or on earth below like You, who keep Your covenant and mercy with Your servants who walk before You with all their hearts. 27 “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You. How much less this temple which I have built! 28 Yet regard the prayer of Your servant and his supplication, O LORD my God, and listen to the cry and the prayer which Your servant is praying before You today: 29 that Your eyes may be open toward this temple night and day, toward the place of which You said, ‘My name shall be there,’ that You may hear the prayer which Your servant makes toward this place. 30 And may You hear the supplication of Your servant and of Your people Israel, when they pray toward this place. Hear in heaven Your dwelling place; and when You hear, forgive.  3 Kingdoms 8:22-23, 27-30

10 I will greatly rejoice in the LORD,
      My soul shall be joyful in my God;
      For He has clothed me with the garments of salvation,
      He has covered me with the robe of righteousness,
      As a bridegroom decks himself with ornaments,
      And as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.
       11 For as the earth brings forth its bud,
      As the garden causes the things that are sown in it to spring forth,
      So the Lord GOD will cause righteousness and praise to spring forth before all the nations.1 For Zion’s sake I will not hold My peace,
      And for Jerusalem’s sake I will not rest,
      Until her righteousness goes forth as brightness,
      And her salvation as a lamp that burns.
       2 The Gentiles shall see your righteousness,
      And all kings your glory.
      You shall be called by a new name,
      Which the mouth of the LORD will name.
       3 You shall also be a crown of glory
      In the hand of the LORD,
      And a royal diadem
      In the hand of your God.
       4 You shall no longer be termed Forsaken,
      Nor shall your land any more be termed Desolate;
      But you shall be called Hephzibah, and your land Beulah;
      For the LORD delights in you,
      And your land shall be married.
       5 For as a young man marries a virgin,
      So shall your sons marry you;
      And as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride,
      Soshall your God rejoice over you.
 1 Arise, shine;
      For your light has come!
      And the glory of the LORD is risen upon you.
       2 For behold, the darkness shall cover the earth,
      And deep darkness the people;
      But the LORD will arise over you,
      And His glory will be seen upon you.
       3 The Gentiles shall come to your light,
      And kings to the brightness of your rising.
       4 “ Lift up your eyes all around, and see:
      They all gather together, they come to you;
      Your sons shall come from afar,
      And your daughters shall be nursed at your side.
       5 Then you shall see and become radiant,
      And your heart shall swell with joy;
      Because the abundance of the sea shall be turned to you,
      The wealth of the Gentiles shall come to you.
       6 The multitude of camels shall cover your land,
      The dromedaries of Midian and Ephah;
      All those from Sheba shall come;
      They shall bring gold and incense,
      And they shall proclaim the praises of the LORD.
       7 All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together to you,
      The rams of Nebaioth shall minister to you;
      They shall ascend with acceptance on My altar,
      And I will glorify the house of My glory.
       8 “ Who are these who fly like a cloud,
      And like doves to their roosts?
       9 Surely the coastlands shall wait for Me;
      And the ships of Tarshish will come first,
      To bring your sons from afar,
      Their silver and their gold with them,
      To the name of the LORD your God,
      And to the Holy One of Israel,
      Because He has glorified you.
       10 “ The sons of foreigners shall build up your walls,
      And their kings shall minister to you;
      For in My wrath I struck you,
      But in My favor I have had mercy on you.
       11 Therefore your gates shall be open continually;
      They shall not be shut day or night,
      That men may bring to you the wealth of the Gentiles,
      And their kings in procession.
       12 For the nation and kingdom which will not serve you shall perish,
      And those nations shall be utterly ruined.
       13 “ The glory of Lebanon shall come to you,
      The cypress, the pine, and the box tree together,
      To beautify the place of My sanctuary;
      And I will make the place of My feet glorious.
       14 Also the sons of those who afflicted you
      Shall come bowing to you,
      And all those who despised you shall fall prostrate at the soles of your feet;
      And they shall call you The City of the LORD,
      Zion of the Holy One of Israel.
       15 “ Whereas you have been forsaken and hated,
      So that no one went through you,
      I will make you an eternal excellence,
      A joy of many generations.
       16 You shall drink the milk of the Gentiles,
      And milk the breast of kings;
      You shall know that I, the LORD, am your SaviorIsaiah 61:10-62:5; Isaiah 60:1-16

9 I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. 10 The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly. 11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep. 12 But a hireling, he who is not the shepherd, one who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf catches the sheep and scatters them. 13 The hireling flees because he is a hireling and does not care about the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. 15 As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd. 17 “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. 18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.” 19 Therefore there was a division again among the Jews because of these sayings. 20 And many of them said, “He has a demon and is mad. Why do you listen to Him?”
John 10:9-19.

 1 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You are permitted to speak for yourself.” 12 “While thus occupied, as I journeyed to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests, 13 at midday, O king, along the road I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining around me and those who journeyed with me. 14 And when we all had fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking to me and saying in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ 15 So I said, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ And He said, ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 16 But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you. 17 I will deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now[a] send you, 18 to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.’  19 “Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, 20 but declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance. Acts 26:1, 12-20

 1 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. 2 But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice; and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 And when he brings out his own sheep, he goes before them; and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. 5 Yet they will by no means follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.” 6 Jesus used this illustration, but they did not understand the things which He spoke to them.  7 Then Jesus said to them again, “Most assuredly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All who ever came before Me[a] are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. 9 I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. John 10:1-9.


Quote
2 And he cried mightily with a loud voice, saying, "Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and has become a dwelling place of demons, a prison for every foul spirit, and a cage for every unclean and hated bird! (Rev 18:2 NKJ)

Yes the sign of Jonah was given and the seat of Jerusalem's enemies became the throne of Christ
(http://www.medievalwall.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Virgin-Mary-Amid-the-Emperors-Justinian-and-Constantine.jpg)
The All Wise Kings, Constantine to the Right, Justinian to the Left
" they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him" Matthew 2:10
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 18, 2010, 02:37:04 PM
I like the chart, but it left out a significant event, when Constantine about AD 312 opened the gates of the church to the unsaved, and tares overran the wheat:

Actually, it was Christ Himself who opened the door to the "tares among the wheat" - ever heard of a fellow named Judas Iscariot?  ;)

That's horrible, even if joking.

An enemy sowed the tares, not Christ.
and Constantine tilled the soil for Christ, and the Fathers at the First Ecumenical Council convened by the Holy Emperor Constantine harvested the seed of the Gospel sowed by their predecessors in the episcopacy, the successors of the Apostles.

Btw. Eusebius' "Life of Constantine" records that the Holy Emperor wrote to the Metropolitan of Caesarea in Palestine:
Quote
"I have thought it expedient to instruct your Prudence to order fifty copies of the sacred Scriptures, the provision and use of which you know to be most needful for the instruction of the Church, to be written on prepared parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient, portable form, by professional transcribers thoroughly practised in their art"  Such were the emperor's commands, which were followed by the immediate execution of the work itself, which we sent him in magnificent and elaborately bound volumes of a threefold and fourfold form.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Sinaiticus_text.jpg)(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Codex_Vaticanus_end_or_Luke.jpg)
Codex Sinaiticus our oldest Bible, and Codex Vaticanus, its sibling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty_Bibles_of_Constantine#cite_ref-2
http://www.archive.org/stream/eusebiipamphili01heingoog#page/n296/mode/2up
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 18, 2010, 03:11:56 PM
Acts 17:11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.

And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me?

This is off subject...and we both will discuss this and the Septuagint eventually. While it does appear to be quoted often in the NT, there are times when the Massoretic reading is chosen over the Septuagint. AND sometimes the NT doesn't agree with either. I look forward to discussing this, later. Now I will retire, good night.

I must hasten to add:

KJV  Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
 (Mat 5:18 KJV)

I believe Christ is 100% right, not one jot or tittle having meaning was lost.

Then why do you multilate the Bible by removing the Anagignoskomena?

Quote
As a picture can be precisely described using different words, I don't get upset when one version uses different words to say the same thing. I consider God providentially preserved the text. So I can hold the Septuagint in the highest regard as well as the Masoretic. While I consider the Massoretic the original,

Wrong again.  The Massoretic text comes a millenium after the LXX. We have physical LXX texts which predate our earliest MT by half a millenium.

Quote
and the Septuagint a translation, I find it often explains what the Hebrew meant to the ancients.

Like Christ and the Apostles, to whose Tradition we hold fast.

Quote
AND I also like the Peshitto Aramaic version. Just thought I add this lest some think I don't agree with Christ's statement...I certainly do, and see in the Plethora of versions, its fulfillment that nothing be lost.

Troparion (Tone 8 )

Blessed art You O Christ Our God
You have revealed the fishermen as most wise
By sending down upon them the Holy Spirit
Through them You drew the world into Your net
O Lover of Man, Glory to You!

Kontakion (Tone 8 )

When the most High came down and confused the tongues,
He divided the nations;
But when he distributed the tongues of fire
He called all to unity.
Therefore, with one voice, we glorify the All-holy Spirit!

Edited the 8 ), which looked like this: 8). - Fr. George, Global Mod
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: bogdan on August 18, 2010, 04:05:23 PM
Icons are not idols.  Orthodox do not worship icons as idols.  Please prove otherwise or stop making thus unfounded accusation.

I believe I discussed icons thoroughly on another thread...and proved that they have the same affect on the believer, and God. When you render the infinite transcendent Christ into a finite form, a picture, you have destroyed any hope of speaking to Him personally.

He is infinite, and all images, whether idols or icons, make Him finite to the soul...


That's the whole point of the Incarnation. The infinite God was contained within a finite being, yet he remained infinite. An infinite being, which has become finite, can be depicted, because the finite person portrayed inherently portrays his infinity as well. Jesus Christ was not a physical avatar of the Son, or a physical projection of the Son in spacetime (like angels and demons sometimes are). Jesus Christ, the finite physical person, was the infinite Son unto and within himself.

That is why Orthodox say that Protestants don't understand the incarnation, because the iconoclastic theology is inherently Nestorian, rejecting that the physical man Jesus Christ is infinite God unto and within himself.

But yes, we have gone abroad from the subject at hand: the LXX.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 18, 2010, 05:32:16 PM
Icons are not idols.  Orthodox do not worship icons as idols.  Please prove otherwise or stop making thus unfounded accusation.

I believe I discussed icons thoroughly on another thread...and proved that they have the same affect on the believer, and God. When you render the infinite transcendent Christ into a finite form, a picture, you have destroyed any hope of speaking to Him personally.

He is infinite, and all images, whether idols or icons, make Him finite to the soul...


That's the whole point of the Incarnation. The infinite God was contained within a finite being, yet he remained infinite. An infinite being, which has become finite, can be depicted, because the finite person portrayed inherently portrays his infinity as well. Jesus Christ was not a physical avatar of the Son, or a physical projection of the Son in spacetime (like angels and demons sometimes are). Jesus Christ, the finite physical person, was the infinite Son unto and within himself.

That is why Orthodox say that Protestants don't understand the incarnation, because the iconoclastic theology is inherently Nestorian, rejecting that the physical man Jesus Christ is infinite God unto and within himself.

But yes, we have gone abroad from the subject at hand: the LXX.

Not really: Mr. Persson spun this thread trying to snag to pull the seam out of the seamless robe pf Christ.
Instead of another multi-page thread, how about you just tell us your point, Alfred? Why is it so important to you to discredit the OT used by the Orthodox?  What's in it that you dislike?

I dislike untruth, declaring the Septuagint inspired, claiming its changes to the Hebrew "were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation" is not true.
Remove not the ancient landmark which thy fathers have set. Prov. 22:28.

Ooops! Forgot. The Apostles and Fathers are not your Fathers.

Quote
Once one swallows that error, then all the apocrypha becomes scripture,

Sooo your disingenous accusations of changing the subject
Btw, on the title: What changes?
The LXX text predates the Masoretic Text. Heck, the Vulgate text predates the Masoretic text. We have physical copies of the LXX in one codex that predate the eariest complete Masoretic scroll by over half a millenium. So how can the LXX change anything in the Masoretic text?
And rather than trying to twist texts, why don't you attack a more comprehensive issue, like the status of the Anagignoskomena?
Why not answer my argument instead of changing the subject.
were not based on any rape of purity, but out of anger that I exposed your ulterior motives.

Btw, as witnessed by the Hebrew Church, the Spirit, Christ, His Apostles and His Church, the Anagignoskomena.

Quote
and all the unscriptural ideas in them become dogma

TRANSLATION: the Anagignoskomena/Deuterocanonicals further expose the heretical ideas that Perssonism tries to read into the scripture, so we must condemn them and remove them from the Bible.

Quote
...and before you know it, your bowing down to icons believing that is what God would have you do.

When the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld the icon of the invisible God, the Father said "let all the angels of God worship Him." John 1:14, Col. 1:15, Heb. 1:6
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: theistgal on August 18, 2010, 08:49:23 PM
I like the chart, but it left out a significant event, when Constantine about AD 312 opened the gates of the church to the unsaved, and tares overran the wheat:

Actually, it was Christ Himself who opened the door to the "tares among the wheat" - ever heard of a fellow named Judas Iscariot?  ;)

That's horrible, even if joking.

An enemy sowed the tares, not Christ.

I was not joking, I was quite serious.

Christ Himself selected the original 12 Apostles, who were the original Church, and He knew that Judas Iscariot would be the "tare among the wheat" in that original Church.

No "enemy" selected Judas and placed him among the Apostles.  It was Jesus Christ, Our Lord, Himself.

I believe that was Christ's way of letting us know that no matter how hard we try, we will never have a 100% perfect Church in this world.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 19, 2010, 04:42:02 AM
http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spindex.htm

Instances where the New Testament quotes from the Septuagint:

Enoch was not, because God translated him
Gen 5.24 quoted in Heb 11.5
To thy seed
Gn 12.7 quoted in Ga 3.16

Jacob ... worshipped, leaning on the top of his staff
Gen 47.31 quoted in Heb 11.21

Wouldest thou kill me, as thou killest the Egyptian yesterday?
Ex 2.14 quoted in Ac 7.27-28

My name might be published abroad in all the earth
Ex 9.16 quoted in Ro 9.17

A royal priesthood
Ex 19.6 quoted in 1 Pe 2.9

The Lord knoweth them that are his
Nu 16.5 quoted in 2 Tm 2.19

Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God
Dt 6.13 quoted in Mt 4.10 and Lk 4.8

Put away the wicked man from among yourselves
Dt 17.7 quoted in 1 Cor 5.13

Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree
Dt 21.23 quoted in Ga 3.13

Cursed is everyone who continueth not
Dt 27.26 quoted in Ga 3.10

Let all the angels of God worship him
Dt 32.43 quoted in He 1.6

Why did the Gentiles rage?
Ps 2.1-2 quoted in Ac 4.25-26

Their throat is an open sepulchre
Ps 5.9 quoted in Ro 3.13

Out of the mouth of babes
Ps 8.2 quoted in Mt 21.16

What is man, that thou art mindful of him?
Ps 8.4-6 quoted in He 2.6-8

Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness
Ps 10.7 quoted in Ro 3.14

They are together become unprofitable
Ps 14.1-3 quoted in Ro 3.10-12

Thou wilt not leave my soul unto Hades
Ps 16.8-11 quoted in Ac 2.25-28

Their sound went out into all the earth
Ps 19.4 quoted in Ro 10.18

I will declare thy name unto my brethren
Ps 22.22 quoted in He 2.12

Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not
Ps 40.6-8 quoted in He 10.5-6

That thou mightest be justified in thy words
Ps 51.4 quoted in Ro 3.4

They are together become unprofitable
Ps 53.1-3 quoted in Ro 3.10-12

Let their table be made a snare
Ps 69.22-23 quoted in Ro 11.9-10

He gave them bread out of heaven to eat
Ps 78.24 quoted in Jn 6.31

Today, if ye shall hear his voice
Ps 95.7-8 quoted in He 3.15 and He 4.7

Today, if ye shall hear his voice
Ps 95.7-11 quoted in He 3.7-11

And they all shall wax old as doth a garment
Ps 102.25-27 quoted in He 1.10-12

I believed, and therefore did I speak
Ps 116.10 quoted in 2 Cor 4.13

The Lord is my helper
Ps 118.6 quoted in He 13.6

The poison of asps in under their lips
Ps 140.3 quoted in Ro 3.13

For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth
Pr 3.11-12 quoted in He 12.5-6

God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble
Pr  3.34 quoted in James 4.6 and 1 Pe 5.5

And if the righteous is scarcely saved,  
where shall the ungodly and sinner appear
Pr 11.31 quoted in 1 Pe 4.18

If thine enemy hunger, feed him
Pr 25.21-22 quoted in Ro 12.20

Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed,  
we should have been as Sodom
Is 1.9 quoted in Ro 9.29

By hearing ye shall hear, and in no wise understand
Is 6.9-10 quoted in Mt 13.14-15 and Mk 4.12

By hearing ye shall hear, and in no wise understand
Is 6.9-10 quoted in Ac 28.26-27

Lest they should see with their eyes ... and I should heal them
Is 6.9-10 quoted in John 12.40

Behold, the virgin shall be with child
Is 7.14 quoted in Mt. 1.23

I will put my trust in him
Is 8.17 quoted in He 2.13

It is the remnant that shall be saved
Is 10.22-23 quoted in Ro 9.27-28

On him shall the Gentiles hope
Is 11.10 quoted in Ro 15.12

When I shall take away their sins
Is 27.9 quoted in Ro 11.27

He that believeth on him shall not be put to shame
Is 28.16 quoted in Ro 9.33, 10.11 and 1 Pe 2.6

Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men
Is 29.13 quoted in Mt 15.8-9 and Mk 7.6-7

I will destroy the wisdom of the wise
Is 29.14 quoted in 1 Cor 1.19

All flesh shall see the salvation of God
Is 40.3-5 quoted in Lk 3.4-6

The voice of one crying in the wilderness
Is 40.3 quoted in Mt 3.3, Mk 1.3 and Jn 1.23

All flesh is as grass
Is 40.6-8 quoted in 1 Pt 1.24-25

Who hath known the mind of the Lord?  
Is 40.13 quoted in Ro 11.34 and 1 Cor 2.16

And in his name shall the Gentiles hope
Is 42.4 quoted in Mt 12.21

A people for God's own possession
Is 43.21 quoted in 1 Pe 2.9

To me every knee shall bow
Is 45.23 quoted in Ro 14.11

At an acceptable time I hearkened unto thee
Is 49.8 quoted in 2 Cor 6.2

For the name of God is blasphemed  
among the Gentiles because of you
Is 52.5 quoted in Ro 2.24

They shall see, to whom no tidings of him came
Is 52.15 quoted in Ro 15.21

Who has believed our report?
Is 53.1 quoted in Jn 12.38 and Ro 10.16

He was led as a sheep to the slaughter
Is 53.7-8 quoted in Ac 8.32-33

Neither was guile found in his mouth
Is 53.9 quoted in 1 Pt 2.22

Rejoice thou barren that bearest not
Is 54.1 quoted in Ga 4.27

The holy and sure blessings of David
Is 55.3 quoted in Ac 13.34

To set at liberty them that are bruised
Is 58.6 in Luke 4.18

He shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob
Is 59.20-21 quoted in Ro 11.26-27

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me
Is 61.1-2 quoted in Lk 4.18-19

I was found of them that sought me not
Is 65.1 quoted in Ro 10.20

A disobedient and gainsaying people
Is 65.2 quoted in Ro 10.21

Behold, the days come
Jer 31.31-34 quoted in He 8.8-12

I will put my laws on their heart
Jer 31.33-34 quoted in He 10.16-17

I will call that my people, which was not my people
Ho 2.23 quoted in Ro 9.25

I desire mercy, and not sacrifice
Ho 6.6 quoted in Mt 9.13 and 12.7

O death, where is thy sting?
Ho 13.14 quoted in 1 Cor 15.55

I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh
Jl 2.28-32 quoted in Ac 2.17-21

Ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch
Am 5.25-27 quoted in Ac 7.42-43

I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen
Am 9.11-12 quoted in Ac 15.16-17

For I work a work in your days,
which ye shall in no wise believe
Hab 1.5 quoted in Ac 13.41

But my righteous one shall live by faith
Hab 2.3-4 quoted in He 10.37-38




Instances where the New Testament quotes the Masoretic:

He that taketh the wise in their craftiness
Job 5.13 quoted in 1 Cor 3.19
Who hath first given to him
Job 41.11 quoted in Ro 11.35

A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence
Is 8.14 quoted in Ro 9.33 and 1 Pe 2.8

Out of Egypt did I call my son
Ho 11.1 quoted in Mt 2.15

They shall look on him whom they pierced
Zch 12.10 quoted in Jn 19.37

Behold, I send my messenger before thy face
Mal 3.1 quoted in Mt 11.10, Mk 1.2, and Lk 7.27

http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spindex.htm

I'm still going down this list, now at:

Let all the angels of God worship him
Dt 32.43 [or Ps 97:7]  quoted in He 1.6


At first read Heb 1:6 rules out all available texts, none of them read "when he brings the firstborn into the world.", however that is implied by the second advent, and an ancient Bible writer can be forgiven if exegesis and quote aren't clearly separated, quotes weren't yet invented.

 6 But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: "Let all the angels of God worship Him." (Heb 1:6 NKJ)



Hebrews 1:6 is referring to Christ's Second coming, and both Deut 32:43 LXX (and Dead Sea Bible) and Ps 97:7 are referring to the "Day of the LORD" Jesus.

The LXX and Dead Sea Bible essentially agree in Deut 32:43.

QBE  Deuteronomy 32:43 Rejoice, O heavens, together with him; and bow down to him all you gods, for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and will render vengeance to his enemies, and will recompense those who hate him, and will atone for the land of his people."

"Bow down to him all you gods" can be rendered "bow down to him all you angels." Then "Let all the angels of God worship him" is interpretation but essentially the same.


BUT the idea the angels should bow down to Christ is also found in Ps 97:7, and it also refers to the "Day of the LORD" Jesus:

NKJ  Psalm 97:1 The LORD reigns; Let the earth rejoice; Let the multitude of isles be glad!
 2 Clouds and darkness surround Him; Righteousness and justice are the foundation of His throne.
 3 A fire goes before Him, And burns up His enemies round about.
 4 His lightnings light the world; The earth sees and trembles.
 5 The mountains melt like wax at the presence of the LORD, At the presence of the Lord of the whole earth.
 6 The heavens declare His righteousness, And all the peoples see His glory.
 7 Let all be put to shame who serve carved images, Who boast of idols. Worship Him, all you gods.
 (Psa 97:1-7 NKJ)

"Elohiym Gods" = "angels" cp LXX Ps 8:5; 138:1.

 7 Let all that worship graven images be ashamed, who boast of their idols; worship him, all ye his angels. (Psa 97:7 LXE)

So this proves nothing save Deut 32:43 in the LXX is different than the MT. Whether Hebrews is citing the LXX Deut 32:43 or the LXX or Hebrew of Ps 97:7 cannot be fixed with certainty.


All the other "proofs" prior to this, save Gal 3:16, seem to be acceptable interpretation/translation of the Hebrew. Given the Greek Septuagint was more accessible, it would be odd if NT writers didn't use it.

It still does not follow its changes to the Hebrew are inspired and must be accepted.

I'm still slogging through these "proofs" ...Just thought you all ought to know.


Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Nigula Qian Zishi on August 19, 2010, 08:49:48 AM
Given the Greek Septuagint was more accessible, it would be odd if NT writers didn't use it.

It still does not follow its changes to the Hebrew are inspired and must be accepted.

You are right, the changes to the Hebrew canon has not been proven to be inspired and must be accepted, and never will be, so stop trying to prove the Hebrew canon changes a millenium after the LXX are inspired and must be accepted!
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 19, 2010, 08:52:49 AM
Given the Greek Septuagint was more accessible, it would be odd if NT writers didn't use it.

It still does not follow its changes to the Hebrew are inspired and must be accepted.

You are right, the changes to the Hebrew canon has not been proven to be inspired and must be accepted, and never will be, so stop trying to prove the Hebrew canon changes a millenium after the LXX are inspired and must be accepted!

touché
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 19, 2010, 12:02:19 PM
Given the Greek Septuagint was more accessible, it would be odd if NT writers didn't use it.

It still does not follow its changes to the Hebrew are inspired and must be accepted.

You are right, the changes to the Hebrew canon has not been proven to be inspired and must be accepted, and never will be, so stop trying to prove the Hebrew canon changes a millenium after the LXX are inspired and must be accepted!

Not talking about changes to the canon, I am responding to this:

‘The Orthodox Church has the same New Testament as the rest of Christendom. As its authoritative text for the Old Testament it uses the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint. Where this differs from the Hebrew text (which happens quite often), Orthodox believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation.’-Ware, Kallistos (Timothy): The Orthodox Church, p.208; Penguin 1963,

Do the Orthodox dispute the changes were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and are to be accepted as God's continuing revelation?
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: FormerReformer on August 19, 2010, 12:18:22 PM
Given the Greek Septuagint was more accessible, it would be odd if NT writers didn't use it.

It still does not follow its changes to the Hebrew are inspired and must be accepted.

You are right, the changes to the Hebrew canon has not been proven to be inspired and must be accepted, and never will be, so stop trying to prove the Hebrew canon changes a millenium after the LXX are inspired and must be accepted!

Not talking about changes to the canon, I am responding to this:

‘The Orthodox Church has the same New Testament as the rest of Christendom. As its authoritative text for the Old Testament it uses the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint. Where this differs from the Hebrew text (which happens quite often), Orthodox believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation.’-Ware, Kallistos (Timothy): The Orthodox Church, p.208; Penguin 1963,

Do the Orthodox dispute the changes were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and are to be accepted as God's continuing revelation?

Do you dispute that Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy about the Virgin birth?
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 19, 2010, 12:40:46 PM
Given the Greek Septuagint was more accessible, it would be odd if NT writers didn't use it.

It still does not follow its changes to the Hebrew are inspired and must be accepted.

You are right, the changes to the Hebrew canon has not been proven to be inspired and must be accepted, and never will be, so stop trying to prove the Hebrew canon changes a millenium after the LXX are inspired and must be accepted!

Not talking about changes to the canon,

Oh? you have demonstrated otherwise:
Not really: Mr. Persson spun this thread trying to snag to pull the seam out of the seamless robe pf Christ.
Instead of another multi-page thread, how about you just tell us your point, Alfred? Why is it so important to you to discredit the OT used by the Orthodox?  What's in it that you dislike?

I dislike untruth, declaring the Septuagint inspired, claiming its changes to the Hebrew "were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation" is not true.
Remove not the ancient landmark which thy fathers have set. Prov. 22:28.

Ooops! Forgot. The Apostles and Fathers are not your Fathers.

Quote
Once one swallows that error, then all the apocrypha becomes scripture,

Sooo your disingenous accusations of changing the subject
Btw, on the title: What changes?
The LXX text predates the Masoretic Text. Heck, the Vulgate text predates the Masoretic text. We have physical copies of the LXX in one codex that predate the eariest complete Masoretic scroll by over half a millenium. So how can the LXX change anything in the Masoretic text?
And rather than trying to twist texts, why don't you attack a more comprehensive issue, like the status of the Anagignoskomena?
Why not answer my argument instead of changing the subject.
were not based on any rape of purity, but out of anger that I exposed your ulterior motives.

Btw, as witnessed by the Hebrew Church, the Spirit, Christ, His Apostles and His Church, the Anagignoskomena.

Quote
and all the unscriptural ideas in them become dogma

TRANSLATION: the Anagignoskomena/Deuterocanonicals further expose the heretical ideas that Perssonism tries to read into the scripture, so we must condemn them and remove them from the Bible.

Quote
...and before you know it, your bowing down to icons believing that is what God would have you do.

When the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld the icon of the invisible God, the Father said "let all the angels of God worship Him." John 1:14, Col. 1:15, Heb. 1:6

Btw, your MT is the one who made changes to the canon, not the LXX.

I am responding to this:

‘The Orthodox Church has the same New Testament as the rest of Christendom. As its authoritative text for the Old Testament it uses the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint. Where this differs from the Hebrew text (which happens quite often), Orthodox believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation.’-Ware, Kallistos (Timothy): The Orthodox Church, p.208; Penguin 1963,

Do the Orthodox dispute the changes were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and are to be accepted as God's continuing revelation?
Yes (laying aside the question on whether they were "changes").

You are evading the question: how do you fault the Church of Christ and His Apostles for doing so, when you confess that the changes made AFTER Christ came, AFTER He found His One, Holy, Catholic and Apstolic Orthodox Church on His Apostles, AFTER said Church met in Ecumenical Council for the last time (for now), said changes among the Jews walking in the way of the Pharisees, Scribres and Saduccees are to be accepted as God's continuing revelation?
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 19, 2010, 01:58:01 PM

You are evading the question: how do you fault the Church of Christ and His Apostles for doing so, when you confess that the changes made AFTER Christ came, AFTER He found His One, Holy, Catholic and Apstolic Orthodox Church on His Apostles, AFTER said Church met in Ecumenical Council for the last time (for now), said changes among the Jews walking in the way of the Pharisees, Scribres and Saduccees are to be accepted as God's continuing revelation?

You equivocate, if the Orthodox church today were the primitive version, Nicea and earlier, I'd be Orthodox.

Like Catholicism, you believe in many things the primitive Orthodox would reject.

Hence Orthodoxy today is not apostolic, a Christian who confesses only what is seen in scripture, is rejected by you as heretical.

Yet these were perfectly acceptable to Christ and His apostles.


NKJ  Acts 17:11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
 (Act 17:11 NKJ)

NKJ  Jude 1:3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
 (Jud 1:3 NKJ)

NKJ  2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. (2Th 2:15 NKJ)

Apostolic doctrine once delivered by them is what primitive Orthodox believe, not many of the things the Orthodox have added.

Your mistake is best illustrated by analogy.

The apostles baked a cake using 10 ingredients.
The Modern Orthodox bake a cake using the same 10 ingredients, but add another 10 of their own and claim its the same cake.

Its not.


Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: FormerReformer on August 19, 2010, 02:16:54 PM

You are evading the question: how do you fault the Church of Christ and His Apostles for doing so, when you confess that the changes made AFTER Christ came, AFTER He found His One, Holy, Catholic and Apstolic Orthodox Church on His Apostles, AFTER said Church met in Ecumenical Council for the last time (for now), said changes among the Jews walking in the way of the Pharisees, Scribres and Saduccees are to be accepted as God's continuing revelation?

You equivocate, if the Orthodox church today were the primitive version, Nicea and earlier, I'd be Orthodox.

Like Catholicism, you believe in many things the primitive Orthodox would reject.

Hence Orthodoxy today is not apostolic, a Christian who confesses only what is seen in scripture, is rejected by you as heretical.

Yet these were perfectly acceptable to Christ and His apostles.


NKJ  Acts 17:11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
 (Act 17:11 NKJ)

NKJ  Jude 1:3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
 (Jud 1:3 NKJ)

NKJ  2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. (2Th 2:15 NKJ)

Apostolic doctrine once delivered by them is what primitive Orthodox believe, not many of the things the Orthodox have added.

Your mistake is best illustrated by analogy.

The apostles baked a cake using 10 ingredients.
The Modern Orthodox bake a cake using the same 10 ingredients, but add another 10 of their own and claim its the same cake.

Its not.




What are you saying Orthodoxy added to the cake after Nicea?  Trinitarian theology (2nd Council)?  Rejection of Nestorianism (3rd Council)?   Rejection of Monophysitism (4th Council)?  The 5th Council reaffirmed these rejections. The 6th Council rejected Monothelitism. 

We know your feelings on the 7th Council, so please, tell us, where did Orthodoxy go wrong?  At what point did we add to the "cake"? 
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 19, 2010, 02:22:40 PM
However you are right there was confusion about which books were inspired,
And you accept (we presume) what the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church put in order for the NT. How then do you spurn the landmark which she has preserved from the Hebrew Church?
Given the Greek Septuagint was more accessible, it would be odd if NT writers didn't use it.

It still does not follow its changes to the Hebrew are inspired and must be accepted.

You are right, the changes to the Hebrew canon has not been proven to be inspired and must be accepted, and never will be, so stop trying to prove the Hebrew canon changes a millenium after the LXX are inspired and must be accepted!

Not talking about changes to the canon,

Oh? you have demonstrated otherwise:
Not really: Mr. Persson spun this thread trying to snag to pull the seam out of the seamless robe pf Christ.
Instead of another multi-page thread, how about you just tell us your point, Alfred? Why is it so important to you to discredit the OT used by the Orthodox?  What's in it that you dislike?
I dislike untruth, declaring the Septuagint inspired, claiming its changes to the Hebrew "were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation" is not true.
Remove not the ancient landmark which thy fathers have set. Prov. 22:28.

Ooops! Forgot. The Apostles and Fathers are not your Fathers....

You are evading the question: how do you fault the Church of Christ and His Apostles for doing so, when you confess that the changes made AFTER Christ came, AFTER He found His One, Holy, Catholic and Apstolic Orthodox Church on His Apostles, AFTER said Church met in Ecumenical Council for the last time (for now), said changes among the Jews walking in the way of the Pharisees, Scribres and Saduccees are to be accepted as God's continuing revelation?

much of the NT was written to combat errors.
yes, and unfortunatley many do not learn from the mistakes of others, and repeat their errors. Hence why the Apostles left the NT within the context of the Church Christ founded on them.

Galatians was written in large part to combat the errors of the Judaizers: why do you repeat them?
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 19, 2010, 03:19:27 PM

You are evading the question: how do you fault the Church of Christ and His Apostles for doing so, when you confess that the changes made AFTER Christ came, AFTER He found His One, Holy, Catholic and Apstolic Orthodox Church on His Apostles, AFTER said Church met in Ecumenical Council for the last time (for now), said changes among the Jews walking in the way of the Pharisees, Scribres and Saduccees are to be accepted as God's continuing revelation?

You equivocate, if the Orthodox church today were the primitive version, Nicea and earlier, I'd be Orthodox.

Like Catholicism, you believe in many things the primitive Orthodox would reject.

Hence Orthodoxy today is not apostolic, a Christian who confesses only what is seen in scripture, is rejected by you as heretical.

Yet these were perfectly acceptable to Christ and His apostles.


NKJ  Acts 17:11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
 (Act 17:11 NKJ)

NKJ  Jude 1:3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
 (Jud 1:3 NKJ)

NKJ  2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. (2Th 2:15 NKJ)

Apostolic doctrine once delivered by them is what primitive Orthodox believe, not many of the things the Orthodox have added.

Your mistake is best illustrated by analogy.

The apostles baked a cake using 10 ingredients.
The Modern Orthodox bake a cake using the same 10 ingredients, but add another 10 of their own and claim its the same cake.

Its not.




What are you saying Orthodoxy added to the cake after Nicea?  Trinitarian theology (2nd Council)?  Rejection of Nestorianism (3rd Council)?   Rejection of Monophysitism (4th Council)?  The 5th Council reaffirmed these rejections. The 6th Council rejected Monothelitism.  

We know your feelings on the 7th Council, so please, tell us, where did Orthodoxy go wrong?  At what point did we add to the "cake"?  

Athanasius made clear he was repeating apostolic doctrine re the Holy Trinity, not inventing it.

I reject ALL the councils, only those the apostles participated in, in Jerusalem, were apostolic.

Christianity did just fine while the Roman Christians were hiding in catacombs, and not one of us were bowing down to images, we conquered the world....then the world took charge via Constantine, and heresy after heresy was added...along with a few doctrines that were sound...

You asked what doctrine, any that can't be found taught in scripture.

Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: FormerReformer on August 19, 2010, 04:20:22 PM
It is all well and good to say "any doctrine that can't be found", but at the same time, what doctrines are these, Mr Persson?  Well before I came to the Orthodox Church I tested Her doctrines against the Scriptures, and I can tell you, Mr Persson, Her doctrines are the sound doctrines given Her by the Apostles, upheld by the saints throughout history.  Our Sacraments are the same now as they were in the time of the Apostles, our Church hierarchy has changed but little (priests [an English word derived from "presbyter"] serving under bishops were a necessity after the Church grew to such an extent that one Church could no longer house the whole of the believers in one location)  and is the same as in the time of St Athanasius, and there is no heresy to be found within Her.  We are the ones who defied Arius, Nestor, Apollinarius, Montanus, Marcion, and a host of Roman emperors be they pagan or heretic or apostate; we are the ones who gave you the Gospel and Epistles; we are the ones who hold fast to the traditions we were taught by word, while you wave the Epistles in our face claiming we neglect Truth (your own quote: stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.), though we also follow the Epistles to the letter. 

You give us some fake bogeyman when you talk to us of heresy, for there is no heresy that has not been challenged and defeated by the Orthodox Church.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 19, 2010, 04:22:45 PM
It is all well and good to say "any doctrine that can't be found", but at the same time, what doctrines are these, Mr Persson?  Well before I came to the Orthodox Church I tested Her doctrines against the Scriptures, and I can tell you, Mr Persson, Her doctrines are the sound doctrines given Her by the Apostles, upheld by the saints throughout history.  Our Sacraments are the same now as they were in the time of the Apostles, our Church hierarchy has changed but little (priests [an English word derived from "presbyter"] serving under bishops were a necessity after the Church grew to such an extent that one Church could no longer house the whole of the believers in one location)  and is the same as in the time of St Athanasius, and there is no heresy to be found within Her.  We are the ones who defied Arius, Nestor, Apollinarius, Montanus, Marcion, and a host of Roman emperors be they pagan or heretic or apostate; we are the ones who gave you the Gospel and Epistles; we are the ones who hold fast to the traditions we were taught by word, while you wave the Epistles in our face claiming we neglect Truth (your own quote: stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.), though we also follow the Epistles to the letter. 

You give us some fake bogeyman when you talk to us of heresy, for there is no heresy that has not been challenged and defeated by the Orthodox Church.

Give me time, I'm just started to post here. As for your claim, its impossible you found icon veneration in the NT, it isn't there. Its an inference, one that never occurred to the early church, hundreds of years later, people started thinking about images, not the church militant that conquered the Roman empire.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 19, 2010, 04:29:53 PM

You are evading the question: how do you fault the Church of Christ and His Apostles for doing so, when you confess that the changes made AFTER Christ came, AFTER He found His One, Holy, Catholic and Apstolic Orthodox Church on His Apostles, AFTER said Church met in Ecumenical Council for the last time (for now), said changes among the Jews walking in the way of the Pharisees, Scribres and Saduccees are to be accepted as God's continuing revelation?

You equivocate,

No, I'm giving you the Gospel Truth straight: either accept the Church which produced the NT, or find another gospel upon which to build your church.
(http://dwellingintheword.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/7-house-on-sand.jpg?w=300&h=225)
you did say you prefer house churches, no?

if the Orthodox church today were the primitive version, Nicea and earlier, I'd be Orthodox

The Orthodox Church is fully documented before Nicea, and thereafter until our day. Your repetion of the mistakes of others through history does not pseudo-apostolic succession of heresy make.

Your iconoclasm isn't documented at all until four centuries after Nicea. It even postdates Leo III (who venerated relics) and his son Constantine (who believed in the real presence in the Eucharist).

Like Catholicism, you believe in many things the primitive Orthodox would reject.

Don't know about the primitive Orthodox, an invention of the 16th century in the earliest, but the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church of the 1st century is in communion with the Church in communion according to the diptychs of the Orthodox Churches of the 21st century.

Why don't you make a list of your allegations against our Church, Christ's Church? Then we can put them in the scale and find them wanting.

Hence Orthodoxy today is not apostolic, a Christian who confesses only what is seen in scripture, is rejected by you as heretical.

The same way the Apostles and their disciples would, and did, spew out any such heretic.
I got other examples where the NT doesn't follow that rule, therefore the rule isn't "apostolic".

on the Apostolic rule, by those who know what they are talking about.
some of my thoughts on the matter, and related issues
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19095.0.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19811.0.html

More importantly, the statements by those who know the meaning of "apostolic":

St. Irenaeus, who demonstrated the Apostolic preaching against the heresies
Quote
Bk III Chapter II.—The heretics follow neither Scripture nor tradition.
1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, “But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world.” (1 Cor. ii. 6.) And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.
2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.
3. Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, my very dear friend, endeavouring like slippery serpents to escape at all points. Where-fore they must be opposed at all points, if per-chance, by cutting off their retreat, we may succeed in turning them back to the truth. For, though it is not an easy thing for a soul under the influence of error to repent, yet, on the other hand, it is not altogether impossible to escape from error when the truth is brought alongside it.

Besides adding sola scriptura to the scriptures, there are many other things you add, besides taking others away.

Yet these were perfectly acceptable to Christ and His apostles.

NKJ  Acts 17:11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
 (Act 17:11 NKJ)

This has been dealt with, and refuted (your eisogesis, that is):
This shows they could judge doctrine by the scripture:

NKJ  Acts 17:11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
 (Act 17:11 NKJ)
Yes. Searching the LXX, no doubt (cf. Acts 17:12 "Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks"). That's what the Jews in Greece, which the Bereans, as Acts 17:10 tells us, were: "Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews." So your citation tells us about 1st century synagogue practice, but not directly the early Church practice.

This is, however, one of the few areas where the sola scriptura folk stumble upon the Truth. Hence Schaff's summary has validity:
The Protestant Schaff summarizes:
Quote
And what had become of the disciples who were the first-fruits of the apostolic ministry? St. Paul had said, “The same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.” How was this injunction realized? St. Peter’s touching words come to mind, “I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.” Was this endeavour successfully carried out? To these natural and pious inquiries, the Apostolic Fathers, though we have a few specimens only of their fidelity, give an emphatic reply. If the cold-hearted and critical find no charm in the simple, childlike faith which they exhibit, ennobled though it be by heroic devotion to the Master, we need not marvel. Such would probably object: “They teach me nothing; I do not relish their multiplied citations from Scripture.” The answer is, “If you are familiar with Scripture, you owe it largely to these primitive witnesses to its Canon and its spirit. By their testimony we detect what is spurious, and we identify what is real. Is it nothing to find that your Bible is their Bible, your faith their faith, your Saviour their Saviour, your God their God?” Let us reflect also, that, when copies of the entire Scriptures were rare and costly, these citations were “words fitly spoken,—apples of gold in pictures of silver.” We are taught by them also that they obeyed the apostle’s precept, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing,” etc. Thus they reflect the apostolic care that men should be raised up able to teach others also.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.i.ii.html
More on that thread. You follow neither Scritpure nor Tradition. Nor history.

NKJ  Jude 1:3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
 (Jud 1:3 NKJ)

Yes, so you have claimed:
The only problem is they didn't remain faithful to the gospel,

We remained, remain, and ever shall remain, faithful to the Gospel delievered to us of the Apostles.

The heretics did not, do not, nor ever shall remain faithful to the Gospel of Christ's Church, founded on His Apostles.

they added to it rather than accepting it was delivered to them full and complete:

The heretics did, and do, that. Can't say shall always, as they keep on dying out, a fact that others repeating their mistakes does not efface.
Quote
Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jud 1:3 NKJ)

There aren't multiple deliveries down through the ages, it was already "once delivered" when Jude wrote this.

You sola scripturists have the problem that when St. Jude wrote this, St. John had not written his Gospel nor his Revelation, and perhaps not yet his epistles. Indeed, depending on how early you date Jude, none of the Gospels may have been written, nor the Catholic and Pastoral Epistles.
Jude and the relatives of Jesus in the early church By Richard Bauckham
http://books.google.com/books?id=c8h3HWPO8QYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=epistle+of+Jude+relatives+of+jesus&hl=en&ei=5FJtTMGaM8Lflgfk54WYDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=epistle%20of%20Jude%20relatives%20of%20jesus&f=false
(a fascinating study, btw, especially on the Hebrew Church).

That is why sola scriptura is preferable, then you learn the faith once delivered, without novelty that sprang up later.

LOL. It didn't stop the novelty of sola scriptura springing up almost a millenium and a half later.

As Paul said scripture can make us complete, fully equipped, which includes knowing true doctrine, we have faith in God it is so.
[/b]

As said scripture, as Paul teaches, makes us complete by directing us to the Church and its hiearchy-who stand fast and hold the Traditions received of the Apostles, holding firmly to the traditions, just as the Apostles delivered them to the episcopacy-to fully equip us with the true dotrine which the Church has been taught and taught, whether by word or epistle (I Cor. 11:2; II Thes. 2:1, 3:6), rejection of His Church, insubordination to the authority of His episcopacy and despising His Traditions demonstrates bad faith to God.

St. Irenaeus teaches in Bk II, Chapter XII "Against Heresies":"But that both the apostles and their disciples thus taught as the Church preaches, and thus teaching were perfected, wherefore also they were called away to that which is perfect." But you seem not to believe either St. Jude (or any of the other Apostles for that matter) nor St. Irenaeus (or any of the disciples of the Apostles and their successors, for that matter):
Of much less weight is the testimony of sub apostolic church fathers, presumably some of them were taught either by an apostle, or someone they taught. To go further away from the apostles begs the question what they apostles taught.

NKJ  2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. (2Th 2:15 NKJ)

You reject the word and steal the epistle from us.

Apostolic doctrine once delivered by them is what primitive Orthodox believe, not many of the things the Orthodox have added.

as the 'primitive Orthodox" can't reach across the millenia to reach the Apostles, how did the Apostles deliver anything to them, in particular, not throught their delivery men, the Orthodox epsicopate?

Since the Apostles were Orthodox, their successors, the Orthodox episcopate, continues to deliever, without addition nor subtraction, the Apostolic doctrine.
I got other examples where the NT doesn't follow that rule, therefore the rule isn't "apostolic".
on the Apostolic rule by those who know what they are talking about.
...St. Irenaeus, who demonstrated the Apostolic preaching against the heresies
Quote
Bk III Chapter II.—The heretics follow neither Scripture nor tradition....Book IV...
Chapter XXXII.—That one God was the author of both Testaments, is confirmed by the authority of a presbyter who had been taught by the apostles.
1. After this fashion also did a presbyter, a disciple of the apostles, reason with respect to the two testaments, proving that both were truly from one and the same God. For [he maintained] that there was no other God besides Him who made and fashioned us, and that the discourse of those men has no foundation who affirm that this world of ours was made either by angels, or by any other power whatsoever, or by another God. For if a man be once moved away from the Creator of all things, and if he grant that this creation to which we belong was formed by any other or through any other [than the one God], he must of necessity fall into much inconsistency, and many contradictions of this sort; to which he will [be able to] furnish no explanations which can be regarded as either probable or true. And, for this reason, those who introduce other doctrines conceal from us the opinion which they themselves hold respecting God, because they are aware of the untenable and absurd nature of their doctrine, and are afraid lest, should they be vanquished, they should have some difficulty in making good their escape. But if any one believes in [only] one God, who also made all things by the Word, as Moses likewise says, “God said, Let there be light: and there was light;” (Gen. i. 3) and as we read in the Gospel, “All things were made by Him; and without Him was nothing made;” (John i. 3) and the Apostle Paul [says] in like manner, “There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father, who is above all, and through all, and in us all” (Eph. iv. 5, 6)—this man will first of all “hold the head, from which the whole body is compacted and bound together, and, through means of every joint according to the measure of the ministration of each several part, maketh increase of the body to the edification of itself in love.” (Eph. iv. 16; Col. ii. 19)  And then shall every word also seem consistent to him, if he for his part diligently read the Scriptures in company with those who are presbyters in the Church, among whom is the apostolic doctrine, as I have pointed out.
2. For all the apostles taught that there were indeed two testaments among the two peoples; but that it was one and the same God who appointed both for the advantage of those men (for whose sakes the testaments were given) who were to believe in God, I have proved in the third book from the very teaching of the apostles; and that the first testament was not given without reason, or to no purpose, or in an accidental sort of manner; but that it subdued those to whom it was given to the service of God, for their benefit (for God needs no service from men), and exhibited a type of heavenly things, inasmuch as man was not yet able to see the things of God through means of immediate vision; and foreshadowed the images of those things which [now actually] exist in the Church, in order that our faith might be firmly established; [Schaff's note: If this and the former chapter seem to us superfluous, we must reflect that such testimony, from the beginning, has established the unity of Holy Scripture, and preserved to us—the Bible.] and contained a prophecy of things to come, in order that man might learn that God has foreknowledge of all things.

As Pope St. Leo the Great taught "He who was seen as our Redeemer has now passed into the sacraments." Those who were heard as Apostles of Christ have passed into the episcopacy. If one can seperate the Apostles from their preaching, then one can seperate Apostolic from ecclesiastical.

Since one cannot, it cannot be sperated.

One can only draw the living water of apostolicity from the Church's fountain; you cannot get it by trying to purify brackish water.  The character of apostolic comes from being received of the apostles and handed down; it cannot be expropriated by comparison, like one comparing the Resurection of Christ with the cult of Adonis, Osiris, Tammuz, etc. in the search of similarities.  It is what it is.
You still going with this definition of Apostolic?
Lets see you claim to be in apostolic sucession & yet say that someone (me) who finds an apostolic source as evidence of a veneration practice by apostolic Christians of the remains a martyred apsotolic Christian & that I trust these people as observing proper Christian burial rite as relying on unreliable hearsay?

The Church is Apostolic (ecclesia apostolica) inasmuch as all its members to the Last Day come to faith in Christ through the Word of the Apostles (John 17:20: πιστεύσοντες διὰ λόγου αὐτῶν εἰς ἐμέ) and cling to the Word of the Apostles (Acts 2:42: προσκαρτεροῦντες τῇ διδαχῇ τῶν ἀποστόλων), and this over against all departures from the truth of Scripture. Rom. 16:17: “Avoid them,” namely, those who “cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned.”
Pieper, F. (1999). Vol. 3: Christian Dogmatics (electronic ed.) (411). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.
1999? That's only 1900 years too late to be in contact with an Apostle to receive their teaching.
President Pieper also comes nearly 1800 years too late too.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/FranzAugustOttoPieper.jpg)
Like you, he was sent by no one sent by the Apostles, hence not sent by Christ, therefore not sent by God.
Odd that you should stand on him as an authority, as he was not only a confessional Lutheran, but one who held "quia subscription" to the Book of Concord, one of the examples of the tradition the Protestants supposedly don't have and don't follow. ::)


Your mistake is best illustrated by analogy.

The apostles baked a cake using 10 ingredients.
The Modern Orthodox bake a cake using the same 10 ingredients, but add another 10 of their own and claim its the same cake.

Its not.

No, its not. As you describe it, that is.

No, we bake the cake with the yeast that Christ and His Apostles put in it. The Fathers mixed the ingredients and we just watch the oven and the timer.
(http://roshecakes.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/3_tier_elegant.130210516_std.jpg)
(nothing too good for the virgin Bride of Christ)

You borrow (without asking) our recipe, but not our pure yeast.  So you collect spoilt mik and rancid ingredients that you mix with a slice you steal from us, hopping to make it rise. But your cake flopps, as it is half baked. If that.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_1COHJncULmc/S185NXiXoUI/AAAAAAAACWY/5xDhdxwNWx8/s800/P1150678+(Medium).JPG)
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: FormerReformer on August 19, 2010, 04:52:37 PM
It is all well and good to say "any doctrine that can't be found", but at the same time, what doctrines are these, Mr Persson?  Well before I came to the Orthodox Church I tested Her doctrines against the Scriptures, and I can tell you, Mr Persson, Her doctrines are the sound doctrines given Her by the Apostles, upheld by the saints throughout history.  Our Sacraments are the same now as they were in the time of the Apostles, our Church hierarchy has changed but little (priests [an English word derived from "presbyter"] serving under bishops were a necessity after the Church grew to such an extent that one Church could no longer house the whole of the believers in one location)  and is the same as in the time of St Athanasius, and there is no heresy to be found within Her.  We are the ones who defied Arius, Nestor, Apollinarius, Montanus, Marcion, and a host of Roman emperors be they pagan or heretic or apostate; we are the ones who gave you the Gospel and Epistles; we are the ones who hold fast to the traditions we were taught by word, while you wave the Epistles in our face claiming we neglect Truth (your own quote: stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.), though we also follow the Epistles to the letter. 

You give us some fake bogeyman when you talk to us of heresy, for there is no heresy that has not been challenged and defeated by the Orthodox Church.

Give me time, I'm just started to post here. As for your claim, its impossible you found icon veneration in the NT, it isn't there. Its an inference, one that never occurred to the early church, hundreds of years later, people started thinking about images, not the church militant that conquered the Roman empire.

We have already demonstrated just how ancient icons are.  The fact of the matter is, those icons are present in the catacomb churches of the Roman Empire.  As for demonstration of icon veneration, we know the Christians venerated anything even remotely connected with Christ and his Apostles (as the account of St Paul's handkerchiefs and aprons show Acts 19:12).  But all this probably belongs on one of the two threads devoted to icons.

But you are correct, respect (aka veneration) for icons is not something I needed the Scripture to teach.  A passage about the Iconoclasts and their wholesale destruction and disrespect of holy images in an Evangelical World History book (the book was pro-iconoclast, btw) was all I needed to convince me that I had been taught wrong.  Just like all I needed to learn respect for the Bible was a youth leader tossing a Bible into a campfire to make some point about "idolatry".  Some things are holy because of the that which they depict.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 19, 2010, 08:39:54 PM
It is all well and good to say "any doctrine that can't be found", but at the same time, what doctrines are these, Mr Persson?  Well before I came to the Orthodox Church I tested Her doctrines against the Scriptures, and I can tell you, Mr Persson, Her doctrines are the sound doctrines given Her by the Apostles, upheld by the saints throughout history.  Our Sacraments are the same now as they were in the time of the Apostles, our Church hierarchy has changed but little (priests [an English word derived from "presbyter"] serving under bishops were a necessity after the Church grew to such an extent that one Church could no longer house the whole of the believers in one location)  and is the same as in the time of St Athanasius, and there is no heresy to be found within Her.  We are the ones who defied Arius, Nestor, Apollinarius, Montanus, Marcion, and a host of Roman emperors be they pagan or heretic or apostate; we are the ones who gave you the Gospel and Epistles; we are the ones who hold fast to the traditions we were taught by word, while you wave the Epistles in our face claiming we neglect Truth (your own quote: stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.), though we also follow the Epistles to the letter.  

You give us some fake bogeyman when you talk to us of heresy, for there is no heresy that has not been challenged and defeated by the Orthodox Church.

Give me time, I'm just started to post here. As for your claim, its impossible you found icon veneration in the NT, it isn't there. Its an inference, one that never occurred to the early church, hundreds of years later, people started thinking about images, not the church militant that conquered the Roman empire.

We have already demonstrated just how ancient icons are.  The fact of the matter is, those icons are present in the catacomb churches of the Roman Empire.  As for demonstration of icon veneration, we know the Christians venerated anything even remotely connected with Christ and his Apostles (as the account of St Paul's handkerchiefs and aprons show Acts 19:12).  But all this probably belongs on one of the two threads devoted to icons.

But you are correct, respect (aka veneration) for icons is not something I needed the Scripture to teach.  A passage about the Iconoclasts and their wholesale destruction and disrespect of holy images in an Evangelical World History book (the book was pro-iconoclast, btw) was all I needed to convince me that I had been taught wrong.  Just like all I needed to learn respect for the Bible was a youth leader tossing a Bible into a campfire to make some point about "idolatry".  Some things are holy because of the that which they depict.

Unsound ad hominem, irrelevant immaterial and incompetent when judging the question of icons. But I digress, I have to use my limited time to wade through the alleged proofs for the Septuagint...only because it interests me, not to prove my point for that post itself listed instances where Bible writers followed the Hebrew, against the Septuagint...which proves the Orthodox wrong according to apostolic doctrine.

Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 19, 2010, 08:50:54 PM
It is all well and good to say "any doctrine that can't be found", but at the same time, what doctrines are these, Mr Persson?  Well before I came to the Orthodox Church I tested Her doctrines against the Scriptures, and I can tell you, Mr Persson, Her doctrines are the sound doctrines given Her by the Apostles, upheld by the saints throughout history.  Our Sacraments are the same now as they were in the time of the Apostles, our Church hierarchy has changed but little (priests [an English word derived from "presbyter"] serving under bishops were a necessity after the Church grew to such an extent that one Church could no longer house the whole of the believers in one location)  and is the same as in the time of St Athanasius, and there is no heresy to be found within Her.  We are the ones who defied Arius, Nestor, Apollinarius, Montanus, Marcion, and a host of Roman emperors be they pagan or heretic or apostate; we are the ones who gave you the Gospel and Epistles; we are the ones who hold fast to the traditions we were taught by word, while you wave the Epistles in our face claiming we neglect Truth (your own quote: stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.), though we also follow the Epistles to the letter.  

You give us some fake bogeyman when you talk to us of heresy, for there is no heresy that has not been challenged and defeated by the Orthodox Church.

Give me time, I'm just started to post here. As for your claim, its impossible you found icon veneration in the NT, it isn't there. Its an inference, one that never occurred to the early church,

I've posted the quotes from the NT and the exogesis of the Fathers thereof. I won't repeat myself this time.
I will answer the rest, however, on the thread Perssonism's teaching on icons, linked at the top quote link
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 19, 2010, 09:02:36 PM
It is all well and good to say "any doctrine that can't be found", but at the same time, what doctrines are these, Mr Persson?  Well before I came to the Orthodox Church I tested Her doctrines against the Scriptures, and I can tell you, Mr Persson, Her doctrines are the sound doctrines given Her by the Apostles, upheld by the saints throughout history.  Our Sacraments are the same now as they were in the time of the Apostles, our Church hierarchy has changed but little (priests [an English word derived from "presbyter"] serving under bishops were a necessity after the Church grew to such an extent that one Church could no longer house the whole of the believers in one location)  and is the same as in the time of St Athanasius, and there is no heresy to be found within Her.  We are the ones who defied Arius, Nestor, Apollinarius, Montanus, Marcion, and a host of Roman emperors be they pagan or heretic or apostate; we are the ones who gave you the Gospel and Epistles; we are the ones who hold fast to the traditions we were taught by word, while you wave the Epistles in our face claiming we neglect Truth (your own quote: stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.), though we also follow the Epistles to the letter.  

You give us some fake bogeyman when you talk to us of heresy, for there is no heresy that has not been challenged and defeated by the Orthodox Church.

Give me time, I'm just started to post here. As for your claim, its impossible you found icon veneration in the NT, it isn't there. Its an inference, one that never occurred to the early church, hundreds of years later, people started thinking about images, not the church militant that conquered the Roman empire.

We have already demonstrated just how ancient icons are.  The fact of the matter is, those icons are present in the catacomb churches of the Roman Empire.  As for demonstration of icon veneration, we know the Christians venerated anything even remotely connected with Christ and his Apostles (as the account of St Paul's handkerchiefs and aprons show Acts 19:12).  But all this probably belongs on one of the two threads devoted to icons.

But you are correct, respect (aka veneration) for icons is not something I needed the Scripture to teach.  A passage about the Iconoclasts and their wholesale destruction and disrespect of holy images in an Evangelical World History book (the book was pro-iconoclast, btw) was all I needed to convince me that I had been taught wrong.  Just like all I needed to learn respect for the Bible was a youth leader tossing a Bible into a campfire to make some point about "idolatry".  Some things are holy because of the that which they depict.

Unsound ad hominem, irrelevant immaterial and incompetent when judging the question of icons. But I digress, I have to use my limited time to wade through the alleged proofs for the Septuagint...only because it interests me, not to prove my point for that post itself listed instances where Bible writers followed the Hebrew, against the Septuagint...which proves the Orthodox wrong according to apostolic doctrine.

Sooo you continue to try to prove the Apostles wrong according to Jewish doctrine.
Acts 9:1 Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.
3 As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. 4 Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”
5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?”
Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against the goads.”

Somebody is due for a Damascus moment.

Saul/Paul we know, and the Apostles we know, and Chrsit we know, but your are you?

(http://dwellingintheword.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/7-house-on-sand.jpg?w=300&h=225)
You still going with this definition of Apostolic?
Lets see you claim to be in apostolic sucession & yet say that someone (me) who finds an apostolic source as evidence of a veneration practice by apostolic Christians of the remains a martyred apsotolic Christian & that I trust these people as observing proper Christian burial rite as relying on unreliable hearsay?

The Church is Apostolic (ecclesia apostolica) inasmuch as all its members to the Last Day come to faith in Christ through the Word of the Apostles (John 17:20: πιστεύσοντες διὰ λόγου αὐτῶν εἰς ἐμέ) and cling to the Word of the Apostles (Acts 2:42: προσκαρτεροῦντες τῇ διδαχῇ τῶν ἀποστόλων), and this over against all departures from the truth of Scripture. Rom. 16:17: “Avoid them,” namely, those who “cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned.”
Pieper, F. (1999). Vol. 3: Christian Dogmatics (electronic ed.) (411). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.
1999? That's only 1900 years too late to be in contact with an Apostle to receive their teaching.
President Pieper also comes nearly 1800 years too late too.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/FranzAugustOttoPieper.jpg)
Like you, he was sent by no one sent by the Apostles, hence not sent by Christ, therefore not sent by God.
Odd that you should stand on him as an authority, as he was not only a confessional Lutheran, but one who held "quia subscription" to the Book of Concord, one of the examples of the tradition the Protestants supposedly don't have and don't follow. ::)
Remind me of what the Book of Concord says on the Holy Icons.

Stop copyright infringement on the brand name "Apostolic."
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 20, 2010, 07:40:36 AM

You are evading the question: how do you fault the Church of Christ and His Apostles for doing so, when you confess that the changes made AFTER Christ came, AFTER He found His One, Holy, Catholic and Apstolic Orthodox Church on His Apostles, AFTER said Church met in Ecumenical Council for the last time (for now), said changes among the Jews walking in the way of the Pharisees, Scribres and Saduccees are to be accepted as God's continuing revelation?

You equivocate, if the Orthodox church today were the primitive version, Nicea and earlier, I'd be Orthodox.

Like Catholicism, you believe in many things the primitive Orthodox would reject.

Hence Orthodoxy today is not apostolic, a Christian who confesses only what is seen in scripture, is rejected by you as heretical.

Yet these were perfectly acceptable to Christ and His apostles.


NKJ  Acts 17:11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
 (Act 17:11 NKJ)

NKJ  Jude 1:3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
 (Jud 1:3 NKJ)

NKJ  2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. (2Th 2:15 NKJ)

Apostolic doctrine once delivered by them is what primitive Orthodox believe, not many of the things the Orthodox have added.

Your mistake is best illustrated by analogy.

The apostles baked a cake using 10 ingredients.
The Modern Orthodox bake a cake using the same 10 ingredients, but add another 10 of their own and claim its the same cake.

Its not.

What are you saying Orthodoxy added to the cake after Nicea?  Trinitarian theology (2nd Council)?  Rejection of Nestorianism (3rd Council)?   Rejection of Monophysitism (4th Council)?  The 5th Council reaffirmed these rejections. The 6th Council rejected Monothelitism.  

We know your feelings on the 7th Council, so please, tell us, where did Orthodoxy go wrong?  At what point did we add to the "cake"?  


Athanasius made clear he was repeating apostolic doctrine re the Holy Trinity, not inventing it.
Like all the Fathers of ALL the Ecumenical Councils:
Nicea I
Quote
Let the ancient customs prevail...Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed...the ancient canonical law is still to be maintained-canons VI, VII, XIII

Constantinople I
Quote
The Faith of the Three Hundred and Eighteen Fathers assembled at Nice in Bithynia shall not be set aside, but shall remain firm....-canon I
This is the faith which ought to be sufficient for you, for us, for all who wrest not the word of the true faith; for it is the ancient faith; it is the faith of our baptism-Synodal Letter
Ephesus
Quote
When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different  Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa.  But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.-canon VII
Chalcedon
Quote
Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, when strengthening the knowledge of the Faith in his disciples, to the end that no one might disagree with his neighbour concerning the doctrines of religion, and that the proclamation of the truth might be set forth equally to all men, said, “My peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you.”  But, since the evil one does not desist from sowing tares among the seeds of godliness, but ever invents some new device against the truth; therefore the Lord, providing, as he ever does, for the human race, has raised up this pious, faithful, and zealous Sovereign, and has called together unto him from all parts the chief rulers of the priesthood; so that, the grace of Christ our common Lord inspiring us, we may cast off every plague of falsehood from the sheep of Christ, and feed them with the tender leaves of truth.  And this have we done with one unanimous consent, driving away erroneous doctrines and renewing the unerring faith of the Fathers, publishing to all men the Creed of the Three Hundred and Eighteen, and to their number adding, as their peers, the Fathers who have received the same summary of religion.  Such are the One Hundred and Fifty holy Fathers who afterwards assembled in the great Constantinople and ratified the same faith.  Moreover, observing the order and every form relating to the faith, which was observed by the holy synod formerly held in Ephesus, of which Celestine of Rome and Cyril of Alexandria, of holy memory, were the leaders, we do declare that the exposition of the right and blameless faith made by the Three Hundred and Eighteen holy and blessed Fathers, assembled at Nice in the reign of Constantine of pious memory, shall be pre-eminent:  and that those things shall be of force also, which were decreed by the One Hundred and Fifty holy Fathers at Constantinople, for the uprooting of the heresies which had then sprung up, and for the confirmation of the same Catholic and Apostolic Faith of ours.-Definition of the Councl
Constantinople II
Quote
Our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, as we learn from the parable in the Gospel, distributes talents to each man according to his ability, and at the fitting time demands an account of the work done by every man.  And if he to whom but one talent has been committed is condemned because he has not worked with it but only kept it without loss, to how much greater and more horrible judgment must he be subject who not only is negligent concerning himself, but even places a stumbling-block and cause of offence in the way of others?  Since it is manifest to all the faithful that whenever any question arises concerning the faith, not only the impious man himself is condemned, but also he who when he has the power to correct impiety in others, neglects to do so.  We therefore, to whom it has been committed to rule the church of the Lord, fearing the curse which hangs over those who negligently perform the Lord’s work, hasten to preserve the good seed of faith pure from the tares of impiety which are being sown by the enemy.-Sentence of the Council
Constantinple III
Quote
The only-begotten Son, and Word of God the Father, who was made man in all things like unto us without sin, Christ our true God, has declared expressly in the words of the Gospel, “I am the light of the world; he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.”  And again, “My peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you.”  Our most gentle Sovereign, the champion of orthodoxy, and opponent of evil doctrine, being reverentially led by this divinely uttered doctrine of peace, and having convened this our holy and Ecumenical assembly, has united the judgment of the whole Church.  Wherefore this our holy and Ecumenical Synod having driven away the impious error which had prevailed for a certain time until now, and following closely the straight path of the holy and approved Fathers-Definition of Faith
Nicea II
Quote
The holy, great, and Ecumenical Synod which by the grace of God and the will of the pious and Christ-loving Emperors, Constantine and Irene, his mother, was gathered together for the second time at Nice, the illustrious metropolis of Bithynia, in the holy church of God which is named Sophia, having followed the tradition of the Catholic Church, hath defined as follows: Christ our Lord, who hath bestowed upon us the light of the knowledge of himself, and hath redeemed us from the darkness of idolatrous madness, having espoused to himself the Holy Catholic Church without spot or defect, promised that he would so preserve her:  and gave his word to this effect to his holy disciples when he said:  “Lo!  I am with you always, even unto the end of the world,” which promise he made, not only to them, but to us also who should believe in his name through their word.  But some, not considering of this gift, and having become fickle through the temptation of the wily enemy, have fallen from the right faith; for, withdrawing from the traditions of the Catholic Church-Decree of the Council

And you are right: Pope St. Athanasius claimed only to teach the Apostolic Faith
Oh?  St. John of Damascus quotes Pope St. Athansius the Great in defense of the Holy Icons:
Quote
We, who are of the faithful, do not worship images as gods, as the heathens did, God forbid, but we mark our lovingdesire alone to see the face of the person represented in image. Hence, when it is obliterated, we are wont to throw the image as so much wood into the fire. Jacob, when he was about to die, worshipped on the point of Joseph's staff, not honouring the staff but its owner. Just in the same way do we greet images as we should embrace our children and parents to signify our affection. Thus the Jew, too, worshipped the tablets of the law, and the two golden cherubim in carved work, not because he honoured gold or stone for itself, but the Lord who had ordered them to be made.

Which is why he used the LXX
Quote
It was in the Holy Scriptures that his martyr teachers had instructed him, and in the Scriptures his mind and writings are saturated. Ignorant of Hebrew, and only rarely appealing to other Greek versions (to Aquila once in the Ecthesis, to other versions once or twice upon the Psalms), his knowledge of the Old Testament is limited to the Septuagint. But of it, as well as of the New Testament, he has an astonishing command, ᾽Αλεξανδρεὺς τῷ γένει, ἀνὴρ λόγιος, δυνατὸς ὢν ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.v.ii.i.html?highlight=septuagint#highlight

I reject ALL the councils,

Then you are a self confessed heretic.

only those the apostles participated in, in Jerusalem, were apostolic.

All the Councils of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church are Apostolic, according to the definition of Apostolic given by the Apostles and their disciples and successors.

Christianity did just fine while the Roman Christians were hiding in catacombs,

These catacombs?
(http://www.sacred-destinations.com/italy/images/rome/catacombs/commodilla/resized/christ-1st-time-w-beard-mural-commodilla-catacombs-late-4thcent.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Agape_feast_05.jpg)(http://www.chinaoilpainting.com/upload/file-admin/images/new19/unknow%20artist-692297.jpg)(http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/bvm/catacombs.gif)

Btw, the icons predate our Biblical codices. The icon of Christ above is around the time of Nicea I. And the catacombs were abandoned by the time of the iconoclast controversy, and forgotten by the time it was resolved, not to be seen again until their rediscovery in 1578. By that time, even your Protestant iconoclasts had come into existence.

and not one of us were bowing down to images,

not one of you Perssonist and other Protestants existed to bow.  But the Holy Icons did.

we conquered the world
Where? Geneva? Holland?

....then the world took charge via Constantine,

Any and all dogma and practice of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church can be demonstrated to predate Constantine. He ofered the world to the Church, and submitted to her.

and heresy after heresy was added

The proliferation of heresies got in full gear starting in 1517.

...along with a few doctrines that were sound...
no doctrine added after 1517 has been sound.

You asked what doctrine, any that can't be found taught in scripture.
Like sola scriptura, and Hebrew primacy.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 20, 2010, 08:29:57 AM
http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spindex.htm

Instances where the New Testament quotes from the Septuagint:

Enoch was not, because God translated him
Gen 5.24 quoted in Heb 11.5
To thy seed
Gn 12.7 quoted in Ga 3.16

Jacob ... worshipped, leaning on the top of his staff
Gen 47.31 quoted in Heb 11.21

Wouldest thou kill me, as thou killest the Egyptian yesterday?
Ex 2.14 quoted in Ac 7.27-28

My name might be published abroad in all the earth
Ex 9.16 quoted in Ro 9.17

A royal priesthood
Ex 19.6 quoted in 1 Pe 2.9

The Lord knoweth them that are his
Nu 16.5 quoted in 2 Tm 2.19

Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God
Dt 6.13 quoted in Mt 4.10 and Lk 4.8

Put away the wicked man from among yourselves
Dt 17.7 quoted in 1 Cor 5.13

Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree
Dt 21.23 quoted in Ga 3.13

Cursed is everyone who continueth not
Dt 27.26 quoted in Ga 3.10

Let all the angels of God worship him
Dt 32.43 quoted in He 1.6

Why did the Gentiles rage?
Ps 2.1-2 quoted in Ac 4.25-26

Their throat is an open sepulchre
Ps 5.9 quoted in Ro 3.13

Out of the mouth of babes
Ps 8.2 quoted in Mt 21.16

What is man, that thou art mindful of him?
Ps 8.4-6 quoted in He 2.6-8

Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness
Ps 10.7 quoted in Ro 3.14

They are together become unprofitable
Ps 14.1-3 quoted in Ro 3.10-12

Thou wilt not leave my soul unto Hades
Ps 16.8-11 quoted in Ac 2.25-28

Their sound went out into all the earth
Ps 19.4 quoted in Ro 10.18

I will declare thy name unto my brethren
Ps 22.22 quoted in He 2.12

Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not
Ps 40.6-8 quoted in He 10.5-6

That thou mightest be justified in thy words
Ps 51.4 quoted in Ro 3.4

They are together become unprofitable
Ps 53.1-3 quoted in Ro 3.10-12

Let their table be made a snare
Ps 69.22-23 quoted in Ro 11.9-10

He gave them bread out of heaven to eat
Ps 78.24 quoted in Jn 6.31

Today, if ye shall hear his voice
Ps 95.7-8 quoted in He 3.15 and He 4.7

Today, if ye shall hear his voice
Ps 95.7-11 quoted in He 3.7-11

And they all shall wax old as doth a garment
Ps 102.25-27 quoted in He 1.10-12

I believed, and therefore did I speak
Ps 116.10 quoted in 2 Cor 4.13

The Lord is my helper
Ps 118.6 quoted in He 13.6

The poison of asps in under their lips
Ps 140.3 quoted in Ro 3.13

For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth
Pr 3.11-12 quoted in He 12.5-6

God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble
Pr  3.34 quoted in James 4.6 and 1 Pe 5.5

And if the righteous is scarcely saved,  
where shall the ungodly and sinner appear
Pr 11.31 quoted in 1 Pe 4.18

If thine enemy hunger, feed him
Pr 25.21-22 quoted in Ro 12.20

Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed,  
we should have been as Sodom
Is 1.9 quoted in Ro 9.29

By hearing ye shall hear, and in no wise understand
Is 6.9-10 quoted in Mt 13.14-15 and Mk 4.12

By hearing ye shall hear, and in no wise understand
Is 6.9-10 quoted in Ac 28.26-27

Lest they should see with their eyes ... and I should heal them
Is 6.9-10 quoted in John 12.40

Behold, the virgin shall be with child
Is 7.14 quoted in Mt. 1.23

I will put my trust in him
Is 8.17 quoted in He 2.13

It is the remnant that shall be saved
Is 10.22-23 quoted in Ro 9.27-28

On him shall the Gentiles hope
Is 11.10 quoted in Ro 15.12

When I shall take away their sins
Is 27.9 quoted in Ro 11.27

He that believeth on him shall not be put to shame
Is 28.16 quoted in Ro 9.33, 10.11 and 1 Pe 2.6

Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men
Is 29.13 quoted in Mt 15.8-9 and Mk 7.6-7

I will destroy the wisdom of the wise
Is 29.14 quoted in 1 Cor 1.19

All flesh shall see the salvation of God
Is 40.3-5 quoted in Lk 3.4-6

The voice of one crying in the wilderness
Is 40.3 quoted in Mt 3.3, Mk 1.3 and Jn 1.23

All flesh is as grass
Is 40.6-8 quoted in 1 Pt 1.24-25

Who hath known the mind of the Lord?  
Is 40.13 quoted in Ro 11.34 and 1 Cor 2.16

And in his name shall the Gentiles hope
Is 42.4 quoted in Mt 12.21

A people for God's own possession
Is 43.21 quoted in 1 Pe 2.9

To me every knee shall bow
Is 45.23 quoted in Ro 14.11

At an acceptable time I hearkened unto thee
Is 49.8 quoted in 2 Cor 6.2

For the name of God is blasphemed  
among the Gentiles because of you
Is 52.5 quoted in Ro 2.24

They shall see, to whom no tidings of him came
Is 52.15 quoted in Ro 15.21

Who has believed our report?
Is 53.1 quoted in Jn 12.38 and Ro 10.16

He was led as a sheep to the slaughter
Is 53.7-8 quoted in Ac 8.32-33

Neither was guile found in his mouth
Is 53.9 quoted in 1 Pt 2.22

Rejoice thou barren that bearest not
Is 54.1 quoted in Ga 4.27

The holy and sure blessings of David
Is 55.3 quoted in Ac 13.34

To set at liberty them that are bruised
Is 58.6 in Luke 4.18

He shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob
Is 59.20-21 quoted in Ro 11.26-27

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me
Is 61.1-2 quoted in Lk 4.18-19

I was found of them that sought me not
Is 65.1 quoted in Ro 10.20

A disobedient and gainsaying people
Is 65.2 quoted in Ro 10.21

Behold, the days come
Jer 31.31-34 quoted in He 8.8-12

I will put my laws on their heart
Jer 31.33-34 quoted in He 10.16-17

I will call that my people, which was not my people
Ho 2.23 quoted in Ro 9.25

I desire mercy, and not sacrifice
Ho 6.6 quoted in Mt 9.13 and 12.7

O death, where is thy sting?
Ho 13.14 quoted in 1 Cor 15.55

I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh
Jl 2.28-32 quoted in Ac 2.17-21

Ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch
Am 5.25-27 quoted in Ac 7.42-43

I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen
Am 9.11-12 quoted in Ac 15.16-17

For I work a work in your days,
which ye shall in no wise believe
Hab 1.5 quoted in Ac 13.41

But my righteous one shall live by faith
Hab 2.3-4 quoted in He 10.37-38




Instances where the New Testament quotes the Masoretic:

He that taketh the wise in their craftiness
Job 5.13 quoted in 1 Cor 3.19
Who hath first given to him
Job 41.11 quoted in Ro 11.35

A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence
Is 8.14 quoted in Ro 9.33 and 1 Pe 2.8

Out of Egypt did I call my son
Ho 11.1 quoted in Mt 2.15

They shall look on him whom they pierced
Zch 12.10 quoted in Jn 19.37

Behold, I send my messenger before thy face
Mal 3.1 quoted in Mt 11.10, Mk 1.2, and Lk 7.27

http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spindex.htm

They are together become unprofitable
Ps 14.1-3 [13:3] quoted in Ro 3.10-12

NKJ  Romans 3:12 They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one."
 (Rom 3:12 NKJ)


Evidently scholars believe the LXX reading, and Paul's are taken from mulitple quotes of the OT:

10a  “Even as it is written”21 is the formula Paul typically uses to introduce quotations of the OT. But nowhere else does Paul use a quotation so long or one drawn from so many different (at least six) OT passages. There are resemblances between this collection of thematically linked verses and what the rabbis called “pearl-stringing,” and some have suggested that Paul is quoting an early Christian psalm or “florilegium.”22

Moo, D. J. (1996). The Epistle to the Romans. The New International Commentary on the New Testament (202). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

No one is upright, no, not one. The first quotation enunciates Paul’s thesis. The list quotes Qoh 7:20, but not exactly. The LXX of Qoh 7:20 reads, hoti anthrōpos ouk estin dikaios en tē gē, “since there is no upright human being on earth,” which is an exact translation of the Hebrew MT. The addition of oude heis, “not even one,” enhances the statement of Qoheleth; here the second negative does not cancel out the first, but emphasizes the first part (see BDF §302.2; 432.2). Some commentators, however, think that Paul is quoting Ps 14:3 or even Ps 53:4, but, as Dunn notes (Romans, 150), the wording is closer to Qoh 7:20. In admitting as much, however, Dunn strangely says (Romans, 149), “As can readily be seen, the LXX is followed in every case.” But is it? Note the repeated use of the same idea by the Qumran psalmist; 1QH 9:14 (“No one is righteous in your judgment, and no one innocent in a suit before you”); 4:29–31; 7:17, 28–29; 12:31–32; 13:16–17; 16:11.
11. no one has understanding; no one searches for God. The second quotation comes from Ps 14:2 (cf. Ps 53:3). The LXX of Ps 14:3 reads tou idein ei estin syniōn ē ekzētōn ton theon, “to see whether there is someone who understands or searches for God,” which is a literal translation of the Hebrew MT. The substantivized ptc. is used with the def. art. ho syniōn, ho ekzētōn (see BDF §413.1). In Paul’s context these words mean that the unrighteousness of human beings in compounded by their folly, their lack of understanding, and their failure to seek out God, their Maker. Such a sentiment of the testimonia list echoes 1:21, about the failure of the pagan to honor and thank God; cf. 2 Esdr 7:23, “They even declared that the Most High does not exist.” Not only pagan idolatry, but also Jewish self-righteousness are thus indicted.
12. All have turned away, all have become depraved. Ps 14:3 is the source of these words, which are a literal quotation of the LXX, pantes exeklinan, hama ēchreōthēsan, again an exact translation of the Hebrew MT. Human beings have not only failed to seek God, but in their folly they have all deliberately turned away from him and from the paths he would have them walk. Hence their depravity, which again echoes 1:21b–23.
No one does good, not even one. This is a further citation from Ps 14:3, which in the LXX reads, ouk estin poiōn chrēstotēta, ouk estin heōs henos, “there is no one doing good, not even one.” The depravity of human beings is compounded by their failure to pursue what is good in human life. MSS B, 6, and 1739 omit the ouk estin in the second part of the quotation, differing from the LXX; MSS א, A, D, G, Ψ, and the Koinē text-tradition read it.
13. Their throats are opened graves; with their tongues they have practiced deceit. The list goes on to cite Ps 5:10, quoted exactly according to the LXX, which is a literal translation of the Hebrew of the MT. In the original the psalmist describes himself as one led by God’s demand for uprightness and distinguishes himself from the “workers of lawlessness.” For Paul, filthlike contamination and crass deceit pour forth in all that human beings utter. Such a sentiment again echoes 1:29, “filled with every sort of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice.”
the poison of asps lies behind their lips. Vicious and deadly utterings come from the lips of human beings. The list cites Ps 140:4, reproducing accurately the reading of the LXX, which is a literal translation of the Hebrew of the MT. In v 13 the move has been from throats to tongues to lips, and it will continue with mouths, feet, and eyes.
14. Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness. Ps 10:7 (= LXX 9:28) is quoted, but not exactly; the LXX reads, hou aras to stoma autou gemei kai pikrias kai dolou, “whose mouth is full of cursing, bitterness, and deceit.” This reading represents an expansion of the Hebrew original, pîhû mālē ûmirmôt wātōk, “and his mouth is full of both deceits and oppression.” In other words, human beings emit such violence in their speech, as they scoff at God.
15. Swift are their feet to shed blood. Violence proceeds from all human beings, not only in speech, but also in other deeds. Murder and violence again echo 1:29. The list cites Isa 59:7 or Prov 1:16, but the citation does not agree exactly with either OT passage. The LXX of Isa 59:7 reads hoi de podes autōn epi ponērian trechousin tachinoi ekcheai haima, “their feet run after evil, swift to shed blood.” The LXX of Prov 1:16 reads, hoi gar podes autōn eis kakian trechousin, kai tachinoi tou ekcheai haima, “for their feet run after wickedness, and they are swift to shed blood.” The LXX version of each passage corresponds to the Hebrew of the MT. In the original the prophet lamented Israel’s sins and lack of uprightness. Now for Paul, Isaiah’s words are applied to all human beings.
16. Ruin and wretchedness strew their paths. Wherever their feet lead them, human beings leave behind destruction and desolation. Isa 59:7b is quoted according to the LXX, which accurately translates the Hebrew of the MT.
17. The path of peace they have not known. The list continues with a quotation of Isa 59:8, which in the LXX reads, kai hodon eirēnēs ouk oidasin, “the path of peace they do not know,” which is an exact translation of the Hebrew original. Paul’s text reads ouk egnōsan, “they have not known,” instead of ouk oidasin, “they do not know,” a minor change. Such human beings have not known a full and bounteous life, a life characterized by the fullness of blessings from God.
18. Fear of God is not before their eyes. Such human beings are not motivated by due reverence for God, the beginning of all wisdom. Ps 36:2b is quoted exactly according to the LXX, which accurately reflects the Hebrew of the MT. In the original, the psalmist is contrasting the lawbreaker and the upright Jew, who stands in awe of God. See Gen 22:12; Deut 6:2; Prov 1:7. Cf. W. F. Beck, “Phobos, Rom. 3:18,” CTM 22 (1951): 511–12.


Fitzmyer, J. A., S.J. (2008). Romans: A new translation with introduction and commentary (334–336). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 20, 2010, 09:00:54 AM
I'm still going down this list, now at:

Let all the angels of God worship him
Dt 32.43 [or Ps 97:7]  quoted in He 1.6


At first read Heb 1:6 rules out all available texts, none of them read "when he brings the firstborn into the world.", however that is implied by the second advent, and an ancient Bible writer can be forgiven if exegesis and quote aren't clearly separated, quotes weren't yet invented.

Again, you make problems where none exist: λέγει clearly marks the quote, and skimming through several translations, none had any difficulty in seeing that.  But I am sure the Apostle St. Paul is glad to hear of your forgiveness.

6 But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: "Let all the angels of God worship Him." (Heb 1:6 NKJ)

Odd, given your confusion of icons and idols, that you do not use the MT:
Ps. 7:7 Let all be put to shame who serve carved images,
         Who boast of idols.
         Worship Him, all you gods.

And since the argument clearly depends on the LXX, the Orthodox view of the matter is again vindicated.

Hebrews 1:6 is referring to Christ's Second coming, and both Deut 32:43 LXX (and Dead Sea Bible) and Ps 97:7 are referring to the "Day of the LORD" Jesus.
Hebrews isn't refering to the Second Coming at all.  He was brought into the world at the Annuciation.

The LXX and Dead Sea Bible essentially agree in Deut 32:43.

QBE  Deuteronomy 32:43 Rejoice, O heavens, together with him; and bow down to him all you gods, for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and will render vengeance to his enemies, and will recompense those who hate him, and will atone for the land of his people."

"Bow down to him all you gods" can be rendered "bow down to him all you angels." Then "Let all the angels of God worship him" is interpretation but essentially the same.


BUT the idea the angels should bow down to Christ is also found in Ps 97:7, and it also refers to the "Day of the LORD" Jesus:

NKJ  Psalm 97:1 The LORD reigns; Let the earth rejoice; Let the multitude of isles be glad!
 2 Clouds and darkness surround Him; Righteousness and justice are the foundation of His throne.
 3 A fire goes before Him, And burns up His enemies round about.
 4 His lightnings light the world; The earth sees and trembles.
 5 The mountains melt like wax at the presence of the LORD, At the presence of the Lord of the whole earth.
 6 The heavens declare His righteousness, And all the peoples see His glory.
 7 Let all be put to shame who serve carved images, Who boast of idols. Worship Him, all you gods.
 (Psa 97:1-7 NKJ)

Where is the Psalms reference to the "Day of the Lord", as I do not see what you have put in quotations.

"Elohiym Gods" = "angels" cp LXX Ps 8:5; 138:1.

 7 Let all that worship graven images be ashamed, who boast of their idols; worship him, all ye his angels. (Psa 97:7 LXE)

So this proves nothing save Deut 32:43 in the LXX is different than the MT. Whether Hebrews is citing the LXX Deut 32:43 or the LXX or Hebrew of Ps 97:7 cannot be fixed with certainty.

As usual, not letting yourself being confused by the facts. One need only look at the texts (you do not even have to speak Greek, just be able to match letters).

Heb.     1:6 προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες    ἄγγελοι θεοῦ.
Ps.96(97):7 προσκυνήσατε      αὐτῷ πάντες οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ

Given that Hebrews is expounding on the angels, it depends on the LXX to include Ps 96 (97) As for Deuteronomy, the MT differs considerably

εὐφράνθητε οὐρανοί ἅμα αὐτῷ καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες υἱοὶ θεοῦ εὐφράνθητε ἔθνη μετὰ τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐνισχυσάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι θεοῦ ὅτι τὸ αἷμα τῶν υἱῶν αὐτοῦ ἐκδικᾶται καὶ ἐκδικήσει καὶ ἀνταποδώσει δίκην τοῖς ἐχθροῖς καὶ τοῖς μισοῦσιν ἀνταποδώσει καὶ ἐκκαθαριεῖ κύριος τὴν γῆν τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ
Quote
Deut 32:43 and Scribal Emendation
 
Quote
I posted quite some time ago about scribal emendation in Deut 32:8 regarding the "sons of God." That's not the only passage in that chapter, however, to betray such emendation. Deut 32:43 is a little less simple, but just as important to the discussion of early Israelite and even Second Temple Period beliefs in deity. The MT reads thus:


הַרְנִ֤ינוּ גֹויִם֙ עַמֹּ֔ו כִּ֥י דַם־עֲבָדָ֖יו יִקֹּ֑ום וְנָקָם֙ יָשִׁ֣יב לְצָרָ֔יו וְכִפֶּ֥ר אַדְמָתֹ֖ו עַמֹּֽו


“Praise, O nations, with him, for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and take vengeance on his adversaries; he will be merciful to his land, to his people.”


LXX has an entirely different reading that seems to preserve something missing from MT, but also seems to add something to the text:


εὐφράνθητε, οὐρανοί, ἅμα αὐτῷ, καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι Θεοῦ· εὐφράνθητε, ἔθνη μετὰ τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐνισχυσάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες υἱοὶ Θεοῦ· ὅτι τὸ αἷμα τῶν υἱῶν αὐτοῦ ἐκδικᾶται, καὶ ἐκδικήσει καὶ ἀνταποδώσει δίκην τοῖς ἐχθροῖς καὶ τοῖς μισοῦσιν ἀνταποδώσει, καὶ ἐκκαθαριεῖ Κύριος τὴν γῆν τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ.


“Rejoice, O heavens, together with him, and let all the sons of God worship him. Rejoice, O nations, and let all the angels of God draw near to him. For he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will take vengeance and repay righteousness to the enemies, and recompense the hated, and the Lord will purify the land of his people.”


The first clause includes the phrase "let all the sons of God worship him" where MT is silent. This seems close to an original reading, closely attested by 4QDeutq, which reads "let all the gods worship him," which is almost identical to Ps 97:7. Q and LXX also have "heavens" against MT's "nations. LXX adds the clause with "nations," however, and provides the parallelism "angels of God" for "sons of God," manifesting the Second Temple Period's conflation of angels and all other divinity attested in the Hebrew Bible (Brenton's version of this verse has "Let all the angels of God worship him," which is quoted verbatim in Heb 1:6). While the "sons of God" were originally conceived of as actual offspring of El, the conflation of Yahweh and El combined with the elevation of Yahweh-El over all the nations and their gods demoted everyone else to the rank of angel, or mere messenger of God. Where MT simply erases the reference to the children of God (or possibly just "gods"), LXX adds a parallel to qualify it. Earlier, in Deut 32:8, LXX interpolates "angels" where Q has "sons" in the phrase "sons of God."

MT also puts "his servants" where LXX and Q have "his sons." It seems quite a bit of manipulation has taken place over the years in this verse. I'm still doing preliminary research, but I've found this verse fascinating. What do you think?
http://maklelan.blogspot.com/2009/06/deut-3243-and-scribal-emendation.html

I think that the Apostolic Tradition of the One, Holy, Catholid and Apostolic Orthodox Church is again vindicated.

All the other "proofs" prior to this, save Gal 3:16, seem to be acceptable interpretation/translation of the Hebrew.

Given this "proof" that you have offered, I'll take the Apostolic word of the Church on the matter, and not yours.

Given the Greek Septuagint was more accessible, it would be odd if NT writers didn't use it.


As posted above, the Apostolic witness has been that the LXX was spread (more accessible) as preparation for the NT. That is why the latter uses it, and why it would be odd if they did not.

It still does not follow its changes to the Hebrew are inspired and must be accepted.

The sommersaults you have done here in your exercise of eisogesis have demonstrated the merit of simply following the Tradition of Christ's Church received of the Apostles, and follow the LXX.

I'm still slogging through these "proofs" ...Just thought you all ought to know.
The time might be better spent being introduced to the Greek alphabet.

Beyond that:
Analytical Lexicon to the Septuagint
http://books.google.com/books?id=JNaDupoSycMC&pg=PA194&lpg=PA194&dq=%E1%BC%90%CE%BD%CE%B9%CF%83%CF%87%CF%85%CF%83%CE%AC%CF%84%CF%89%CF%83%CE%B1%CE%BD&source=bl&ots=ODGMi3_z7l&sig=vZKm4oeJwYJw1BRjDxA8k1oW-kY&hl=en&ei=yXhuTIPmKZSgnQfBsrTeBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCEQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%E1%BC%90%CE%BD%CE%B9%CF%83%CF%87%CF%85%CF%83%CE%AC%CF%84%CF%89%CF%83%CE%B1%CE%BD&f=false
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 20, 2010, 11:21:11 AM

They are together become unprofitable
Ps 14.1-3 [13:3] quoted in Ro 3.10-12

NKJ  Romans 3:12 They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one."
 (Rom 3:12 NKJ)


Evidently scholars believe the LXX reading, and Paul's are taken from mulitple quotes of the OT:

10a  “Even as it is written”21 is the formula Paul typically uses to introduce quotations of the OT. But nowhere else does Paul use a quotation so long or one drawn from so many different (at least six) OT passages. There are resemblances between this collection of thematically linked verses and what the rabbis called “pearl-stringing,” and some have suggested that Paul is quoting an early Christian psalm or “florilegium.”22

Moo, D. J. (1996). The Epistle to the Romans. The New International Commentary on the New Testament (202). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

No one is upright, no, not one. The first quotation enunciates Paul’s thesis. The list quotes Qoh 7:20, but not exactly. The LXX of Qoh 7:20 reads, hoti anthrōpos ouk estin dikaios en tē gē, “since there is no upright human being on earth,” which is an exact translation of the Hebrew MT. The addition of oude heis, “not even one,” enhances the statement of Qoheleth; here the second negative does not cancel out the first, but emphasizes the first part (see BDF §302.2; 432.2). Some commentators, however, think that Paul is quoting Ps 14:3 or even Ps 53:4, but, as Dunn notes (Romans, 150), the wording is closer to Qoh 7:20. In admitting as much, however, Dunn strangely says (Romans, 149), “As can readily be seen, the LXX is followed in every case.” But is it? Note the repeated use of the same idea by the Qumran psalmist; 1QH 9:14 (“No one is righteous in your judgment, and no one innocent in a suit before you”); 4:29–31; 7:17, 28–29; 12:31–32; 13:16–17; 16:11.
11. no one has understanding; no one searches for God. The second quotation comes from Ps 14:2 (cf. Ps 53:3). The LXX of Ps 14:3 reads tou idein ei estin syniōn ē ekzētōn ton theon, “to see whether there is someone who understands or searches for God,” which is a literal translation of the Hebrew MT. The substantivized ptc. is used with the def. art. ho syniōn, ho ekzētōn (see BDF §413.1). In Paul’s context these words mean that the unrighteousness of human beings in compounded by their folly, their lack of understanding, and their failure to seek out God, their Maker. Such a sentiment of the testimonia list echoes 1:21, about the failure of the pagan to honor and thank God; cf. 2 Esdr 7:23, “They even declared that the Most High does not exist.” Not only pagan idolatry, but also Jewish self-righteousness are thus indicted.
12. All have turned away, all have become depraved. Ps 14:3 is the source of these words, which are a literal quotation of the LXX, pantes exeklinan, hama ēchreōthēsan, again an exact translation of the Hebrew MT. Human beings have not only failed to seek God, but in their folly they have all deliberately turned away from him and from the paths he would have them walk. Hence their depravity, which again echoes 1:21b–23.
No one does good, not even one. This is a further citation from Ps 14:3, which in the LXX reads, ouk estin poiōn chrēstotēta, ouk estin heōs henos, “there is no one doing good, not even one.” The depravity of human beings is compounded by their failure to pursue what is good in human life. MSS B, 6, and 1739 omit the ouk estin in the second part of the quotation, differing from the LXX; MSS א, A, D, G, Ψ, and the Koinē text-tradition read it.
13. Their throats are opened graves; with their tongues they have practiced deceit. The list goes on to cite Ps 5:10, quoted exactly according to the LXX, which is a literal translation of the Hebrew of the MT. In the original the psalmist describes himself as one led by God’s demand for uprightness and distinguishes himself from the “workers of lawlessness.” For Paul, filthlike contamination and crass deceit pour forth in all that human beings utter. Such a sentiment again echoes 1:29, “filled with every sort of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice.”
the poison of asps lies behind their lips. Vicious and deadly utterings come from the lips of human beings. The list cites Ps 140:4, reproducing accurately the reading of the LXX, which is a literal translation of the Hebrew of the MT. In v 13 the move has been from throats to tongues to lips, and it will continue with mouths, feet, and eyes.
14. Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness. Ps 10:7 (= LXX 9:28) is quoted, but not exactly; the LXX reads, hou aras to stoma autou gemei kai pikrias kai dolou, “whose mouth is full of cursing, bitterness, and deceit.” This reading represents an expansion of the Hebrew original, pîhû mālē ûmirmôt wātōk, “and his mouth is full of both deceits and oppression.” In other words, human beings emit such violence in their speech, as they scoff at God.
15. Swift are their feet to shed blood. Violence proceeds from all human beings, not only in speech, but also in other deeds. Murder and violence again echo 1:29. The list cites Isa 59:7 or Prov 1:16, but the citation does not agree exactly with either OT passage. The LXX of Isa 59:7 reads hoi de podes autōn epi ponērian trechousin tachinoi ekcheai haima, “their feet run after evil, swift to shed blood.” The LXX of Prov 1:16 reads, hoi gar podes autōn eis kakian trechousin, kai tachinoi tou ekcheai haima, “for their feet run after wickedness, and they are swift to shed blood.” The LXX version of each passage corresponds to the Hebrew of the MT. In the original the prophet lamented Israel’s sins and lack of uprightness. Now for Paul, Isaiah’s words are applied to all human beings.
16. Ruin and wretchedness strew their paths. Wherever their feet lead them, human beings leave behind destruction and desolation. Isa 59:7b is quoted according to the LXX, which accurately translates the Hebrew of the MT.
17. The path of peace they have not known. The list continues with a quotation of Isa 59:8, which in the LXX reads, kai hodon eirēnēs ouk oidasin, “the path of peace they do not know,” which is an exact translation of the Hebrew original. Paul’s text reads ouk egnōsan, “they have not known,” instead of ouk oidasin, “they do not know,” a minor change. Such human beings have not known a full and bounteous life, a life characterized by the fullness of blessings from God.
18. Fear of God is not before their eyes. Such human beings are not motivated by due reverence for God, the beginning of all wisdom. Ps 36:2b is quoted exactly according to the LXX, which accurately reflects the Hebrew of the MT. In the original, the psalmist is contrasting the lawbreaker and the upright Jew, who stands in awe of God. See Gen 22:12; Deut 6:2; Prov 1:7. Cf. W. F. Beck, “Phobos, Rom. 3:18,” CTM 22 (1951): 511–12.


Fitzmyer, J. A., S.J. (2008). Romans: A new translation with introduction and commentary (334–336). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

One could wade through that.

Or one can just hold fast to the Tradition of reading the LXX received of the Apostles:
Ps.  14:2 LXXκύριος ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ διέκυψεν ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῶν ἀνθρώπων τοῦ ἰδεῖν εἰ ἔστιν   συνίων     ἢ           ἐκζητῶν τὸν θεόν
Rom. 3:11                                                                                                οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ συνιῶν, οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ ἐκζητῶν τὸν Θεόν·

Ps. 14:1 LXXεἰς τὸ τέλος ψαλμὸς τῷ δαυιδ εἶπεν ἄφρων ἐν καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν θεός διέφθειραν καὶ ἐβδελύχθησαν ἐν ἐπιτηδεύμασιν οὐκ ἔστιν ποιῶν χρηστότητα οὐκ ἔστιν ἕως ἑνός
Rom. 3:10   οὐκ ἔστι δίκαιος οὐδὲ εἷς

Ps. 14:3 LXXπάντες ἐξέκλιναν ἅμα ἠχρεώθησαν οὐκ ἔστιν ποιῶν χρηστότητα οὐκ ἔστιν ἕως ἑνός
Rom.3:12     πάντες ἐξέκλιναν, ἅμα ἠχρειώθησαν· οὐκ ἔστι ποιῶν χρηστότητα, οὐκ ἔστιν ἕως ἑνός.

Ps. 14:3 LXXτάφος ἀνεῳγμένος ὁ λάρυγξ αὐτῶν ταῖς γλώσσαις αὐτῶν ἐδολιοῦσαν ἰὸς ἀσπίδων ὑπὸ τὰ χείλη αὐτῶν
Rom.3:13     τάφος ἀνεῳγμένος ὁ λάρυγξ αὐτῶν, ταῖς γλώσσαις αὐτῶν ἐδολιοῦσαν, ἰὸς ἀσπίδων ὑπὸ τὰ χείλη αὐτῶν·

Ps. 14:3 LXX ὧν τὸ στόμα ἀρᾶς καὶ πικρίας γέμει
Rom. 3:14     ὧν τὸ στόμα ἀρᾶς καὶ πικρίας γέμει·

Ps. 14:3 LXX ὀξεῖς οἱ πόδες αὐτῶν ἐκχέαι αἷμα
Rom. 3:15     ὀξεῖς οἱ πόδες αὐτῶν ἐκχέαι αἷμα

Ps. 14:3 LXX σύντριμμα καὶ ταλαιπωρία ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτῶν
Rom. 3:16     σύντριμμα καὶ ταλαιπωρία ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτῶν

Ps. 14:3 LXX καὶ ὁδὸν εἰρήνης οὐκ ἔγνωσαν
Rom. 3:17     καὶ ὁδὸν εἰρήνης οὐκ ἔγνωσαν

Ps.  14:3 LXX οὐκ ἔστιν φόβος θεοῦ ἀπέναντι τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν
Rom. 3:18      οὐκ ἔστι φόβος Θεοῦ ἀπέναντι τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν.

Those so eager to prove the Apostles wrong according to rabbinic doctrine have accused the LXX of cutting and pasting from the Epistle to the Romans into the Psalter. But the alleged forger could have not paraphrased and transposed the first two verses, and been more consistent in the movable "nun" if he were to do that.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 20, 2010, 02:22:04 PM
‘The Orthodox Church has the same New Testament as the rest of Christendom. As its authoritative text for the Old Testament it uses the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint. Where this differs from the Hebrew text (which happens quite often), Orthodox believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation.’-Ware, Kallistos (Timothy): The Orthodox Church, p.208; Penguin 1963,

If the changes in the Septuagint are inspired and are to be accepted as God's continuing revelation, how is it Matthew and Paul follow the Hebrew and not the changes in the Greek Septuagint?

Examples where the NT preferred the MT over the LXX:

"Vegence is mine, I will repay" is literally correct for Deu 32:35; LXX  "in the day of vengeance I will repay,"

NKJ  Romans 12:19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. (Rom 12:19 NKJ)

NKJ  Deuteronomy 32:35 Vengeance is Mine, and recompense; Their foot shall slip in due time; For the day of their calamity is at hand, And the things to come hasten upon them.'
 (Deu 32:35 NKJ)

LXE  Deuteronomy 32:35 In the day of vengeance(en hemera ekdikeseos) I will recompense, whensoever their foot shall be tripped up; for the day of their destruction is near to them, and the judgments at hand are close upon you. (Deu 32:35 LXE)

The MT reads "To me vengeance and retribution" LXX "in the day of vengence I will repay."

Dec. 32:35 LXX ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐκδικήσεως      ἀνταποδώσω
Lit. Greek MT          ἐμοὶ ἐκδίκησις    καὶ  ἀνταπόδομα
Rom. 12:19             ἐμοὶ ἐκδίκησις   ἐγὼ ἀνταποδώσω

So not exactly either in vocabulary (Rom. 12 starts like the literal Greek translation of the MT, but ends up following the LXX) but in syntax Rom. 12:19 follows the LXX, both being verbal sentences, while the MT is a verbless sentence, and in both the LXX and Romans the sentence begins with a adverbial clause, temporal in the LXX, circumstantial in Romans.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: xariskai on August 20, 2010, 11:03:10 PM
I have to use my limited time to wade through the alleged proofs for the Septuagint...only because it interests me, not to prove my point for that post itself listed instances where Bible writers followed the Hebrew, against the Septuagint...which proves the Orthodox wrong according to apostolic doctrine.
Alfred, forgive me for not having read most of the thread, but what is your view about parallel texts in the Synoptic Gospels? If you were to find a certain saying of Jesus, for example, worded in a certain way in Mark, but in a different way in Matthew or Luke -perhaps with things added or taken away, or perhaps in some cases where reasonable allegations (whether they are true or not) of contradiction or incompatibility were made by investigators who seem at least on the surface rationally credible, would you say in such an instance that only one of the Gospels could possibly be inspired by the Holy Spirit, seeing as the words used to express the same thing are often so very different?

Is it impossible to suppose four Gospels are inspired by the same Spirit if they contain three or four different renditions of a given thing?

If a Bible writer following the Heb. against the LXX "proves the LXX is not inspired," if Matthew follows Mark against Luke in a narrative, would this in your eyes prove the Gospel Luke is not inspired?
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 21, 2010, 09:18:38 AM
I have to use my limited time to wade through the alleged proofs for the Septuagint...only because it interests me, not to prove my point for that post itself listed instances where Bible writers followed the Hebrew, against the Septuagint...which proves the Orthodox wrong according to apostolic doctrine.
Alfred, forgive me for not having read most of the thread, but what is your view about parallel texts in the Synoptic Gospels? If you were to find a certain saying of Jesus, for example, worded in a certain way in Mark, but in a different way in Matthew or Luke -perhaps with things added or taken away, or perhaps in some cases where reasonable allegations (whether they are true or not) of contradiction or incompatibility were made by investigators who seem at least on the surface rationally credible, would you say in such an instance that only one of the Gospels could possibly be inspired by the Holy Spirit, seeing as the words used to express the same thing are often so very different?

Is it impossible to suppose four Gospels are inspired by the same Spirit if they contain three or four different renditions of a given thing?

If a Bible writer following the Heb. against the LXX "proves the LXX is not inspired," if Matthew follows Mark against Luke in a narrative, would this in your eyes prove the Gospel Luke is not inspired?

I agree with you, and said the essentially the same somewhere in this thread, citing Mt 13:15 and Jo 12:40 where both sides of the coin are being revealed by the Holy Spirit, free will and divine sovereignty:

NKJ  Matthew 13:15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.' (Mat 13:15 NKJ)

NKJ  John 12:40 "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them." (Joh 12:40 NKJ)

They are both right.

I dispute the Orthodox insistence changes in the LXX are inspired and must be accepted even when they are against the MT, then God contradicts Himself:

‘The Orthodox Church has the same New Testament as the rest of Christendom. As its authoritative text for the Old Testament it uses the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint. Where this differs from the Hebrew text (which happens quite often), Orthodox believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation.’-Ware, Kallistos (Timothy): The Orthodox Church, p.208; Penguin 1963,

While the phenomena of Septuagint quotes in the NT prove the version of canonical books are acceptable, it does not follow the apostles chose it over the Hebrew.

In fact, Paul makes his point in Galatians 3:16 from an Aramaic version, which translated what ancient Jews saw in the Hebrew usage of "seed", but is not found in the Greek version.

As "Seed" is always singular in the Septuagint, it being singular in Gen 22:218 proves nothing.

BUT right now I am going through the "proofs" posted by an Orthodox for the Septuagint. While most of these prove nothing as the difference in the versions is within the realm of translation, which can span literal to paraphrase, a few shouldn't have been listed at all as there is no difference:

I will declare thy name unto my brethren
Ps 22.22 quoted in He 2.12
NKJ  Hebrews 2:12 saying: "I will declare Your name to My brethren; In the midst of the assembly I will sing praise to You." (Heb 2:12 NKJ)

LXA  Psalm 22:22 I will declare thy name to my brethren: in the midst of the church will I sing praise to thee.

NKJ  Psalm 22:22 I will declare Your name to My brethren; In the midst of the assembly I will praise You.



Going through these has raised my appreciation for the Septuagint and  clarified my position on Masoretic vowel points, which clearly cannot be inspired as they err in the Tetragrammaton---God doesn't follow human superstition.

The Septuagint, Vulgate, Peshitta AND Masoretic vowel points together aid exegesis, the correct translation of the consonantal text.

But only the Hebrew consonantal autographs can be considered inerrant, not copies, and certainly not translations of it.

Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Azul on August 21, 2010, 11:56:04 AM
The MT has been corrupted by the hebrews because of christianity.. Those who wrote the New Testament, cited the Scripture mostly as it is in the Septuagint and not in the Masoretic Text, or other hebrew versions..

   Septuagint


The Septuagint was the first translation made of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek. It was begun over two hundred years before the birth of Jesus. It was translated from a Hebrew Old Testament text-type that is older than the Masoretic text, from which most Old Testaments are translated today. This is sad, for the apostles had access to both the Septuagint and to the proto-Masoretic text that was in existence in their time. And they chose to quote from the Septuagint¡ªnot the proto-Masoretic text.

You have probably noticed that many of the Old Testament passages that are quoted in the New Testament don't read the same in the New as they do in the Old. However, if you were using the Septuagint Old Testament, they would read the same.

For example, notice this passage from the Psalms that is quoted in the Book of Hebrews: "Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, 'Sacrifice and offering thou hast not desired, but a body thou hast prepared for me'" (Heb. 10:5,6). In that passage, Paul is quoting from Psalm 40:6. If you look up Psalm 40:6 in your Bible, you will find that it reads: "Sacrifice and offering Thou hast not desired; mine ears Thou hast opened." That's not how writer of Hebrews quoted that verse, is it?

Our Old Testaments don't say anything in Psalms about "a body Thou hast prepared for me." Is that not part of Scripture? If it isn't, why did the writer of Hebrews quote it as Scripture? If it is part of Scripture, what justification do we have for using a text that is different from what the apostles were using?

That is not an isolated example. Such variances between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text are fairly numerous. In fact, one of the cardinal teachings of Christianity turns on one of these variances. We have all read Matthew's quotation from Isaiah 7:14: "Now all this took place that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, 'Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel'" (Matt. 1:22,23). What I did not realize until recently was that the Hebrew Masoretic text does not say, "the virgin shall be with child." It says, "the young woman shall be with child." No wonder the apostles and their disciples chose the Septuagint over the Masoretic text.

Unless you use the Revised Standard Version, if you look up Isaiah 7:14 in your Old Testament, you will probably find that it reads "virgin" instead of "young woman." That's because translators have fudged on their use of the Masoretic text in order to conform to the cardinal Christian doctrine of the virgin birth. But how honest is that? Can we ignore the Septuagint and treat it as "a translation full of errors," but then when one of those "errors" supports a major Christian doctrine, go over and borrow from it? Are we really seeking truth when we do that?

Is the Septuagint Full of Errors?


During the Middle Ages, and for many centuries thereafter, western Christians mistakenly thought that the Septuagint was merely a careless translation of the Hebrew text. Many Christians today still think that. However, during the 1800s, scholars began to postulate that perhaps the reason for the variance between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text was that the translators of the Septuagint were working from an earlier Hebrew text that varied from the later Masoretic text.

In 1947, when scholars were still speculating about these things, an Arab shepherd accidentally discovered some ancient Jewish scrolls near the settlement of Qumran in Palestine. Those scrolls, along with numerous other scrolls later found in the same vicinity, have come to be known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, or the Qumran Library. The Old Testament texts found among these scrolls were centuries older than any previously known Old Testament manuscripts. Among the first scrolls examined were two manuscripts of the Book of Isaiah. The initial published reports proclaimed that those manuscripts were virtually identical to the Masoretic text of today. Evangelical Christians were quick to propagate these initial reports.

However, later, a more sober reflection on the Isaiah scrolls, coupled with the discovery of Dead Sea manuscripts for other Old Testament books, revealed that the initial reports were premature. Rather than vindicating the Masoretic text as being the original Hebrew text, the thousands of Qumran text specimens reveal that there was a definite diversity of text types of the Old Testament in use during the centuries before Christ. The Masoretic text reflects only one of those text types. Unfortunately, evangelicals have not been very quick to retract those original premature reports.

More importantly, those manuscripts confirmed that there were early Hebrew manuscripts that largely agree textually with the Septuagint. So the Septuagint was not a sloppy translation of the Masoretic text. Rather, it is apparently a reasonably faithful translation of another text type¡ªa text that may well be older than the prototype of the Masoretic text. Again, let me emphasize that the differences between these text types do not affect any significant spiritual truths. They mainly affect the wording of various Old Testament passages.

The Value of the Septuagint


More and more Bible scholars today are recognizing the immense value of the Septuagint and its unique relationship to the New Testament. For example, Bible scholar George Howard points out:

If the writers of the NT [New Testament] were influenced by secular Greek, they were influenced more by LXX [Septuagint]. Separated from LXX the NT would have been almost unintelligible to the contemporary reader, according to B. Atkinson. ... At any rate, in the past decades there has developed an appreciation for the influence which LXX vocabulary had on NT thought and the contributions in this area of Septuagintal research are still coming. Consequently, the debate over which source is more important for NT lexicography, Greek or Hebrew, will probably be resolved in terms of LXX.

Dr. Sven Soderlund of Regent College writes:

The LXX was the Bible for most writers of the NT. Not only did they take from it most of their express citations of Scripture, but their writings¡ªin particular the Gospels, and among them especially Luke¡ªcontain numerous reminiscences of its language. The theological terms of the NT, such as ¡°law,¡± ¡°righteousness,¡± ¡°mercy,¡± ¡°truth,¡± ¡°propitiation,¡± were taken over directly from the LXX and must be understood in the light of their use in that version.

Other Old Testament scholars have expressed similar sentiments.

In 2007, Oxford University Press came out with a new translation of the Septuagint, called A New English Translation of the Septuagint, or NETS for short. To read more about this new work, click on the following link about NETS.



Here are some of our favorite Septuagint links:

The site, Greek Septuagint, contains a wealth of information about the Septuagint.

This site provides a good introduction to the Septuagint and its use by the New Testament writers: Rick¡¯s Notes on the Septuagint

This site provides a free online interlinear version of the Lucian rescension of the Septuagint: Interlinear Septuagint

http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/Septuagint.html

Quote:
Acts 15.17 (New Testament, King James Version)
...That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
Acts 15.17 tells us that a remnant of Israelites will seek the Lord along with all the Gentiles upon whom the name of the Lord is called. Acts 15.17 is actually a quote from Amos 9.12, but when we compare the quote above with its alleged source in Amos 9.12 of the KJV Old Testament, we find a sharp disagreement:

Quote:
Amos 9.12 (Old Testament, King James Version)
...That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.
Rather than telling us that a remnant of Israelites will seek the Lord along with all the Gentiles upon whom the name of the Lord is called, as the New Testament quotes it, Amos 9.12 in the KJV would have us believe that the Jews will "POSSESS the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen..." Remember, Acts 15.17 is supposed to be a quote of Amos 9.12, but when we compare them, we see that they disagree sharply in content. How are we to explain this descrepancy?

The cause for the confusion rests in the fact that the KJV Old Testament was translated from the Hebrew Masoretic Text instead of the Greek Septuagint. When we compare the quote of Amos 9.12 found in Acts 15.17 of the KJV with an English translation of Amos 9.12 from the Septuagint, we find a virtually perfect match:

Quote:
Amos 9.12(Old Testament, Brenton’s English Translation of the Greek Septuagint)
...that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things.
While doing some digging on the subject, I learned that the New Testament, as a general rule, agrees with the Septuagint more frequently than with the Masoretic Text. But the Old Testament that I was using (the King James Version) was translated using the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint. I also learned that the Septuagint is more closely aligned with the biblical manuscripts found in the Dead Sea scrolls as well, and the Dead Sea scrolls date back to the 2nd century BC, well before the New Testament was written.

As Wikipedia puts it, "Some of the Dead Sea scrolls attest to Hebrew texts other than those on which the Masoretic Text was based; in many cases, these newly found texts accord with the LXX version [emphasis mine]." So not only does the Masoretic Text conflict with the Septuagint and New Testament, but it even conflicts with the Dead Sea scrolls, which predate the oldest manuscripts of the Masoretic Text by almost 1000 years.

It should not be surprising to learn that the Dead Sea scrolls indicate the existence of Hebrew texts of the Old Testament other than the Masoretic Text, firstly because the Dead Sea scrolls predate the Masoretic Text by 1000 years, and secondly because the Masoretic Text was redacted by the Masoretes (who of course rejected Jesus as the Messiah).

Wikipedia’s article on the Masoretic Text has this to say: "The MT was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the seventh and tenth centuries CE...it has numerous differences of both greater and lesser significance when compared to (extant 4th century) manuscripts of the Septuagint, a Greek translation (made in the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE) of the Hebrew Scriptures that was in popular use in Egypt and Palestine and that is often quoted in the Christian New Testament."

My own brief survey, in which I compared Old Testament passages with New Testament quotations, was done using the King James Version of the Bible. As I said, I found significant disagreements between the two, and this is because the KJV Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Text, but the authors of the New Testament must have quoted from an Old Testament source that much more closely resembled the Septuagint.

Here is a short list of disagreements between New Testament quotes from the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament. My source for this is The Septuagint in the New Testament:


Quote:
Matthew relies on the Septuagint for the assertion that the Messiah's mother was to be a virgin (Matthew 1.23). Jesus himself follows the traditional Septuagint wording in condemning the Pharisees' traditions (Matthew 15.8-9 /Isaiah 29.13)... The Septuagint foretold that the Messiah's death would be unjust (Acts 8.32-33) and that the Gentiles would seek the Lord (Acts 15.16-17 /Amos 9.11-12). The Hebrew has the nations being "possessed" along with Edom. Paul knows that a remnant of Israel will be saved because he was reading the Old Testament in Greek (Romans 9.27-28 / Isaiah 10.22-23). Perhaps if his topic were the return to the Holy Land and not salvation, he would have found the Hebrew reading more suitable... Paul's thought that Jesus would rule the Gentiles also depends on a Septuagint reading (Romans 15.12 / Isaiah 11.10). The author of the book of Hebrews - to prove the deity of Christ - proclaims that Jesus is worshipped by all the angels of God (Hebrews 1.6 / Deut. 32.43). But the Hebrew Old Testament does not contain that verse. Also on the basis of the Greek Old Testament, that author asserts that the incarnation was prophecied (Hebrews 10.5-7 / Psalm 40.6-8) - that Jesus would have a body, which he would offer for our sanctification (Hebrews 10.10). The Masoretic text at this point stresses auditory capability. Finally, where the Masoretic text described a nonviolent suffering servant, the Septuagint prophesied a sinless Messiah (1 Peter 2.22 / Isaiah 53.9)...

Overall, the agreement in sense between the New Testament and the Septuagint is 93%. This compares favorably with the rate of agreement between the New Testament quotations and the Hebrew Old Testament, 68%.

Here are more examples of where the New Testament agrees with the Greek Septuagint but contradicts the Hebrew Masoretic Text. What I have done below is list the New Testament quote from the "Authorised Version" (aka King James Version), followed by its source-text in the Old Testament, first from the Septuagint and then from the KJV Old Testament. Agreements between the New Testament and the Septuagint are in blue text; red text is used to highlight the divergence of the KJV Old Testament:


Hebrews 10:5 cf. Psalm 40:6

Hebrews 10:5 (KJV New Testament)
Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me...

Psalm 40:6 (Brenton’s English Translation of the Septuagint)
Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me...

Psalm 40:6 (quoted from KJV Old Testament)
Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened...

Comment: Psalm 40:6 is regarded by Christians as a prophecy of the Incarnation of Christ, and Hebrews 10:5 quotes it as such, but the Masoretic Text omits the key phrase entirely, replacing “but a body hast thou prepared for me” with “mine ears hast thou opened.” Note that the KJV New Testament and the Greek Septuagint agree with each other against the reading of the KJV Old Testament, which was translated from the Hebrew Masoretic Text.


Hebrews 1:6 cf. Deuteronomy 32:43

Hebrews 1:6 ( KJV New Testament)
And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

Deuteronomy 32:43 (Brenton’s English Translation of the Septuagint)
Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him...

Deuteronomy 32:43 (KJV Old Testament)
Phrase omitted.

Comment: The Masoretic Text completely omits the phrase “and let all the angels of God worship him” from Deuteronomy 32.43.


Matthew 12:21 cf. Isaiah 42:4

Isaiah 42:4 is regarded by Christians as a prophecy of Gentile acceptance of, and faith in, the name of the Messiah, and Matthew 12:21 quotes it as such, but the Masoretic Text omits the key phrase entirely, replacing the phrase “and in his name shall the Gentiles trust” with “and the isles shall wait for his law.” Note that the KJV New Testament and the Septuagint agree with each other against the reading of the KJV Old Testament, which was translated from the Masoretic Text:

Matthew 12:21 (KJV New Testament)
And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.

Isaiah 42:4 (Brenton’s English Translation of the Septuagint)
He shall shine out, and shall not be discouraged, until he have set judgment on the earth: and in his name shall the Gentiles trust.

Isaiah 42:4 (KJV Old Testament)
He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.


These contradictions prove two things:

1) It proves that the ancient texts have been altered to suit the agenda of the alterers,
2) It puts the lie to the claim that the King James Version is a perfect, "divinely-inspired translation". Obviously, if the New and Old Testaments of the King James Version contradict each other then the King James Version cannot be an inerrant document.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 21, 2010, 12:55:38 PM
In fact, Paul makes his point in Galatians 3:16 from an Aramaic version
The fact that you ignore the facts which rule out any such use of an Aramaic version demonstrates the fact that you do not know the facts, nor want to.
REPEATS ARGUMENT ALREADY REFUTED
Stick to what St. Paul cites, and stop twisting his words to your own destruction.

I twisted nothing. Paul says the singular is Christ, REPEATS IRRELEVANT/REFUTED ARGUMENT.

In another post I recall you questioned how the Galatians would know Aramaic. That shows you never studied the book, Galatia was Jewish convert church,


Uncircumcized Jews who worship those which are not gods? You haven't studied Judaism (if you read Maccabbees, you could remedy that).

Gal 3: 1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among youas crucified? 2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?....4:8 But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods. 9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain. 17 They zealously court you, but for no good; yes, they want to exclude you, that you may be zealous for them. 18 But it is good to be zealous in a good thing always, and not only when I am present with you. 19 My little children, for whom I labor in birth again until Christ is formed in you, 20 I would like to be present with you now and to change my tone; for I have doubts about you....5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. 2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. 4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.  7 You ran well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? 8 This persuasion does not come from Him who calls you. 9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump. 10 I have confidence in you, in the Lord, that you will have no other mind; but he who troubles you shall bear his judgment, whoever he is.
11 And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased. 12 I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off!

, which translated what ancient Jews saw in the Hebrew usage of "seed", but is not found in the Greek version.
Still haven't learned Greek. Not even to recognize letters?  Of the many posts refuting your "argument":

Still, Bible writers choosing the Hebrew over the LXX


You still haven't substantiated this unsubstantiatable assertion of yours.

Actually I have, but Paul is citing the Aramaic Targum, not the Hebrew:

So now you have gone from Judaizer to an Aramaic primacist? And actually, if you are not saying that they cite the Aramaic, then you are abandoning what you claim in the same sentence to have "substantiated."

To thy seed
Gn 12.7 quoted in Ga 3.16


Not quote, alluded to a text where "seed" appears. Its unlikely Gen 12:7 is it, that is God's promise Abraham's seed will inherit the land.

Paul probably refers to Gen 22:18 which does convey the idea of the earth being blessed by Abraham and Christ, but only if you already have Christ's appearance or Paul's argument in mind:

That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. (Gen 22:17-18 KJV)

surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is by the shore of the sea, and thy seed shall inherit the cities of their enemies. 18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast hearkened to my voice. (Gen 22:18 LXE)

These both read the same, "possessing the gate" is idiom for controlling a city.

The real difficulty (for both of us) is the Hebrew (זֶרַע  ) and Greek (σπέρμα) are singular in both verses 17 & 18, contradicting Paul's argument:

" He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ. (Gal 3:16 NKJ)

The only time "seeds" in Greek is plural is Gal 3:16, throughout the lxx (and Hebrew) the singular "seed" only appears, in reference to both single and plural descendants.

Hence Paul has been accused of a trick argument unworthy of an apostle.

Jerome affirms that the apostle made use of a false argument, which, although it might appear well enough to the stupid Galatians, would not be approved by wise or learned men.-- Chandler." Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Proving yet again Jerome bears much of the blame for walking disoderly, and not in the Tradition received of the Apostles. Jerome, the hubris of "correcting" an Apostle.

That charge is false. The Aramaic Targums (Bibleworks NFM) has the Plural in verse 17, singular in verse 18, perfectly matching Paul's argument.

 "The Targums, in fact, take this corporate understanding of the promise so much for granted that they uniformly and unequivocally cast the expression in the plural: "and to your sons."-Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, Richard Longenecker (William B Eerdman's Pub Co, 1975, p. 123

[/color]

Yet again seeking solutions for nonexistent problems, creating problems: since no one Galatia was speaking Aramaic, but Greek and hence were reading the LXX, St. Paul's argument would be confusing, presupposing as you do the Targum.

One doesn't need to know the Targums (which the Galatians didn't) to follow St. Paul's argument.  Just the LXX, and knowledge of the Greek distinction between the singular and pluarl (which the Galatians did).

So when the Orthodox cite this text to prove Septuagint Primacy, they lose because Paul cites the Aramaic Targum, not the Septuagint at all.

Gen. 22:18 τῷ σπέρματί σου (LXX)
Gal.   3:16 τῷ σπέρματί σου

You might want to learn Greek, before attempting to make such arguments that are easily refuted.

THAT ancient Jews saw this difference in the Hebrew word for "seed" is proved by: 1)Paul's argument; 2)the Galatians acceptance of that argument; 3)the Aramaic Targums which consistently change the singular to plural when it refers to the descendants of Abraham.

Odd that you bring the ancient Jews in on this discussion, as the whole point of Galatians is that the Gentiles (to whom St. Paul is addressing in the Epistle) are to resist the idea that they have to become Jews to become Chrsitians.

That modern scholars miss this sense is irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent.

Then why do you never cease citing them as your authorities?

Therefore Paul didn't make a trick argument, he wasn't citing the Septuagint, and I have now substantiated that fact.[/b]

You just substantiated that you don't know what you are talking about. Again.

And again, and again, and again...
For instance:
Not that argument, the one right above your post is all the proof you need Paul didn't use the LXX.

Only if you can't read Greek. Or match letters.
One neeed only compare the texts.
So when the Orthodox cite this text to prove Septuagint Primacy, they lose because Paul cites the Aramaic Targum, not the Septuagint at all.

Gen. 22:18 τῷ σπέρματί σου (LXX)
Gal.   3:16 τῷ σπέρματί σου

You might want to learn Greek, before attempting to make such arguments that are easily refuted.

That his translators may have used the Septuagint when putting his Aramaic arguments into Greek, seems to be the case. But its clear from his argument, both he and the Galatians were using an Aramaic Translation.

St. Paul spoke Aramaic, but the Galatians did not.  Official support for Aramaic disappeared from what would be in Galatia with Alexander and the Selucids, and then the Celtic speaking Galatians obliterated what was before, then adopting the Greek around them.  One need not assume any translation when the original was Greek, quoting the Greek LXX.


As "Seed" is always singular in the Septuagint, it being singular in Gen 22:218 proves nothing.
It proves you cannot read a straightforward text.  We've seen why.
I came across this in St Irenaeus "Against the Heretics" bk II, cp XXVI, and I thought of Mr. Persson's eisogesis:

Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies.
1. It is therefore better and more profitable to belong to the simple and unlettered class, and by means of love to attain to nearness to God, than, by imagining ourselves learned and skilful, to be found [among those who are] blasphemous against their own God, inasmuch as they conjure up another God as the Father. And for this reason Paul exclaimed, Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies: 1 Corinthians 8:1 not that he meant to inveigh against a true knowledge of God, for in that case he would have accused himself; but, because he knew that some, puffed up by the pretence of knowledge, fall away from the love of God, and imagine that they themselves are perfect, for this reason that they set forth an imperfect Creator, with the view of putting an end to the pride which they feel on account of knowledge of this kind, he says, Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. Now there can be no greater conceit than this, that any one should imagine he is better and more perfect than He who made and fashioned him, and imparted to him the breath of life, and commanded this very thing into existence. It is therefore better, as I have said, that one should have no knowledge whatever of any one reason why a single thing in creation has been made, but should believe in God, and continue in His love, than that, puffed up through knowledge of this kind, he should fall away from that love which is the life of man; and that he should search after no other knowledge except [the knowledge of] Jesus Christ the Son of God, who was crucified for us, than that by subtle questions and hair-splitting expressions he should fall into impiety.

2. For how would it be, if any one, gradually elated by attempts of the kind referred to, should, because the Lord said that even the hairs of your head are all numbered, Matthew 10:30 set about inquiring into the number of hairs on each one's head, and endeavour to search out the reason on account of which one man has so many, and another so many, since all have not an equal number, but many thousands upon thousands are to be found with still varying numbers, on this account that some have larger and others smaller heads, some have bushy heads of hair, others thin, and others scarcely any hair at all—and then those who imagine that they have discovered the number of the hairs, should endeavour to apply that for the commendation of their own sect which they have conceived? Or again, if any one should, because of this expression which occurs in the Gospel, Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? And not one of them falls to the ground without the will of your Father, Matthew 10:29 take occasion to reckon up the number of sparrows caught daily, whether over all the world or in some particular district, and to make inquiry as to the reason of so many having been captured yesterday, so many the day before, and so many again on this day, and should then join on the number of sparrows to his [particular] hypothesis, would he not in that case mislead himself altogether, and drive into absolute insanity those that agreed with him, since men are always eager in such matters to be thought to have discovered something more extraordinary than their masters?
[ Schaff has the interesting note: "Illustrated by the history of modern thought in Germany" the motherland of "higher criticism."]
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iii.xxvii.html

3. But if any one should ask us whether every number of all the things which have been made, and which are made, is known to God, and whether every one of these [numbers] has, according to His providence, received that special amount which it contains; and on our agreeing that such is the case, and acknowledging that not one of the things which have been, or are, or shall be made, escapes the knowledge of God, but that through His providence every one of them has obtained its nature, and rank, and number, and special quantity, and that nothing whatever either has been or is produced in vain or accidentally, but with exceeding suitability [to the purpose intended], and in the exercise of transcendent knowledge, and that it was an admirable and truly divine intellect which could both distinguish and bring forth the proper causes of such a system: if, [I say,] any one, on obtaining our adherence and consent to this, should proceed to reckon up the sand and pebbles of the earth, yea also the waves of the sea and the stars of heaven, and should endeavour to think out the causes of the number which he imagines himself to have discovered, would not his labour be in vain, and would not such a man be justly declared mad, and destitute of reason, by all possessed of common sense? And the more he occupied himself beyond others in questions of this kind, and the more he imagines himself to find out beyond others, styling them unskilful, ignorant, and animal beings, because they do not enter into his so useless labour, the more is he [in reality] insane, foolish, struck as it were with a thunderbolt, since indeed he does in no one point own himself inferior to God; but, by the knowledge which he imagines himself to have discovered, he changes God Himself, and exalts his own opinion above the greatness of the Creator.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103226.htm
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: xariskai on August 22, 2010, 03:01:33 AM
Quote from: xariskai
Alfred, forgive me for not having read most of the thread, but what is your view about parallel texts in the Synoptic Gospels? If you were to find a certain saying of Jesus, for example, worded in a certain way in Mark, but in a different way in Matthew or Luke -perhaps with things added or taken away, or perhaps in some cases where reasonable allegations (whether they are true or not) of contradiction or incompatibility were made by investigators who seem at least on the surface rationally credible, would you say in such an instance that only one of the Gospels could possibly be inspired by the Holy Spirit, seeing as the words used to express the same thing are often so very different?

Is it impossible to suppose four Gospels are inspired by the same Spirit if they contain three or four different renditions of a given thing?

If a Bible writer following the Heb. against the LXX "proves the LXX is not inspired," if Matthew follows Mark against Luke in a narrative, would this in your eyes prove the Gospel Luke is not inspired?

I agree with you
If you are really agreeing, I have suggested your argument is nugatory:
"A Bible writer following the Heb. against the LXX "proves the LXX is not inspired" is nugatory unless the following is sound:
"Matthew following Mark against Luke "prove the Gospel Luke is not inspired."

That is because both arguments have the same structure:
A following B against C proves C is not inspired.

If you are agreeing with me, are you agreeing, then, that your argument in boldface does not follow?
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Azul on August 22, 2010, 06:05:08 AM
On the contrary the book of Hebrews prooves that the Septuagint is inspired.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 22, 2010, 03:54:16 PM
Having gone through all the examples of the Hebrew being cited against the Septuagint listed in "Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey (by G.C. Chirichigno, Moody Bible Inst., Chicago, 1983), Category C, p. xxvi...

I found no smoking gun where the essential idea being cited, contradicted the Septuagint. The differences in the versions then were irrelevant and fell within the range of a literal to paraphrase translation,  having no material effect on the essential idea being cited.

To illustrate, at first read this seems to be against the Septuagint:

145
NKJ  Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" (Mat 27:46 NKJ)
LXE  Psalm 22:1 ...O God, my God, attend to me: why hast thou forsaken me? the account of my transgressions is far from my salvation. (Psa 22:1 LXE)

NKJ  Psalm 22:1 ...My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? Why are You so far from helping Me, And from the words of My groaning?  (Psa 22:1 NKJ)

The Septuagint inserts "πρόσχες μοι" ("attend to me")  which change is not followed by Matthew's Aramaic translation of the Hebrew.

But the text is citing Jesus, not the Old Testament.


Below are the Category C examples, and sometimes relevant material. But if the texts stand alone without comment its because I didn't consider the difference proving anything beyond the fact translation can range from woodenly literal to lose paraphrase.

But the same can be said for the examples of the Septuagint being cited against the Hebrew...the differences fall within the acceptable range of translation.


From Survey of Old Testament Quotations, p. xxvi
40
NKJ  Romans 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth." (Rom 9:17 NKJ)

LXA  Exodus 9:16 And for this purpose hast thou been preserved, that I might display in thee my strength, and that my name might be published in all the earth.

NKJ  Exodus 9:16 "But indeed for this purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.

The LXX changed the Hebrew 05975 עָמַד `amad ("raised you up") to 1301 διατηρέω diatereo ("hast thou been preserved").

There are two main interpretations of this word possible. (1) It has been taken to mean, ‘I have raised thee up from sickness,’ so Gif and others, ‘I have preserved thee and not taken thy life as I might have done.’ This is in all probability the meaning of the original Hebrew, ‘I made thee to stand,’ and certainly that of the LXX, which paraphrases the words διετηρήθης. It is supported also by a reading in the Hexapla διετήρησά σε, by the Targum of Onkelos Sustinui te ut ostenderem tibi, and the Arabic Te reservavi ut ostenderem tibi.  


##
107
NKJ  Matthew 22:24 saying: "Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. (Mat 22:24 NKJ)

Matthew uses "Brother in law", a technical term (cf Delitzsch Hebrew NT)
asking, "Teacher, Moses said, 'IF A MAN DIES HAVING NO CHILDREN, HIS BROTHER AS NEXT OF KIN (epigambreusei, 1918) SHALL MARRY HIS WIFE, AND RAISE UP CHILDREN FOR HIS BROTHER.'
 (Mat 22:24 NAU)
 "When brothers live on the same property and one of them dies without a son, the wife of the dead man may not marry a stranger outside the family. Her brother-in-law(yabaamaah, 2993) is to take her as his wife, have sexual relations with her, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law for her.
 (Deu 25:5 CSB)

And if brethren should live together, and one of them should die, and should not have seed, the wife of the deceased shall not marry out of the family to a man not related: her husband's brother(ho adelphos tou andros autes) shall go in to her, and shall take her to himself for a wife, and shall dwell with her.
 (Deu 25:5 LXE)

##
114

"Vegence is mine, I will repay" is literally correct for Deu 32:35; LXX  "in the day of vengeance I will repay,"
NKJ  Romans 12:19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. (Rom 12:19 NKJ)

NKJ  Deuteronomy 32:35 Vengeance is Mine, and recompense; Their foot shall slip in due time; For the day of their calamity is at hand, And the things to come hasten upon them.'
 (Deu 32:35 NKJ)

LXE  Deuteronomy 32:35 In the day of vengeance(en hemera ekdikeseos) I will recompense, whensoever their foot shall be tripped up; for the day of their destruction is near to them, and the judgments at hand are close upon you. (Deu 32:35 LXE)

##
124, 129

Paul correctly translates the Hebrew ba'aaramaam chakaamiym Lokeed (6193 2450 3920) as drassomenos en tee panourgia auton, not following the Septuagint's katalambanon en te phronesei.:

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their own craftiness"; (1Co 3:19 NKJ)

He catches the wise in their own craftiness, And the counsel of the cunning comes quickly upon them. (Job 5:13 NKJ)

 Job 5:13 who takes the wise in their wisdom, and subverts the counsel of the crafty (Job 5:13 LXE)
This is the only passage of Job expressly cited in the NT; the form of the citation (ὁ δρασσόμενος τοὺς σοφοὺς ἐν τῇ πανουργίᾳ αὐτῶν) differs from that of the LXX (ὁ καταλαμβάνων σοφοὺς ἐν τῇ φρονήσει [αὐτῶν]), but it is not known whether Paul is translating directly from the Hebrew himself, or using another Greek version.


##
131
NKJ  Romans 11:35 "Or who has first given to Him And it shall be repaid to him?"
 (Rom 11:35 NKJ)

LXE  Job 41:11 Or who will resist me, and abide, since the whole world under heaven is mine?
 (Job 41:11 LXE)

##
145
NKJ  Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" (Mat 27:46 NKJ)
LXE  Psalm 22:1 ...O God, my God, attend to me: why hast thou forsaken me? the account of my transgressions is far from my salvation. (Psa 22:1 LXE)

NKJ  Psalm 22:1 ...My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? Why are You so far from helping Me, And from the words of My groaning?  (Psa 22:1 NKJ)

The Septuagint inserts "πρόσχες μοι" ("attend to me")  which change is not followed by Matthew's Aramaic translation of the Hebrew.

But its citing Jesus, not a quote.

##
157, 170

NKJ  Matthew 13:35 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: "I will open My mouth in parables; I will utter things kept secret from the foundation of the world." (Mat 13:35 NKJ)

LXE  Psalm 78:2 I will open my mouth in parables: I will utter dark sayings which have been from the beginning.

NKJ  Psalm 78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old,


##
188
NKJ  2 Corinthians 9:9 As it is written: "He has dispersed abroad, He has given to the poor; His righteousness endures forever."
 (2Co 9:9 NKJ)

LXE  Psalm 112:9 He has dispersed abroad; he has given to the poor; his righteousness endures for evermore: his horn shall be exalted with honour.

NKJ  Psalm 112:9 He has dispersed abroad, He has given to the poor; His righteousness endures forever; His horn will be exalted with honor.

##

204
NKJ  2 Peter 2:22 But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: "A dog returns to his own vomit," and, "a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire."
 (2Pe 2:22 NKJ)
LXE  Proverbs 26:11 As when a dog goes to his own vomit, and becomes abominable, so is fool who returns in his wickedness to his own sin. [There is a shame that brings sin: and there is a shame that is glory and grace.]

NKJ  Proverbs 26:11 As a dog returns to his own vomit, So a fool repeats his folly.

##
206
NKJ  John 12:40 "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them."
 (Joh 12:40 NKJ)

9 And He said, "Go, and tell this people:`Keep on hearing, but do not understand; Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.'
 10 "Make the heart of this people dull, And their ears heavy, And shut their eyes; Lest they see with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, And return and be healed."
 (Isa 6:9-10 NKJ)

9 Ye shall hear indeed, but ye shall not understand; and ye shall see indeed, but ye shall not perceive.
 10 For the heart of this people has become gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
 (Isa 6:9-10 LXA)

###

209
NKJ  Romans 9:33 As it is written: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."
 (Rom 9:33 NKJ)

LXA  Isaiah 28:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord, even the Lord, Behold, I lay for the foundations of Sion a costly stone, a choice, a corner-stone, a precious stone, for its foundations; and he that believes on him shall by no means be ashamed.

NKJ  Isaiah 28:16 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation, A tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation; Whoever believes will not act hastily.


##
211
15 "The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, By the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles:
 16 The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light, And upon those who sat in the region and shadow of death Light has dawned."
 (Mat 4:15-16 NKJ)

LXE  Isaiah 9:1 and he that is in anguish shall not be distressed only for a time. Drink this first. Act quickly, O land of Zabulon, land of Nephthalim, and the rest inhabiting the sea-coast, and the land beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles.
 2 O people walking in darkness, behold a great light: ye that dwell in the region and shadow of death, a light shall shine upon you.
 (Isa 9:1-2 LXE)

NKJ  Isaiah 9:1 Nevertheless the gloom will not be upon her who is distressed, As when at first He lightly esteemed The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, And afterward more heavily oppressed her, By the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, In Galilee of the Gentiles.
 2 The people who walked in darkness Have seen a great light; Those who dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, Upon them a light has shined.
 (Isa 9:1-2 NKJ)
##
 217
NKJ  1 Corinthians 15:54 So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory."
 (1Co 15:54 NKJ)
LXE  Isaiah 25:8 Death has prevailed and swallowed men up; but again the Lord God has taken away every tear from every face. He has taken away the reproach of his people from all the earth: for the mouth of the Lord has spoken it.

NKJ  Isaiah 25:8 He will swallow up death forever, And the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces; The rebuke of His people He will take away from all the earth; For the LORD has spoken.

NKJ  1 Corinthians 15:55 "O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?" (1Co 15:55 NKJ)
LXE  Hosea 13:14 I will deliver them out of the power of Hades, and will redeem them from death: where is thy penalty, O death? O Hades, where is thy sting? comfort is hidden from mine eyes.

NKJ  Hosea 13:14 "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. O Death, I will be your plagues! O Grave, I will be your destruction! Pity is hidden from My eyes."


##
308
NKJ  John 19:37 And again another Scripture says, "They shall look on Him whom they pierced."
 (Joh 19:37 NKJ)

LXE  Zechariah 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and compassion: and they shall look upon me, because they have mocked me, and they shall make lamentation for him, as for a beloved friend, and they shall grieve intensely, as for a firstborn son.

NKJ  Zechariah 12:10 "And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.

##
309
NKJ  Matthew 26:31 Then Jesus said to them, "All of you will be made to stumble because of Me this night, for it is written:`I will strike the Shepherd, And the sheep of the flock will be scattered.' (Mat 26:31 NKJ)

LXE  Zechariah 13:7 Awake, O sword, against my shepherds, and against the man who is my citizen, saith the Lord Almighty: smite the shepherds, and draw out the sheep: and I will bring mine hand upon the little ones.

NKJ  Zechariah 13:7 "Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd, Against the Man who is My Companion," Says the LORD of hosts. "Strike the Shepherd, And the sheep will be scattered; Then I will turn My hand against the little ones.


END

So which version to I believe Christ referred to here:

KJV  Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Mat 5:18 KJV)

Neither. Its hyperbole meaning not the smallest meaning will pass till all be fulfilled. Jots and tittles often have no meaning at all, whether these figuratively refer to Hebrew script, or Greek   ἰῶτα ἢ κεραία.

So I thank God His Word endures forever, and believe with the help of all these versions God in His providence preserved for us, we can know the truth and the truth will set us free. Fact is, regardless whether one accepts only the Septuagint, or the Massoretic, or the Peshitto, or the Peshitta...I believe they have the whole infallible counsel of God.

As I predicate inerrancy only to the autographs, I rejoice God has granted us these versions to enable precise translation of the consonantal text.

For me, Paul's words identify the precise version to accept as "the Old Testament of the apostles":

KJV  Romans 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
 3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
 4 God forbid:
 (Rom 3:1-4 KJV)

That Hebrew text survives in the Masoretic today and with the aid of these other versions, we can correct any mistaken exegesis.



However, regardless which version one believes, they can be confident its God's Word, He really said it, and therefore Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. All these versions prove that beyond any reasonable doubt.


Of course this does not imply I accept apocryphal books at all, indeed I do not, also based upon Romans 3:1-4. The fact the Christian church cannot agree on the canon of the OT confirms this, we were never given that authority. Our agreement on  the NT indicates our sphere of operation.

And this means I cannot accept the Orthodox view the Septuagint changes are inspired, and must be accepted. It is demonstrable from the above the NT writers did not subscribe to that theory.

Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Melodist on August 23, 2010, 12:26:11 AM
Unsound ad hominem, irrelevant immaterial and incompetent when judging the question of icons. But I digress, I have to use my limited time to wade through the alleged proofs for the Septuagint...only because it interests me, not to prove my point for that post itself listed instances where Bible writers followed the Hebrew, against the Septuagint...which proves the Orthodox wrong according to apostolic doctrine.

Romans 3:4?

KJV Rom 3:4
God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

KJV Ps 51:4
Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.

OSB Ps 50:6
Against You only have I sinned And done evil in Your sight; That You may be justified in Your words, And overcome when You are judged.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: ialmisry on August 23, 2010, 11:17:39 PM
I'm not a big fan of St. Jerome, except that he preserves and summarizes things lost elsewhere.  He has an interesting summary on St. Matthew:
Quote
Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek, though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Cæsarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Berœa, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist Out of Egypt have I called my son, and for he shall be called a Nazarene.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/30091.htm
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Nigula Qian Zishi on August 25, 2010, 08:56:03 AM
A short section of 1 Enoch (1En1:9) is quoted in the New Testament (Letter of Jude 1:14-15), and there apparently attributed to "Enoch the Seventh from Adam" (1En60:8). It is argued that all the writers of the New Testament were familiar with it and were influenced by it in thought and diction.

The book is referred to, and quoted, in Jude 14-15:
"And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these [men], saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

Compare this with Enoch 1:9, translated from the Ethiopic (found also in Qumran scroll 4Q204=4QEnochc ar, col I 16-18

"And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones To execute judgement upon all, And to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him."

It may be significant that the attribution "Enoch the Seventh from Adam" is apparently itself a section heading taken from 1 Enoch (1En 60:8, Jude1:14a), and not from Genesis.

Another probable Biblical reference can be found in I Peter 3:19,20 to En. 21:6.

1 Enoch is considered as Scripture in the Epistle of Barnabas (16:4) and by many of the early Church Fathers as Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus and Tertullian who wrote c. 200 that the Book of Enoch had been rejected by the Jews because it contained prophecies pertaining to Christ
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: DennyB on August 29, 2010, 10:07:30 AM

You are evading the question: how do you fault the Church of Christ and His Apostles for doing so, when you confess that the changes made AFTER Christ came, AFTER He found His One, Holy, Catholic and Apstolic Orthodox Church on His Apostles, AFTER said Church met in Ecumenical Council for the last time (for now), said changes among the Jews walking in the way of the Pharisees, Scribres and Saduccees are to be accepted as God's continuing revelation?

You equivocate, if the Orthodox church today were the primitive version, Nicea and earlier, I'd be Orthodox.

Like Catholicism, you believe in many things the primitive Orthodox would reject.

Hence Orthodoxy today is not apostolic, a Christian who confesses only what is seen in scripture, is rejected by you as heretical.

Yet these were perfectly acceptable to Christ and His apostles.


NKJ  Acts 17:11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
 (Act 17:11 NKJ)

NKJ  Jude 1:3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
 (Jud 1:3 NKJ)

NKJ  2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. (2Th 2:15 NKJ)

Apostolic doctrine once delivered by them is what primitive Orthodox believe, not many of the things the Orthodox have added.

Your mistake is best illustrated by analogy.

The apostles baked a cake using 10 ingredients.
The Modern Orthodox bake a cake using the same 10 ingredients, but add another 10 of their own and claim its the same cake.

Its not.




What are you saying Orthodoxy added to the cake after Nicea?  Trinitarian theology (2nd Council)?  Rejection of Nestorianism (3rd Council)?   Rejection of Monophysitism (4th Council)?  The 5th Council reaffirmed these rejections. The 6th Council rejected Monothelitism.  

We know your feelings on the 7th Council, so please, tell us, where did Orthodoxy go wrong?  At what point did we add to the "cake"?  

Athanasius made clear he was repeating apostolic doctrine re the Holy Trinity, not inventing it.

I reject ALL the councils, only those the apostles participated in, in Jerusalem, were apostolic.

Christianity did just fine while the Roman Christians were hiding in catacombs, and not one of us were bowing down to images, we conquered the world....then the world took charge via Constantine, and heresy after heresy was added...along with a few doctrines that were sound...

You asked what doctrine, any that can't be found taught in scripture.



The Scriptures are a concise,systematic,and academic textbook on Christian theology!!! NOT!!! Please take your western post-enlightenment drivel elsewhere!!
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: William on January 01, 2012, 11:44:39 PM
I wonder if the deletions from Job were inspired. Were the deleted parts uninspired or were they unimportant enough that the Spirit allowed the human editors to do their thing so long as they didn't mar the core of the book?
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: William on January 02, 2012, 12:01:34 AM
And that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which also pre-date the earliest MT manuscrupt, "gel" more with the LXX, right?

I haven't read the thread, so excuse me if this already came up. Can anyone provide me with some articles about this? In what little I've read (a biased pro-MT article) it has been claimed that the Dead Sea Scroll fragments align closest with the Masoretic.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 04, 2012, 11:28:19 PM
I wonder if the deletions from Job were inspired. Were the deleted parts uninspired or were they unimportant enough that the Spirit allowed the human editors to do their thing so long as they didn't mar the core of the book?

I am not aware of the passages you're referencing, but it does seem that you're perhaps misunderstanding the Orthodox understanding of inspiration. It is not afraid of human editors and multiple texts. The Scripture as the word of God is not pre-eternal and inerrant like the pre-eternal Logoit is. The text was inspired by the Holy Spirit, but it written and edited by men. It is interpreted by the Holy Fathers of the Church, but we take their consensus as more trustworthy than the opinion of one. Otherwise, the Bible would be like the Koran, which is sort of the way many Protestants treat it.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 04, 2012, 11:30:26 PM
And that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which also pre-date the earliest MT manuscrupt, "gel" more with the LXX, right?

I haven't read the thread, so excuse me if this already came up. Can anyone provide me with some articles about this? In what little I've read (a biased pro-MT article) it has been claimed that the Dead Sea Scroll fragments align closest with the Masoretic.

I saw an exhibit of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It mentioned how Isaiah in particular matched the Septuagint, as well as well as the Samaritan text.
Title: Re: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Post by: HabteSelassie on January 05, 2012, 03:28:19 PM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

I wonder if the deletions from Job were inspired. Were the deleted parts uninspired or were they unimportant enough that the Spirit allowed the human editors to do their thing so long as they didn't mar the core of the book?

I am not aware of the passages you're referencing, but it does seem that you're perhaps misunderstanding the Orthodox understanding of inspiration. It is not afraid of human editors and multiple texts. The Scripture as the word of God is not pre-eternal and inerrant like the pre-eternal Logoit is. The text was inspired by the Holy Spirit, but it written and edited by men. It is interpreted by the Holy Fathers of the Church, but we take their consensus as more trustworthy than the opinion of one. Otherwise, the Bible would be like the Koran, which is sort of the way many Protestants treat it.

Amen!

Quote
We in Ethiopia have one of the oldest versions of the Bible, but however old the version may be, in whatever language it might be written, the word remains the same, It transcends all boundaries of empires and all conceptions of race. It is eternal.
HIM Haile Selassie I

stay blessed,
habte selassie