The Character of God’s Words [Septuagint is a Fraud]

The Dean Burgon Society ^ | July, 2005 | H. D. Williams, M.D.

[Titanites]

SO, WHAT IS THE GREEK TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT?

The questions, probabilities, possibilities, problems and use related to the imaginary Septuagint proposed by individuals such as Karen Jobes, Ph.D., Moises Silva, Ph.D., Henry Barclay Swete, D.D., Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton, and the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) have been answered by men in the Dean Burgon Society as well as Dean Burgon himself. In addition, what is so appallingly apparent in the liberal’s dialogue is the paucity of discussion of the Received or Traditional Greek and the Masoretic Text by name. They skirt the issue by glancing comments about recensions, but never, ever discuss the possible implications of thousands of texts from many authors and countries in many languages attesting to the preservation of the Received Text.

Dr. Kirk D. DiVietro and Dr. Floyd Jones have written two poignant astute documents, which are available from Bible For Today concerning the so-called Septuagint. They resoundingly trounce the wild assumptions of the modernistic Septuagint scholars by simple clear concise statements.

Dr. Jones makes a clear statement at the beginning of his treatise on the Septuagint about what is known concerning the Septuagint. He states:

"The Septuagint (LXX) is a very old translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (our Old Testament) into Hellenistic Greek. This statement alone is almost the only hard fact concerning this translation that is verifiable."

The other known fact about the misnomer, Septuagint, is that it is a non-entity. The name is adapted from a fraudulent document, Letter of Aristeas. The only extant Letter is an eleventh century document. Today, the manuscript that is generally called the Septuagint is the Old Testament Greek translation constructed by Origin Adamantius, called Codex B (c.245 A.D.). This is the real recension as opposed to the theoretical recensions of the Received Greek and Hebrew Texts. Codex B is the 5^th (fifth) column of Origin’s Hexapla, a six column parallel Bible. Origen labeled the 5^th (fifth) column the LXX (See the picture on page 5 of this work). This may be observed in the fragment of the Hexapla by Origen found at Milan, Italy in 1896 and published in An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek by Henry Barclay Swete D.D. in 1902.

Dr. DiVietro says:

"Scholars lie. In the case of the Septuagint, the lie is not as overt as usual…The Septuagint, as it is published today, is basically the text of the Old Testament as it appears in Codex B."

Codex B, the LXX, is a revision of the Greek texts extant during Origin’s time. He used the versions of the Ebonite’s’ Aquilla (c. 128), Symmachus (c. 180-192 A.D.), and Theodotin (c. 161-181) for the Hexapla reconstruction, along with three other anonymous translations that have become known as the Quinta, the Sexta, and Septima. From this point on in this paper the OT Greek text, usually misnamed LXX or Septuagint, will be called the Greek Text of Origen, GTO. A Greek text of the minor prophets found in the Judean desert caves dates to around the time of "the second Jewish revolt in the years 132-135" A.D. by the personal letters of Bar Kokhba. They cannot be claimed with any certainty as part of a B.C. Septuagint. As a matter of fact, they contain translational features found in other A.D. texts such as those of Aquila and of the Quinta.

There have been many revisions of GTO. For example, Hesychius of Alexandria (martyred c. 311 A. D.) and Lucian of Antioch, an Arian, (martyred 311) made revisions. There have been dozens of revisions through the centuries. A few of the more recent revisions are "the 1587 Sixtus, Holmes-Parson, von Tischendorf (Swete, p. 187), Swete, the Brooke-McLean great Cambridge edition, and Rahlfs 1935 edition,"

Jerome (340-420 A.D.), a contemporary of Augustine of Hippo, ridicules the GTO often in his letters. However, the texts he used for his translations for Rome were of "the Alexandrian text type." Before reading the following quotes from Jerome’s works, recall he is removed from Origin (182-251 A.D.) by over 150 years. A comparison is to imagine a student in 2005 trying to reconstruct a particular history in 1850 in America without the aid of computers, phones, extensive libraries, airplane travel, and other modern conveniences. In addition, we must remember Jerome was opposed to the independence of local churches from Rome represented by the Waldensians. Lastly, he was obviously duped by the fraudulent Letter of Aristeas, which was allegedly commented on by the Alexandrian Aristobulus, the Neo-plantonist Philo, and the Roman historian, Josephus the Jew. They all add embellishments to the story of the Letter.

Dr. Phil Stringer, President, Landmark Baptist College, states:

Jerome understood that the Septuagint of his day was developed by Origen. He believed that Origen used several different Greek manuscripts and that all of them had been corrupted! He disputed Augustine’s assertion that the apostles usually quoted from the Septuagint! He pointed out that their quotations often don’t match any version of the Septuagint or any other Greek New Testament.

From Jerome’s writings, one can quickly ascertain that Jerome is confused by the term, Septuagint, and denigrated it by the following quotes. Jerome says:

"How can the Septuagint leave out the word ‘Nazarene’ if it is unlawful to substitute one word for another? It is sacriledge either to conceal or to set at naught a mystery."

Let my critics tell me why the Septuagint introduces here the words ‘look thou upon me.’" "For its rendering is as follows, ‘My God, my God, look thou upon me, why hast thou forsaken me.’"

It would be tedious now to enumerate, what great additions and omissions the Septuagint has made, and all the passages which in church-copies are marked with daggers and asterisks.

Yet the Septuagint has rightly kept its place in the churches, either because it is the first of all the versions in time, made before the coming of Christ, or else because it has been used by the apostles (only however in places where it does not disagree with the Hebrews).

The preceding quote reveals that Jerome was duped, also. We know the Apostles did not quote from the "imaginary" (there is no solid evidence it existed before Christ) Septuagint.

Doubtless you already possess the version from the Septuagint which many years ago I diligently revised for the use of students. The new testament I have restored to the authoritative form of the Greek original. For as the true text of the old testament can only be tested by a reference to the Hebrew, so the true text of the new requires for its decision an appeal to the Greek. [my emphasis]

From the previous quote, we should now understand that "the LXX" is just one of the many revisions of the GTO.

Origen, whilst in his other books he has surpassed all others, has in the Song of Songs surpassed himself. He wrote ten volumes upon it, which amount to almost twenty thousand lines, and in these he discussed, first the version of the Seventy Translators, then those of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and lastly, a fifth version which he states that he found on the coast of Atrium, with such magnificence and fullness, that he appears to me to have realized what is said in the poem:

However, no Greek "version of the Seventy Translators" has ever been found, and specifically, no Greek B.C. Song of Songs text. In addition, Jerome goes on to say:

Add to this that Josephus, who gives the story of the Seventy Translators, reports them as translating only the five books of Moses; and we also acknowledge that these are more in harmony with the Hebrew than the rest. [my emphasis]

Surely, the previous quote makes clear the confusion surrounding the Greek text reported by the Letter even during Jerome’s days. Obviously, he was not sure how many, if any, of the Old Testament books had been translated. The following quote establishes that "deceitful" translators also perplexed Jerome

But if, since the version of the Seventy was published, and even now, when the Gospel of Christ is beaming forth, the Jewish Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, judaising heretics, have been welcomed amongst the Greeks—heretics, who, by their deceitful translation, have concealed many mysteries of salvation, and yet, in the Hexapla are found in the Churches and are expounded by churchmen; [then] ought not I, a Christian, born of Christian parents, and who carry the standard of the cross on my brow, and am zealous to recover what is lost, to correct what is corrupt, and to disclose in pure and faithful language the mysteries of the Church, ought not I, let me, ask, much more to escape the reprobation of fastidious or malicious readers? [my emphasis and addition for clarity]

Remember, Origen used the "judaising heretics" versions to make his revision, which is Codex B, the favorite corrupted text of the modernists. The next quote makes it obvious that Origen’s Old Testament Greek text, composed 150 years earlier than Jerome’s existence, was already being called "the Seventy."

I have toiled to translate [and revise—see above and below, HDW] both the Greek versions of the Seventy, and the Hebrew which is the basis of my own, into Latin. [In other words, Jerome made his own revision. HDW.]

As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church. If any one is better pleased with the edition of the Seventy, there it is, long since corrected by me. For it is not our aim in producing the new to destroy the old. And yet if our friend reads carefully, he will find that our version is the more intelligible, for it has not turned sour by being poured three times over into different vessels, but has been drawn straight from the press, and stored in a clean jar, and has thus preserved its own flavor. [my emphasis] [Even Jerome rejected the apocrypha included in the GTO]

In the following quote, Jerome is not clear what he means by "descent of three steps." However, his additional comments above and below lead me to believe that he thought the three steps had corrupted "the Seventy." The comments in the middle of Jerome’s quote to follow are made so that there is no ambiguity. It is interesting in the quote to follow that Jerome confirms Dean Burgon’s comments concerning the "variety" of texts on p. 16

I am not discussing the Old Testament, which was turned into Greek by the Seventy elders, and has reached us by a descent of three steps. I do not ask what Aquila and Symmachus think, or why Theodotion takes a middle course between the ancients and the moderns. I am willing to let that be the true translation which had apostolic approval. [In other words, even though it is "corrupted" Jerome will no longer fight his adversaries, HDW]

I am now speaking of the New Testament. This was undoubtedly composed in Greek, with the exception of the work of Matthew the Apostle, who was the first to commit to writing the Gospel of Christ, and who published his work in Judaea in Hebrew characters. [This is denied. There is no evidence Matthew wrote in Hebrew. HDW] We must confess that as we have it in our language it is marked by discrepancies, and now that the stream is distributed into different channels we must go back to the fountainhead. I pass over those manuscripts which are associated with the names of Lucian and Hesychius,, and the authority of which is perversely maintained by a handful of disputatious persons. It is obvious that these writers could not amend anything in the Old Testament after the labors of the Seventy; and it was useless to correct the New, for versions of Scripture which already exist in the languages of many nations show that their additions are false. I therefore promise in this short Preface the four Gospels only, which are to be taken in the following order, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, as they have been revised by a comparison of the Greek manuscripts. Only early ones have been used. But to avoid any great divergences from the Latin which we are accustomed to read, I have used my pen with some restraint, and while I have corrected only such passages as seemed to convey a different meaning, I have allowed the rest to remain as they are.

THE AGENDA CONCLUDED

So why are "scholars" spending millions of hours and millions of dollars to "reconstruct" a text from corrupted, fraudulent manuscripts, which are often written or "corrected" by unbelievers? There have been many reasons listed by various authors. The underlying spiritual reason for extolling the possible virtues of the GTO has not been clearly stated or has been missed. It is the old old problem recorded for us in the book of Genesis as the etiology for the fall of man. The problem is the refusal to come under authority. The authority of the words of God frightens men. The Apostle John record these words for us, "Never man spake like this man," [Jn. 7:46] because the Lord Jesus Christ spoke with authority. The ultimate agenda of those promoting the LXX is to destroy the authority of God’s words because "Never man spake like this man." His true words frighten men, because if they are preserved, infallible, plenary, and inerrant, they will have to come under their precise and/or specific authority and judgment. Satan and man have fought this authority "from the beginning."

If the truth about the Received Texts (Masoretic and Greek Traditional Text) can be discredited by assumptions and theories, then men can claim we have no absolute authority. Scholars are free to make up their own texts to promote their philosophies. They are free to ignore the precision (jot and tittle) and they are free from following precisely "the ark of the covenant" (see the Introduction to this work)

Dr. Phil Stringer in a recent newsletter gave an opinion why "so many ‘scholars’ [are] so devoted to the Septuagint." He states:

Roman Catholics use the idea that Christ quoted the Septuagint to justly include the apocrypha in their Bibles. Their reasoning goes like this: ‘Christ used and honored the Septuagint, the Septuagint includes the apocrypha, so Christ honored and authorized the apocarypha.’ Since no Hebrew Old Testament ever included the books of the Apocrypha, the Septuagint is the only source the Catholics have for justifying their canon.

The author of this paper is certain that Dr. Stringer’s reason is correct. However, the underlying spiritual problem exhibited by the Catholic religion is the refusal to come under God’s authority. They would rather place their (man’s) tradition on equal footing (as they stated at the Council of Trent), and reject the authority of His preserved words. For anyone to claim the GTO (Origen’s Greek Text) is "the word of God" in light of the confusion surrounding the text as well as the text exhibiting a very "loose," "corrupted translation" is very suspect. Dr. Stringer is correct when he states:

"After all, if Christ did not care about the specific words of Scripture, why should we?...If Christ used the Septuagint then you can put the Bible in your own words in either a paraphrase or your own translation." [specific is another word for precise, HDW]

Dr. Floyd Jones in his book asks: "Why then do conservatives uphold the LXX?" Dr. Jones’ answer to his own question is (to summarize) that conservatives fear that the Received Text cannot be supported by scholarship, history, and internal proof without THE GTO.

Dr. Phil Stringer in his article asks: "But why are so many evangelicals devoted to an idea for which they can not offer any proof?" Dr. Stringer’s answer to his own question is:

"Many proud evangelicals value the idea of being accepted as "scholarly" and "educated" by the world (the Catholics and the modernists).

One cannot escape the reason for the fall of man even in these situations. If man cannot receive "[a]n inerrant (without error), verbal (each word), plenary (every word), inspired (God breathed, infallible (will not fail), Word of God," as his sole authority with all its life giving promises, he will be insecure and rely on man’s words or "self.".

Finally, if we even use the misnomer, Septuagint or LXX, we are in a way affirming the existence of a document needed by the liberals to promote their theories of recensions, to allow them to "construct" a text more in line with their philosophies, and to assist them in rejecting the authority of a legal document, the words of God. Let us stop using the misnomer and give the text of Origen, principally Codex B another name, the Greek Text of Origen, the GTO.

The Scripture establishes some harsh warnings about the sanctity of the LORD’s words in many ways and in many verses. For example, the LORD says near the beginning of the Scripture:

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. [Deut. 4:2]

And near the middle of the 66 books of the Bible, he says:

"Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." [Proverbs 30:5-6]

And he repeats the following well known admonition at the end of the Bible:

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. [Rev. 22:18-19]

[Uncle Chip]

Why don't you ask the Orthodox posters on FR what Greek New Testamant Text that they have read in their churches for 2000 years?. Is it the text closer to the Received Text that underlies the King James Version? or the Latin Text that underlies the Douay-Rheims? or the Vaticanus B manuscript that underlies the Westcott and Hort Text?

[Uncle Chip]

Is the following statement about the deuterocanonicals from the New Catholic Encyclopedia accurate or not:

"St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent [The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon].

[AlaninSA]

Here's just a quick check. Does your copy of God's Word have these verses in it:

You've still not responded... Just so I get it right... The tactic the anti-Catholic crowd uses is: 1. Bash/snipe 2. Refuse to ID one's own "church" 3. Refuse to engage in discussions of one's own theology How cowardly. How sad.

[bornacatholic]

Because the Catholic Church Canonised the New Testament.

[bornacatholic]

With all due respect, I have no idea what you are talking about

[Tax-chick]

That's one reason, for example, that you will find certain psalms off by a number between the East and the West, etc.

Really? I wondered about that!

[Vicomte13]

"If the SHEPEHRD OF HERMAS was in the 4th century bibles why is it not in it today.
And why is no one throwing fits about it."


There are three answers.
There were no definitive 4th Century Bibles. There were different sets of Canons, and there wasn't agreement on them. The current Catholic Canon was fixed by Pope Damascus at the time of Jerome. But that was only followed in the West, where Latin was spoken and the Vulgate was used. In the East, where Greek was used, different Canons were used, and still are. The Greek Orthodox have a few extra new testament books like the Shepherd of Hermas and the letters of Clement. They also have two more Old Testament books: 3 and 4 Maccabees.

The Ethiopian Orthodox have several books more than that.

The second point is that that was true even when the Catholic and Orthodox Churches were all still in unity. And this is NOT a point of contention between Catholics and Orthodox, because those books were excluded from the Canon for specific reasons (the NT books were pastoral and probably not by apostles, and it was decided to draw the line at apostolic authorship), while 3 and 4 Maccabbees only contain a bit of really useful material, while the rest is odd and historical; the Orthodox place these books last, in an appendix at the back. Unlike Protestants, who REJECT the so-called "Apocrypha" because they say they're NOT in the Bible, Catholics don't say there's anything wrong with the Shepherd of Hermas or the Letters of Clement - these are still orthodox Christian works, they just didn't make the cut. They are good to read and valuable Christian homilies, by saints no less!

And that brings us to our final, and most important point: why nobody is throwing fits about it. Remember, PROTESTANTS are the ones who have elevated the Bible into the Supreme Authority over Church and man. Someone on one thread equated the Bible with The Word at the beginning of John. In other words, the Bible IS God, or nearly so.

That is absurd. Catholics (and Orthodox) never thought that way. The Bible is the written tradition of the apostles and the Jews. Being in written form does NOT supersede the oral tradition. So, the Bible does NOT have more authority than the Church. The Bible is interpreted WITHIN the traditions of the Church. That a book is in or not in the Bible is not really important, so long as it is within the traditions of the Church, which the books that are canonical in the East but not the West are just not a problem.

I have to reiterate this, because it is the answer to the question: to PROTESTANTS, the Bible is the "Constitution" of religion, the "Highest Authority", the "Law Book". To Catholics, the Bible is part of tradition, part of God's revelation. It's not MOST of revelation - look at the ongoing revelations of God's goodness from thousands of saints over the ages. Look at the great proselytizing of the early Church, which captured Rome and didn't have a Bible at all.

Protestants took the Bible, MADE IT their supreme law book, and then used it as a lever to bash the Church, and each other, in their quest for independent spiritual authority. No Catholic thinks that the Bible has that authority.
To put it bluntly, the Bible is the Word of God, but it has LESS authority than the Catechism of the Church. Why? Not because the Catechism is inspired while the Bible isn't, but because the Bible, though inspired, is not clear. It was collected by men at various points to address needs of the Church vis-a-vis heresies, and to recount history. The Bible can be MISUNDERSTOOD in infinite ways, and by giving it a legal authority which it emphatically DOES NOT HAVE, one usurps the authority that God DID give to the Church (Jesus left a CHURCH, and prayed for its unity. He did NOT leave a Bible dispensary, nor even any written texts of any certitude or importance. And he was God, so presumably knew what she was doing.)

So, it isn't very RELEVANT, to Catholics and the Orthodox, that The Shepherd of Hermas is in the Bible or not, because the Bible isn't radically different from the rest of authority, and it stands BELOW the Church in authority.

That's why Catholics and the Orthodox don't fight over this point. It is not a theological issue. The Shepherd of Hermas is canonical, according to the Orthodox, but canonical does not give it independent authority as tradition outside of the Church. The Shepherd of Hermas is not canonical in the Catholic tradition, but not being canonical does not leave it outside of the tradition, or without spiritual authority. Orthodox and Catholic draw the identical moral lesson and teaching from it, and oral tradition is AS AUTHORITATIVE as written tradition (the Bible) in both wings of the Church (Catholic and Orthodox).

That's why nobody within the Catholic and Orthodox fold is throwing fits about it. Because neither of them has exaggerated the authority of the Bible and made an idol out of it.

Protestants have exaggerated the authority of the Bible to the point of quasi-idolatry, which WOULD make the question very relevant when Protestants look at the Orthodox or Catholics.

[Uncle Chip]

Thank you for your honest dissertation of the RCC position on TRADITION. It fully vindicates the Protestant criticism of the RCC as a Church gone astray because it "worships and serves the creation and its words more than the Creator and His words that are blessed forever".

[Iscool]

Thank you for your honest dissertation of the RCC position on TRADITION.

I was about to say the same thing...It's really tough to pin-point the actual position of the Catholic church...This seems to cover it...

[Cvengr]

If I may so bold as to suggest a slightly different perspective which still honors the Church, while remaining faithful through Christ....

In the formation of the body of Christ, i.e. the Church, we have different believers who are given different spiritual gifts by the enabling work of God, the Holy Spirit.

The true Church is composed of believers each with body, soul, and spirit. The believer remains in fellowship with God, through faith in Christ, the enabling work of God, the Holy Spirit.

When viewed from the dark glass of a worldly, cosmic view, without human spirit life, as an unbeliever views the Church, only from the perspective and perception of body and soul, there are many ways in which an unbeliever might enter into the worldly aspects of the Church and not always be perceived as a wolf in sheep's clothing. In large part, this is possible where believers themselves might slip back into sin by attempting to perform good works, without putting on the mind of Christ, thereby working in a COSMOS or worldly system independent of God (especially of His gifts by the Holy Spirit).

Accordingly, it is very easy for a religious establishment to become mired in worldly perspectives, become preoccupied with worldly issues, rather than retaining the mind of Christ in all things we do and continuing to walk through faith in Christ.

Most denominations only last perhaps a couple to several centuries before they falter. Even various flavors or perspectives within Catholicism remained as politically dominant within the church over several centuries, while the bodily and soulish form of the RCC has remained for two millenia, the spiritual life of many within the Catholic Church as a denomination has varied over the centuries, being highly influenced by other worldly events/powers.

The revelation of God is always with power and authority. Accordingly, the Word of God has just as much authority as any other work of God. Where God the Holy Spirit has performed His enabling ministry in believers over the millenia, His work is indeed as true as he reveals in His Word. Accordingly, when we look at fruit of the spirit which is divinely good fruit, we have other manifestations of His work in us. Tradition as formed by such works is a valid source of Divine revelation.

It might be noted, though, that some of those works may not have been explicitly intended for the education and growing of other believers, but might have been performed simply as manifestation of different aspects of Truth.

Likewise, with the respect of various believers, although a believer who remains in fellowship with God through faith in Christ may manifest God's work, and accordingly might also be a source of truth, discernment is still required.

There are indeed many believers, who fall into moral degeneracy, guilty of worldly sin, thinking independently of the mind of Christ.

They may use morality as a crutch, placing their hope, not through a realized hope of eternal life and continuing in faith through Christ, but instead after receiving eternal life, placing their hope in making order out of CHAOS independent of God through faith in Christ. Then the degenrate believers may proceed to live worldly lives by building religious institutions along worldly and soulish perspectives.

The grouping of degenerate believers is possible within the catholic church as well as any protestant denomination. More preferably, the true church of God, His body of believers shall return to Him with confession individually, and again continue to grow through faith in Him, renewing their mind daily.

The respect shown to Scripture is not misplaced when one continues in faith through Christ, although a degenerate believer might fall into a form of legalism, not in fellowship with God, and use Scripture in a worldly fashion independent of the enabling ministry of God, the Holy Spirit, and forming a false religion.

This type of degeneracy is not unique amongst Protestants, but is also very possible within the RCC or Orthodox Church, when any believer falls out of fellowship with Him, and uses religion as a crutch or counterfeit to the living work of God the Holy Spirit.

One method of assurance is simply in returning to God, confession and keeping short accounts and allowing Him to do the work, first in us as believers, remaining in fellowship with Him, and in all good works we perform, always through faith in Christ.

[RobbyS]

It's the appeance that bothers me. The apparent lack of holiness in the self-proclaimed "saved."

[dangus]

>> Oh sure. Rabbis all met in Jambia so that they could deliberately alter the accuracy of their own writings. <<

No-one said anything about altering the accuracy. They merely set forth, for the FIRST time among Palestinian Jews, a canon.

[dangus]

>> I think the Jews at Jamnia rejected the Septuagint primarily because it was GREEK, and the Jews in post-revolt mode were EXTREMELY bigoted and racist, and rejected anything that wasn't Hebrew as unacceptable (even though the Jews themselves didn't actually SPEAK Hebrew themselves anymore, and hadn't for centuries). <<

That was one Protestant argument which was shot to hell when the Dead Sea scrolls unearthed HEBREW versions of all but one book of the Deuterocanonicals.

But, yes, Luther did move to remove the Deuterocanonicals (as well as the "Catholic Letters" of Revelations, 1-2-3 Petr, 1-2 John, James, and Hebrews*) after losing an argument in which it was proven to him that the doctrines he most hated were biblical. Luther also struck portions of Daniel (the hymn in the furnace was seen as a prophetic allusion to purgatory.)

(*Luther's controversy over these is nothing at all to do with the label, "Catholic letters." The label simply refers to the fact that they were not addressed to a specific person or church.)

[SuzyQue]

Fascinating discussion. I had no idea what I was stepping into.

My observation: the respondents fall into two categories, those who have long ago decided exactly what they believe and are unwilling or unable to engage in conversation with anyone coming from a different perspective or background. Because this kind of faith is closed, unchangeable and unresponsive to others, it becomes rigid and impermeable, and because it is based on the process rather than goals, it can be a fairly shallow faith, and therefore in order to maintain it, its owner must steadfastly refuse to consider any other point of view.

Those in the second group may be more focused on the eventual outcome. That kind of focus demands a certain openness to additional input along the path to that eventual goal. This is the kind of faith that is continually tested and refined by the world, and is much more difficult to maintain, and requires much more of those on this path.

So you all go ahead and argue about which version of which book should or shouldn't be included in our search for God, and which version of worship is legitimate and which aren't, and based on your judgement, who is "really" God's child and who not.

But - I think there may be much wisdom in these posts and I will continue to read them. I have a lot to learn. May we all find God.

[Titanites]

In post #77, you stated that for Catholics, God's word takes a backseat to religious tradition.

In response, in post #83, I posted some of God's word about baptism and asked how your tradition views baptism.

You still haven't answered the question in relation to the Scripture posted from 1 Peter 3. We would like to know so that we can be sure you weren't being hypocritical of Catholics.

[Titanites]

Fascinating discussion. I had no idea what I was stepping into.

That's the way it usually works - the discussion takes off in all different directions, which can make it very interesting. Personally, I would have liked to have seen more posts about the historicity of the Septuagint. But on the other hand, I have to admit I am as guilty as any about getting off topic.

[Titanites]

That was one Protestant argument which was shot to hell when the Dead Sea scrolls unearthed HEBREW versions of all but one book of the Deuterocanonicals.

That is a great point, Dangus. You don't see it come up very often, if at all, in discussions of the Deuterocanonicals.

[Titanites]

I am glad you showed up to this thread, especially since you seem to be primarily the one on these threads who claims the Septuagint was generated by Origen.

I'd appreciate it if you would address the arguments in post #6. Thanks.

[AliVeritas]

Very informative.

[bornacatholic]

My observation: the respondents fall into two categories, those who have long ago decided exactly what they believe and are unwilling or unable to engage in conversation with anyone coming from a different perspective or background.

*I think just the opposite is happening.

Because this kind of faith is closed, unchangeable and unresponsive to others, it becomes rigid and impermeable, and because it is based on the process rather than goals, it can be a fairly shallow faith, and therefore in order to maintain it, its owner must steadfastly refuse to consider any other point of view.

*Well, the Deposit of Faith is closed. While the Holy Spirit does lead the Catholic Church to understand more deeply and completely the Original Deposit of Faith, the Faith does not "change" ,so, it appears to me any idea that Faith is "rigid" and "impermeable" can only fairly be used if one understands that the Faith is incapable of being changed and is impregnable by heresies.

Those in the second group may be more focused on the eventual outcome. That kind of focus demands a certain openness to additional input along the path to that eventual goal. This is the kind of faith that is continually tested and refined by the world, and is much more difficult to maintain, and requires much more of those on this path.

*You appear to think Faith a "process" rather than a gift. Unfortunately, that makes Faith susceptible to the whims, prejudices, proclivities, ignorance, of the individual believer - subject - rather than a gift from our Creator - objective

So you all go ahead and argue about which version of which book should or shouldn't be included in our search for God, and which version of worship is legitimate and which aren't, and based on your judgement, who is "really" God's child and who not.

* LOL That is an insult masquerading as an observatiobn

But - I think there may be much wisdom in these posts and I will continue to read them. I have a lot to learn. May we all find God.

* He alraedy found me