I don't. I know that the Apostles used the Septuagint as Scripture; so do we. That much is certain.
The Tradition does not say what is correct. The Tradition puts the Bible in context of the early Church understanding and experience.
Cultures change, languages evolve, concepts morph, until the point of being unrecognizable or even opposite of what they were before. The English word vengeance used to mean something rather different few centuries ago.
It's not that the writers and readers have a desire to misrepresent or misread. The language and concepts of their time are simply not the same as those of the times past.
Holy Tradition is the reference to the times when the Church was nascent and the people who read and listened to the message of Christ were in the culture and society that was very similar if not identical to the culture and society of the Apostles.
Holy Tradition are commentaries by people who were taught and ordained by the Apostles (+Ignatius, +Polycarp), or who knew those who were. They help us see Christianity in their eyes and in their language, in their context of times and realities.
If they had mistaken concepts from the get-go, then we are just imitating their errors. In essence, that's what the Protestants are saying: the Church was in apostasy until a renegade priest by the name of Martin Luther came along.
If that's what you believe, so be it. It's your belief. I did not come here to change it. I am merely stating what we do and what we believe.
We have no way of knowing which version of Ezekiel is absolutely true. There are no originals of any kind. The original books Moses supposedly wrote do not appear to be extant. No one knows for sure to what extent our OT agrees with the original from 3,200 years ago, or even if there was an original.
We do know that scribes changed words not necessarily out of malice but because they believed that the scribe whose copy they were copying made a mistake. We do know that the Septuagint and the OT the Christ-denying Jews and Protestants use are not the same. but we have no way of knowing for certain which one is "truer" other than the fact that the Apostles used the former in most cases, and the latter only occasionally.
In absence of absolute knowledge, we rely on what points to the understanding of the early fathers and the Apostles. We use the books they used and wrote. The rest, we simply believe.
The term "Holy tradition" doesn't appear in the bible.
It's not that the writers and readers have a desire to misrepresent or misread. The language and concepts of their time are simply not the same as those of the times past.
Holy Tradition is the reference to the times when the Church was nascent and the people who read and listened to the message of Christ were in the culture and society that was very similar if not identical to the culture and society of the Apostles.
= = = =
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh . . . So, we can have RUBBER BIBLES
BUT NOT . . . . DRUM ROLL . . .
RUBBER TRADITION!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!TRADITION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IS EVERLASTINGLY PURE, STATIC, SOLID, FOSSILIZED, PRISTINE, 1,000% DEPENDABLE . . . etc. etc. etc. and etc.
Makes perfect sense . . . in Alice in Wonderland's theology.
It's rather interesting that the Orthodox base everything they believe upon what a group of people agree to. I can't say there is any other group of Christians that would make that claim.