I don't think the Church ever says that any part of the Bible is "wrong." Misinterpreted, yes, imperfect, yes, but wrong, no. I must remind yout of how the Church understood and still to this day understand the nature of the scriptures (my emphases):
[T]he Holy Spirit inspires, and the sacred author follows the Holy Spirit's injunctions, utilizing his own human and imperfect ways to express the perfect message and doctrine of the Holy Spirit.
In this sense, we can understand possible imperfections in the books of the Bible, since they are the result of the cooperation between the all-perfect and perfecting Divine Author, the Spirit, and the imperfect human author. Biblical textual criticism is completely normal and acceptable by the Orthodox, since they see the Bible in this light. Nothing human is perfect, including the Bible, which is the end product of human cooperation with the divine Spirit. [from Greek Orthodox Archidiocese of America]
If the Bible is "perfect" than the Bible is "God." That leads to another Protestant error: bibliolatry.
the Apostles quoted from both the Septuagint and the Masoretic text
They used the Septuagint in over 93% of the cases, FK. The ratio is very lobsided in favor of the Septuagint. How can you compare this to the Protestant's innovation of 0% Septuagint and claim they did not introduce anything new and heretical? Is that not the same as saying the Apostles were "wrong?" Luther knew better?
Reformers do not use private interpretation any more than you do today
You must be joking! Being a Protestant is not subscribing to or eschewing "traditions of men"(except one's own).
And regardless of what you think of Protestants and private interpretation, you cannot possibly assert that we introduced it
Well, the New Testament prohibits it, and yet the entire Protestant movement is based on one's private interpretation, so someone had to introduce it, and it wasn't the Church. :)
This obviously presents a problem because it makes the Bible a fallible document in need of repair. Presumably, that would only be possible through an INFALLIBLE consensus patrum. That would clearly raise the consensus patrum above the level of scripture. However, the Orthodox I know here would probably not agree with that conclusion. What is the answer?
In addition, we all call the Bible "God's Holy word". If God is Holy in essence, and His word is Holy, then how can His word contain error? For this question we can throw out translation and copying errors because in your quote above it was specifically asserted that there was original error by the original writers.
They used the Septuagint in over 93% of the cases, FK. The ratio is very lopsided in favor of the Septuagint.
Even if so, a 93% use of the Septuagint does not equate to a 93% rejection of the truth of the Masoretic text. In what percent of the verses is there a material difference? I ask because I don't know, and I included BD on the ping list because I have some memory of him speaking on this before.
How can you compare this to the Protestant's innovation of 0% Septuagint and claim they did not introduce anything new and heretical? Is that not the same as saying the Apostles were "wrong?" Luther knew better?
Do you call the KJV, for example, a heretical document? Is it THAT drastically different from your Bible that you cannot get God's truth from it? That sounds strange coming from you since you believe that most of the Bible is allegory anyway. In the big picture, I always thought the main material difference between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text was the Apocrypha.
Well, the New Testament prohibits [private interpretation], and yet the entire Protestant movement is based on one's private interpretation, so someone had to introduce it, and it wasn't the Church. :)
Were not many of the early Fathers accused of heresy on specific issues? To what could this have been attributed if not to private interpretation?