[HarleyD]

I have no clue why you quote a man who 'understood' the scrptire so 'spiritually' he became a Gnostic,

I was raising the point of how the fathers (even the Gnostic ones) reveared the scriptures.
"If one carefully reads the Scriptures, he will find there the word on the subject of Christ -- de Christo sermonem -- and the prefiguration of the new calling. He is indeed the hidden treasure in the field -- the field in fact is the world -- but in truth, the hidden treasure in the Scriptures is Christ. Because he is designed by types and words that humanly are not possible to understand before the accomplishment of all things, that is, Christ's parousia (coming)." - Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, c. 140-200

“You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.” - Augustine of Hippo, 5th century

"Every part of Holy Writ announces through words the coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ, reveals it through facts and establishes it through examples. ..For it is our Lord who during all the present age, through true and manifest adumbrations, generates, cleanses, sanctified, chooses, separates, or redeems the Church in the Patriarchs, through Adam's slumber, Noah's flood, Melchizedek's blessing, Abraham's justification, Isaac's birth, and Jacob's bondage." - Hilary of Poitiers, written around 350 AD

Yes, Origen later fell into Gnosticism. But it's interesting that Irenaeus, Hilary, Augustine, and others knew and distinguished the "scriptures" from other traditional works. Even the Gnostic Origen

and how this relates to the Septuagint.

The Septuagint, or simply "LXX", is the name commonly given in the West to the ancient, Koine Greek version of the Old Testament translated in stages between the 3rd to 1st century BC in Alexandria. It is the oldest of several ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek. - Wikipedia

According to your logic, since the Septuagint is a translation, it is flawed. Furthermore, since the Hebrew is corrupt (as you claim), then the Septuagint is a flawed translation based upon a corrupted text. You may wish to discuss this among your Orthodox brethren.

This silly argument was never the view of the church fathers-even the Gnostic ones.

[kosta50]

Irenaeus and other, for you information, considered some of the 'apocrypha' as inspired. Most of what they accepted or rejected was based on personal preference and no hard rule.

[the Septuagint] is the oldest of several ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek. - Wikipedia

The issue was not with translations, but with the books contained in it. The books the Protestants consider 'apocryphal' were part of the Septuagint long before Christ. If they were there, it means that whatever "Hebrew Bible" the 72 scribes used as their original text, contained them too.

The whole point was that the Jewish canon was not set. Obviously, the Alexandrian Jews belonged to a sect whose canon differed from that of the Essenes and Pharisees and Sadducees (all of whom had very different theologies). The Sadducees, for example, considered as canonical only the Five Books of Moses. For them the Pharisee canon was full of 'apocrypha.' The Essenes has numerous revelations not found in others, etc.

As for translations, yes, of course, something is always lost in translation.But transcribing errors and other omissions/deletions are common to manual copying.

Given that we have no original of any part of the Bible whatsoever, we must assume that there is a possibility of error, loss, etc. because whatever extant copies we do have show great variations in context and content, in places where the scribes felt that their predecessors had to make a mistake, and changed whatever text seemed more. appropriate.

This silly argument was never the view of the church fathers-even the Gnostic ones.

You have no proof whatsoever that the originals resemble any particular version of the Bible in their entirety. The only silly thing is people being so gullible as to assume that every word in their version of the bible is exactly as God 'dictated' it.