[kosta50]

The point you made earlier was the translation from Greek to English is flawed. You cannot make an accurate translation. Using your logic with the Septuagint, which is a Greek translation of the Hebrew text, then the Septuagint must be flawed

Just the fact that we have no originals of any of the books of the Bible leaves the possibility that each and every one of them is flawed too.

My complaint about the English translations from Greek is that KJV was translated with clear Protestant bias, that words were added or subtracted, as the authors saw fit form their perspective, avoiding "catholic" concepts and terms.

The Septuagint has a lot of variations. The older one, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (4th c. AD) are 'less Christian' than the Alexandrian version (5th c. AD) used by the Orthodox Church. obviosuly, as was the case with the KJV, there was an agenda to fulfill by altering the texts.

The much bigger issue with the Septuagint is the canon itself, because it differs from bot the Essene and Pharisaical and Sadducee versions. But one thing is clearly lacking from the Septuagint: an agenda. It was compiled before Christ, so there was no "Christian bias" in it. Secondly, it was done by the Jews for the Jews of the same community.

Thus when the Greeks went to translate the Hebrew text, they had to make choices

It is clear from the way you write that you don't know the subject. The Greeks never translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek. The Hebrews (Jews) did. Not one, not a dozen, but 72 Jewish scholars, roughly 200 years before Christ was born, completed this project using whatever Hebrew text they used in their services.

This does not mean that their Hebrew text agreed with the Qumran Hebrew text, or the Sadducee Hebrew Text or the Pharisee (Jordanian) Hebrew text! They were all Hebrew text and they did not contain the same canon (for the n^th time).

The translation was intended for the Jewish population of Alexandria which spoke Greek (since Alexandria was a Greek colony), the way the majority of American Jews speak English who have have no or only rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew.

Thus, the Septuagint was not by the Greeks, for the Greeks, but by the Jews, for the Jews. The priests and rabbis of Alexandria apparently taught it was good enough. I think 72 Jewish scholars along with Jewish priests and rabbis saying it (with ALL its books) was good enough was good enough for a few hundred years. It was certainly good enough for the Apiostles.

The Christ-denying rabbis of Jamnia (100 AD) decided otherwise. Since the Apostles used the Septuagint as the OT reference in their Gospels and Epistles to promote Christianity, and since they were teaching Greek-speaking Jews and Gentiles, the rabbis all of a sudden found the Septuagint 'objectionable" and threw it out, from cover to cover, along with the New Testament.

If your article has any credibility, which it doesn't, it would observe that if the canon was set the rabbis would have had NO reason to 're-set' it at Jamnia. Obviously the canon was not set because neither the Essenes nor the Sadducees, nor the Greek-speaking Jews, nor the Pharisees had the same canon.

Since only the Pharisee sect survived, morphing into rabbinical Judaism we know today, they can say that (their) Hebrew text was pretty much set all along. Trouble is, their Hebrew text did not correspond with the sadducee Hebrew text or the Essene Hebrew text or the Septuagint.

Their claim is clearly misleading, since the people today assume that Judiasm of today represnets all the Jewish sects of pre-Christian Israel. Which is false. These facts have been repeated ad nauseum on this forum but, as jo kus observed, it seems of no avail.

[kawaii]

well said.

[blue-duncan]

"Thus, the Septuagint was not by the Greeks, for the Greeks, but by the Jews, for the Jews"

Actually, to be more precise, it was for the Hellenistic Jews. The nationalistic Jews maintained the Hebrew scriptures and they controlled the Temple worship.

[jo kus]

These facts have been repeated ad nauseum on this forum but, as jo kus observed, it seems of no avail.

Agreed. And we know why. It is easier to destroy then to defend something. Since they can't defend their theology, it would seem to be easier to try to tear down the history behind others - refusing to hear the defense. I think every few months, I find myself posting and reposting the defense of the Church Fathers and their view on the Canon. I think we are at the point in this thread where we can just move on, since the ones left aren't going to change their minds or opinions, anyway. They would rather take the Jewish side on Scriptures - even if it includes the tearing down of the Gospels - if the Church is smeared.

Regards

[HarleyD]

Just the fact that we have no originals of any of the books of the Bible leaves the possibility that each and every one of them is flawed too.

Do you need to have the original? Would that help your faith? If the original Hebrew manuscripts were here in front of you, missing the vowels, would that help? There is sufficient reason to believe that what we have today accurately reflect the things God wishes to communicate with us. These things were handed down to us by the Jews and our church fathers.

The Septuagint has a lot of variations….there was an agenda to fulfill by altering the texts….But one thing is clearly lacking from the Septuagint: an agenda.

Well, if this isn’t confusing.

Your belief that Protestants had an agenda simply underscores how little you understand about true Protestants and their appreciation for the word of God. That is one of the reasons Protestants have been the driving force in distributing God’s written word. Both the Hebrew and Greek versions and study tools are documented and on line thanks to Protestants.

Catholics hide their version in a vault and Orthodox haven't got around to writing theirs yet. Protestants want people to see what is actually there. There is no agenda.

It is clear from the way you write that you don't know the subject. The Greeks never translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek.

Of course I don’t know what I'm talking about. That’s why I referred you to a website by someone who DOES know what he’s talking about. I’m not sure who translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek. All I can say is that it was someone who knew Greek and it must have been intended for someone who read Greek (and they had an agenda).

They were all Hebrew text and they did not contain the same canon (for the nth time).

Wrong. They were NOT the same canon. They were different Septuagints, a subtle but distinct difference. The Hebrew canon remained the same. As I posted above, the Masoretes Jews sorted the various Septuagints out and confirmed that what was being used by the Christian fathers was indeed the right version.

If your article has any credibility, which it doesn't, it would observe that if the canon was set the rabbis would have had NO reason to 're-set' it at Jamnia.

If you would have taken any time at all to look at the website, you would find that it isn’t ONE article but many different articles explaining the evolution of scripture. You would also not have made the above comment because the Masoretes confirmed the Christians were using the same text as the Jews. Both group used the Masorete’s text. There was no disagreement in scripture between the two groups; only theological. What was missing from the Masorete's text in 100AD was the Apocrypha.

I would suggest you're the one who has their facts confused, and I'm not even the expert you claim you are.