'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

Kosta the Greek Church never added [the agignoskomena] it used them all along

HD: Perhaps that was your mistake

These books were part of the Septuagint OT before Christ, HD. None of the Apostles ever said that the Septuagint was flawed. Instead, they used it extensively because they didn't write for the Hebrew-speaking audience (in fact, hardly anyone spoke Hebrew in those days), but for Greek-speaking Jews and Gentiles.

The Gospels were written in the latter half of the 1st century (70-100 AD), and were in Greek because there was no life left in the Church in Jerusalem (closed in 69 AD, +James executed as a 'Lawbreaker'), and because the Apostles found themselves preaching to Greek-speakers. That's the reason +Paul's Epistles are written in Greek vs. Hebrew.

So, the Septuagint was the rational OT Scripture (the only Scripture at the time for Greek speaking converts) to be used, and no one had a problem with its canon except the Christ-denying Pharisees.

Inspired means that the author was given the truth spiritually, not verbally. Inspired literally means 'in-breathed.' The author provides the words in context of the truth.

Dictated means that God says to the author: "Write down this exactly as I tell you: in the begnning was..." That would mean that any change, of any word, any omission or deletion, addition, mistranslation, would literally misquote God.

What are your opinions on this James Akin FAITH ALONE thread?

I find that it is the language and meaning of the words in our discussion that puts us on opposite sides of a Sunni/Shiite like social-faith relationship. How a Catholic understands the word FAITH and how a protestant understands the words FAITH, HOPE and CHARITY is the crux of the discussion. I can believe in Faith Alone if it is defined as put forward by the article of that thread?

Anyone for agreement on this? How about mild, violent disagreement? I could live with agreeing on the differences in definitions of the words between us.

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

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. You seem to be admitting this.

The whole point was that the Jewish canon was not set.

Actually, according to my sources it was the Septuagint that wasn't set. The Jewish canon was set and great care was taken in transcribing it. It was within the 300 years before Christ when the Greek Septuagint of the Hebrew text was introduced that translations abound because the Hebrews didn't use vowels. Thus when the Greeks went to translate the Hebrew text, they had to make choices. Some of Greek Septuagints were better than others. It wasn't the Hebrew writings that you should be complaining about which was undertaken with care. It is the various Greek translations.

The Masoretes put together the Old Testament and it was this text that the early church fathers seemed to have used. The Masonetes, while Jews, confirmed the Christian version of the Old Testament text, which indicates the church fathers must have settled on one version of the Old Testament and that version must have been consistent with the Hebrew version.

The Masoretes were heirs of the text in use when the Talmud was written, a text which, as is clear from the Talmud itself, had previously been in a relatively fixed condition. The Aramaic versions or paraphrases (the Targums), the Syriac Peshitto version, the Latin Vulgate version of the Old Testament, and quotations of the Old Testament in the writings of Jerome and Origen, and the Hexapla of Origen, with its Hebrew text and Greek versions, bear witness, like the Talmud, to the existence of a Hebrew text for several centuries before the time of the Masoretes which closely resembled their text. Rabbi Akiba, who died about A.D. 132, had a high regard for exactness and fixity of text, and has been credited with inspiring measures toward the settling of the text in the early second century. The view of P. de Lagarde that after A.D. 130 all manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible were closely fashioned after one archetype which had been decided on not long before that date has not been accepted by all; but it is at least the case that a type of text basically that of the Masoretes existed around A.D. 100 and that this text subsequently overcame whatever competitors it had. Biblical texts which have been discovered recently at Wady el-Muraba’at in southern Palestine, which have been dated in the second century A.D., are in notable agreement with the Masoretic text. Kenyon thinks that since the end of the first century A.D. the text has not been altered in any material way.

Tracing the investigation still further back, Dr. Wilson maintains that citations of the Old Testament found in the New Testament, in the writings of Josephus and of Philo, and in the Zadokite Fragments bear witness to the existence of a text quite similar to the Masoretic from A.D. 40 to 100.

I would refer you to Bible Research for an excellent, and objective, history on the scriptures over time.

James Akin is anti-Catholic.
Who cares what he has to say!
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9311fea1sb1.asp

These books were part of the Septuagint OT before Christ, HD. None of the Apostles ever said that the Septuagint was flawed. So, the Septuagint was the rational OT Scripture

Which version of the Septuagint? I would refer you to post 10684.

I'm thinking it could be the books of the Bible that aren't in the Protestant editions. Perhaps it's in the Catholic Bible?

Thanks for the link, klossg. I will read it when I get a chance. I agree with you that our perspectives are not the same. Once we realize that we are not of the one and the same fold we can stop pretending and simply resign oursleves that we are two different religious communities, both claiming Chirst, the way Gnostics or LDS consider themselves "Christian."

I respect everyone's beliefs. I don't necessarily agree with them.

why did you not post 12:12, the verse I referenced?

You already did. Does that nullify what the verses around it say? Context, brother...

Regards

Seeing as how I did read the text, but you chose not to post it, please refrain from these types of ad hominem attacks.

It's not an ad hominem attack. I didn't attack your person. I am attacking your reckless and baseless claims.

You posted one verse without including the verses that provided the obvious context. One can only come to two conclusions: Either the professor is just dredging up verses clipped out of context to attack Catholics and to be copied by unwary Protestants - OR you just posted what you saw without reading the Scriptures themselves. The latter is carelessness on your part, and the former is outright lies by someone who should know better. Thus, I urge you to read the Scriptures next time you decide to post someone else's claims.

Regards

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.

well said.

His father now has the opportunity to teach honor to his son.

By throwing a party after what he has done? By neglecting his older son's honor and obedience?

The party was to celebrate his son's return.

The older son had issues which overshadow his honor and obedience ... for he that loveth not his brother ... loveth not God.

This is the kind of liberalism that doesn't correct bad behavior, but only makes people 'feel good' about their bad behavior. No wonder we solve nothing with this approach.

A good start would have been to turn down his father's offer, ask for a conditional return as a servant until he had earned enough to pay back his father with honest work, and then to ask his father for forgiveness.

Well, I guess you'll have to take that up with God.

After all, it's His way ... not ours.
Matthew 9:11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?

12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.

__________________________________________________________

Luke 7:36 And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee's house, and sat down to meat.

37 And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment,

38 And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.

39 Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.

40 And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on.

41 There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty.

42 And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most?

43 Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged.

44 And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head.

45 Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet.

46 My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment.

47 Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.

48 And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.

__________________________________________________________

Romans 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.

8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

__________________________________________________________

Isaiah 55:7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

"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.

I do defend the fact that they are beloved by God and were led by God to develop a Canon of Scripture long before the council of Jamnia - a canon that did NOT contain the Apocrypha.

Again, you are incorrect. Different sects of Judaism did not agree on the Canon of Scriptures. Again, the Septuagint was used BEFORE Christ by the Diaspora. Again, the Bible itself tells us that the Sadducees only believed in the Torah (first five books) as the Word of God. The Jews before Jamnia were not concerned with solidifying a canon. This did not occur until AFTER Jerusalem was destroyed and the Pharisaical sect that was left decided to set the canon so as to maintain their separateness from the competing sect of Christianity, which obviously had a DIFFERENT OT that they used. Proof of this is when the OT is quoted, over 80% of the quotes are taken from the Greek OT, not the Masoretic Hebrew OT.

The Targums did not contain the extra books.

So what, the Targums don't contain the Prophets, either...

The Peshitta Syriac did not contain them.

Wherever Christianity spread, translations of the Hebrew Scriptures were made based on the LXX. Thus, it became the basis for translations made into Arabic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Old Latin, Coptic, Georgian, and Old Church Slavonic. (It was not the basis either for the Syriac version [known as the Peshitta], which is a pre-Christian translation based directly upon the Hebrew, or for St. Jerome's Latin translation, which is also based on the Hebrew.). Since Jerome's aversion of the Greek OT is well-known, it is not surprising that the Syriac version does not include the Deuts.

The early manuscripts of the Septuagint also don't agree as to what books are accepted as Scripture. Vaticanus doesn't contain I & II Maccabees or The Prayer of Manassah, but includes Psalm 151 and 1 Esdras. Sinaiticus omits II Maccabees and Baruch, and includes Psalm 151, 1 Esdras and IV Maccabees. Alexandrinus includes Psalm 151, 1 Esdras, the Psalms of Solomon and III and IV Maccabees.

We find some Greek Church Fathers quoting the same Old Testament texts, but in very different forms. There is no indication, however, that this troubled to Church leadership. The insistence on letter-for-letter, word-for-word accuracy in the Scriptures was a feature that was not to emerge in Christian thought for many centuries, and then in imitation of Jewish and Islamic models. As far as most early Christians were concerned, any Greek version of the Old Testament read in the Church merited the term Septuagint.

Jesus Himself stated what the Canon was Luke 24:44 "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. " Nothing about the inter-testamental books there.

Oh brother... And where does the Bible tell us what consisted of the "prophets and psalms"? Does this include the historical books, like Joshua or Chronicles? And how could there be "inter-testamental" books BEFORE the NT was even written???

Jerome and Origen rejected the books as canonical.

Jerome did. And he is the ONLY one I could find in my study on this subject. Origen did not reject them. In his list of Scriptures, he includes Baruch and both Maccabees. He also accepts some other books...

"You begin by saying, that when, in my discussion with our friend Bassus, I used the Scripture which contains the prophecy of Daniel when yet a young man in the affair of Susanna, I did this as if it had escaped me that this part of the book was spurious. You say that you praise this passage as elegantly written, but find fault with it as a more modern composition, and a forgery; and you add that the forger has had recourse to something which not even Philistion the play-writer would have used in his puns between prinos and prisein, schinos and schisis, which words as they sound in Greek can be used in this way, but not in Hebrew. In answer to this, I have to tell you what it behoves us to do in the cases not only of the History of Susanna, which is found in every Church of Christ in that Greek copy which the Greeks use, but is not in the Hebrew, or of the two other passages you mention at the end of the book containing the history of Bel and the Dragon, which likewise are not in the Hebrew copy of Daniel. (Origen,To Africanus, 5)

Later, in this same passage, he will defend the Catholic version of Daniel 3 and the Song of the 3 children. Notice that Origen also defends the use of Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon, as found in Daniel 13 and 14 of the Catholic Bible. He says that Bel and the Dragon and Susanna, Daniel 13 and 14 and only found in the Catholic Bible, is found in every single Church of Christ. Origen himself acknowledges that all Churches use these books. And in which way? He notes that he refers to them as Scripture. His opponent said it was a forgery. He corrects his opponent. It is not a forgery, but he notes his own use of them as Scripture

And what else did Origen find as Scripture?

But he ought to know that those who wish to live according to the teaching of Sacred Scripture understand the saying, 'The knowledge of the unwise is as talk without sense,' [Sirach 21:18] and have learnt 'to be ready always to give an answer to everyone that asketh us a reason for the hope that is in us.’ [1 Pt 3:15] " Origen, Against Celsus, 7:12

Oh, now Sirach is ALSO Scriptures, according to Origen...

To save time, I will note that he also sees Tobit, Judith, and Wisdom as Scriptures. Thus, your claim about Origen are totally false.

...Athanasius did the same

You and your sources are confused with the term "canon" as used by Athanasius, misunderstanding his use in his 39th Festal letter, no doubt. To HIM, canon meant books to be read during the Liturgy, during Mass. It doesn't refer to "which books are Scriptures". Since the Deuteros were contested by some, Athanasius, in an effort to protect his flock from spurious writings, felt it necessary to exclude even those books accepted by other churches. Now, did Athanasius himself think the Deuteros were Scriptures? Yes...

"[T]he sacred writers to whom the Son has revealed Him, have given us a certain image from things visible, saying, 'Who is the brightness of His glory, and the Expression of His Person;' [Heb 1:3] and again, 'For with Thee is the well of life, and in Thy light shall we see lights;' [Ps 36:9] and when the Word chides Israel, He says, 'Thou hast forsaken the Fountain of wisdom;' [Baruch 3:12] and this Fountain it is which says, 'They have forsaken Me the Fountain of living waters' [Jer 2:13]" [3] Athanasius the Great: Defense of the Nicene Faith,2

Baruch is Scripture, mentioned in the same breath as Hebrews and the Psalms and Jeremiah...

"And where the sacred writers say, Who exists before the ages,' and 'By whom He made the ages,’ [Heb 1:2] they thereby as clearly preach the eternal and everlasting being of the Son, even while they are designating God Himself. Thus, if Isaiah says, 'The Everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth;’ [Is 40:28] and Susanna said, 'O Everlasting God;' [Daniel 13:42-Susanna] and Baruch wrote, 'I will cry unto the Everlasting in my days,' and shortly after, 'My hope is in the Everlasting, that He will save you, and joy is come unto me from the Holy One;' [Baruch 4:20,22]" Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians

Daniel 13 is Scripture

But if this too fails to persuade them, let them tell us themselves, whether there is any wisdom in the creatures or not? If not how is it that the Apostle complains, 'For after that in the Wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God?’ [1 Cor 1:21] or how is it if there is no wisdom, that a 'multitude of wise men' [Wisdom 6:24] are found in Scripture? for 'a wise man feareth and departeth from evil;’ [Prov 14:16] and 'through wisdom is a house builded;’ [Prov 24] and the Preacher says, 'A man's wisdom maketh his face to shine;' and he blames those who are headstrong thus, 'Say not thou, what is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not inquire in wisdom concerning this.’ [Eccl 8:1,7:10] But if, as the Son of Sirach says, 'He poured her out upon all His works; she is with all flesh according to His gift, and He hath given her to them that love Him,'[Sirach 1:8,9]" [7] Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians, 2:79

Wisdom and Sirach are Scriptures for the same reason.

Let us not fulfill these days like those that mourn but, by enjoying spiritual food, let us seek to silence our fleshly lusts(Ex. 15:1). For by these means we shall have strength to overcome our adversaries, like blessed Judith (Judith 13:8), when having first exercised herself in fastings and prayers, she overcame the enemies, and killed Olophernes. And blessed Esther, when destruction was about to come on all her race, and the nation of Israel was ready to perish, defeated the fury of the tyrant by no other means than by fasting and prayer to God, and changed the ruin of her people into safety (Esther 4:16) [Athanasius the Great: Letter 4, 2 (A.D. 333

Judith is Scriptures

The Spirit also, who is in him, commands, saying, 'Offer unto God the sacrifice of praise, and pay to the Lord thy vows. Offer the sacrifice of righteousness, and put your trust in the Lord (Sir. 18:17).'[Athanasius the Great: Letter 19, 5

And again, Sirach is Scriptures, unless you believe the Spirit commands us in an uninspired book.

There are more such verses for Wisdom, but you get the drift, hopefully. St. Athanasius' writings tells us that he considered the Septuagint OT as Scriptures, sometimes using passages from the Deuteros to make a point, giving them the same exact authority as the Protocanonical books. In summary, you misunderstand his 39th Festal letter, as he himself notes that Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Judith, and Daniel 13 are inspired by God.

...as did Gregory of Nazianzus.

First, note, as in Athanasius case, Gregory EXCLUDES Esther. He also excludes Revelation from his NT list. So this of itself is not a major problem for the Catholic, as I will soon note that he, like Athanasius, considers many of the Deuteros to be Scriptural

And how shall we preserve the truth that God pervades all things and fills all, as it is written "Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord (Jer. 23:24)" and "The Spirit of the Lord filleth the world" (Wisdom 1:7) if God partly contains and partly is contained. For either He will occupy an empty Universe, and so all things will have vanished for us, with this result, that we shall have insulted God by making Him a body.... St. Gregory Nazianzen: The Second Theological Oration

Wisdom is Scripture

Then the last and gravest plague upon the persecutors, truly worthy of the night; and Egypt mourns the firstborn of her own reasonings and actions which are also called in the Scripture the "Seed of the Chaldeans" (Judith 5:6) removed, and the children of Babylon dashed against the rocks and destroyed; (Psalm 138:9). and the whole air is full of the cry and clamour of the Egyptians. St. Gregory Nazianzen:

Judith is Scripture

How did God sustain her? Not by raining down manna, as for Israel of old (Ex. 16:14), or opening the rock, in order to sustain to give drink to His thirsting people (Ex. 18:6) or feasting her by means of ravens, as Elijah 1 King 17:6), or feeding her by a prophet carried through the air, as He did to Daniel when a-hungered in the den (Daniel 14:33(Bel and the Dragon, V:33). St. Gregory Nazianzen:

There are similar passages for Baruch, Sirach, and the Septuagint version of Daniel.

I suppose that they were just agreeing with the Pharisees and being anti-Christ when they did so. Next thing, you'll be declaring anathema those who agree with them - oops, I guess that already happened too.

Maybe you should get the facts straight before you spout off such nonsense. I have given plenty of evidence that you are wrong and merely mimicing some Protestant apologist who hadn't done his homework...

The rest has nothing to do with our conversation, as I have not said anything hateful towards the Jews. I am merely giving you the historical facts of what the Church believed was Scripture and that the Jews did NOT have a fixed Canon until after the Destruction of Jerusalem and felt the need to consolidate and fight against whom they saw as a wayward sect, the Christians. This theological battle is seen throughout the writings of the New Testament.

Regards

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

It turns out that Greek was a relatively common language spoken in Palestine, as well as the Diaspora. While the "nationalistic Jews" may have controlled the Temple, it doesn't follow that they were not Hellenistic or had Hellenistic tendencies. The historical books of this period show that Hellenism was rampant throughout even the heirarchy of the priesthood in Palestine.

Regards

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

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

Funny thing is those nationalistic Jews controlling the temples were the

Pharisees

whom Christ often preached against their false teachings and MISINTERPRETATIONS OF HEBREW SCRIPTURE.

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.

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.

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.

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

They were different Septuagints

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.

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

It's not an ad hominem attack. I didn't attack your person

Let me refresh your memory

Making such vicious attacks without any basis, just because you love to hate.