Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

[ialmisry]

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:

"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.

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

[ialmisry]

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?

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.

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.

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: . - Fr. George, Global Mod

[bogdan]

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.

[ialmisry]

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.

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.

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.

...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

[theistgal]

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.

[Alfred Persson]

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.

[Nigula Qian Zishi]

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!

[ialmisry]

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

[Alfred Persson]

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?

[FormerReformer]

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?

[ialmisry]

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.

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.

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.

...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?

[Alfred Persson]

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.

[FormerReformer]

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"? 

[ialmisry]

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?

[Alfred Persson]

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.

[FormerReformer]

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.

[Alfred Persson]

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.

[ialmisry]

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.

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

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:

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.

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

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.

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.

(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.

[FormerReformer]

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.

[Alfred Persson]

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.

[ialmisry]

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

[ialmisry]

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?

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.

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."

[ialmisry]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

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

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?



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.

[Alfred Persson]

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.

[ialmisry]

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

Deut 32:43 and Scribal Emendation
 

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

[ialmisry]

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.

[ialmisry]

‘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.

[xariskai]

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?

[Alfred Persson]

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.

[Azul]

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.

[ialmisry]

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

[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?

[Azul]

On the contrary the book of Hebrews prooves that the Septuagint is inspired.

[Alfred Persson]

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.

[Melodist]

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.

[ialmisry]

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:

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

[Nigula Qian Zishi]

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

[DennyB]

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!!

[William]

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?

[William]

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.

[Shanghaiski]

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.

[Shanghaiski]

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.

[HabteSelassie]

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!

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

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Topic: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?