[kosta50]

Okay, HD, I will answer you one more time and that's it. You can have the last word; my pay is the same.

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?

Yes I would very much like to have the original of every book of the Bible. No it wouldn't help my faith. I have faith, just not the pre-fabricated type most others do.

There is sufficient reason to believe that what we have today accurately reflect the things God wishes to communicate with us

Scriptures are full of human redactions and erros. It may be 'sufficient reason' for you.

These things were handed down to us by the Jews and our church fathers

So, now you base your faith on men?

Well, if this isn’t confusing.

Wrong. I mentioned Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and Alexandrinus; these are complete Bibles (OT and NT), the oldest ones we have. The Alandrinus (5th century AD) has a lot of additional text that makes it more "Christian" in both the OT and the NT. The original Septuagint had no Christian bias; Christ wasn't around yet.

It's confusing only if you don't know the subject but rely on Google wisdom.

Kosta [Septuagint, the Essene Hebrew text, the Sadducee Bible and the Pharisaical Hebrew text] were all Hebrew text and they did not contain the same canon (for the nth time)

HD Wrong. They were NOT the same canon...

Thank you, you actually agreed with me. :)

They were different Septuagints

No they were not. Go back and Google some more.

I’m not sure who translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek

That's obvious top anyone who knows even the basics about the Septuagint.

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 Hebrews (Jews) who lived in Alexandria 200 years BEFORE Christ. They spoke Greek the way sapnish Jews speak Spanish. It doesn't make them 'less' Jewish.

They had no agenda. The rabbis in Jamnia did. The various Christian scribes who aletered the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus did. The onyl agenda the Alexandrian Jews has in 3rd century BC was to have a Bible (OT) they can read in their language.

You would also not have made the above comment because the Masoretes confirmed the Christians were using the same text as the Jews

Which Christians? The Orthodox Church NEVER used the Masoretic Text. Your Masorets are rabbinical Jews, former Pharisees, who represent only one of several Jewish sects at the time of Jesus, and their canon did nbot agree with the canon of other equally Jewish sects. They are the only surviving sect so their canon became 'the" Hebrew canon to those who are confused.

There was no disagreement in scripture between the two groups; only theological

Yes there is. The Apostles used the septuagint. The early Church used the Septuagint, The Orthodox Church uses the Septuagint. Only the Protestants use the Masoretic Text.

[HarleyD]

There is no need to rehash this. You obviously have not and refuse to look at the various articles on the Bible Research website. With all due respect, this "rabbis in Jamnia" is simply garbage and revisionist theology, used by Orthodox, Roman Catholics and atheists simply to smear the holy scriptures of God. It has no basis in fact as many times as you would like to post it.

It would be rather laughable, if it wasn't so sad that the Catholics would join in for Jerome translated the Vulgate directly from the Hebrew. Now do they want to say that Jerome wrongly translated the Latin Vulgate? Did Jerome waste his time? What utter nonsense.

I would just encourage readers to study the formation of scriptures and then simply ask themselves what would they prefer to follow, the word of God or a man-made institution that denigrates and cast doubt on God's word.

And if those also who follow heresies venture to avail themselves of the prophetic Scriptures; in the first place they will not make use of all the Scriptures, and then they will not quote them entire, nor as the body and texture of prophecy prescribe. But, selecting ambiguous expressions, they wrest them to their own opinions, gathering a few expressions here and there; not looking to the sense, but making use of the mere words. For in almost all the quotations they make, you will find that they attend to the names alone, while they alter the meanings; neither knowing, as they affirm, nor using the quotations they adduce, according to their true nature.

But the truth is not found by changing the meanings (for so people subvert all true teaching), but in the consideration of what perfectly belongs to and becomes the Sovereign God, and in establishing each one of the points demonstrated in the Scriptures again from similar Scriptures. Neither, then, do they want to turn to the truth, being ashamed to abandon the claims of self-love; nor are they able to manage their opinions, by doing violence to the Scriptures. But having first promulgated false dogmas to men; plainly fighting against almost the whole Scriptures, and constantly confuted by us who contradict them; for the rest, even now partly they hold out against admitting the prophetic Scriptures, and partly disparage us as of a different nature, and incapable of understanding what is peculiar to them. And sometimes even they deny their own dogmas, when these are confuted, being ashamed openly to own what in private they glory in teaching. For this may be seen in all the heresies, when you examine the iniquities of their dogmas. For when they are overturned by our clearly showing that they are opposed to the Scriptures, one of two things may be seen to have been done by those who defend the dogma. For they either despise the consistency of their own dogmas, or despise the prophecy itself, or rather their own hope. And they invariably prefer what seems to them to be more evident to what has been spoken by the Lord through the prophets and by the Gospel, and, besides, attested and confirmed by the apostles. - Clement of Alexandria