Have you read Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom, and so forth?

[Can't think of a name]

Oh, and I thought you said Apostle Paul used the Old Testament Septuagint?

You said:
"... and Paul and the rest of the New Testament authors used the Septuagint translation."

Good luck trying to prove that.

This is what Microsoft Pilot says to my question, "did Paul use the Septuagint?" -


Yes
Yes, the Apostle Paul did use the Septuagint (LXX) as a source for his writings. He quoted from the Septuagint more than a hundred times in his letters, indicating that he relied on this Greek translation of the Old Testament. While Paul did not explicitly identify the version he used, it is widely accepted that he utilized the Septuagint, which was the dominant translation in the Hellenistic world and among early Christians.


I don't need good luck.

 

[SetFree]

The New Testament consistently treats the Old Testament as authoritative Scripture while engaging with it through the linguistic and interpretive lens of the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation widely used in the first‑century Mediterranean world; its authors quote the LXX more often than the Hebrew text, sometimes because the Greek wording more clearly supports a christological reading, and sometimes because it reflects the version familiar to their audiences, yet they still present the Old Testament—regardless of linguistic form—as a unified, divinely inspired witness that finds its fulfilment in Jesus, with the LXX functioning not as a rival canon but as the practical textual vehicle through which that witness is expressed.

That is assumed... because Apostle Paul spoke the street Koine Greek to Gentiles. But the Jews among themselves, including Lord Jesus and His Apostles, spoke to each other in Aramaic, because that became the main language of the Jews during their Babylon captivity. They stopped using Hebrew as the main language but only for liturgical purposes. Only in later centuries have the Jews gone back to using Hebrew as their common language in today's Israel.

But the Jews in Egypt, like in Alexandria, did use Koine Greek and the Septuagint Old Testament translation. But claiming that all Jews, even Lord Jesus and His Apostles in Jerusalem used Greek, is going too far in assumption.

 

[SetFree]

This is what Microsoft Pilot says to my question, "did Paul use the Septuagint?" -


Yes
Yes, the Apostle Paul did use the Septuagint (LXX) as a source for his writings. He quoted from the Septuagint more than a hundred times in his letters, indicating that he relied on this Greek translation of the Old Testament. While Paul did not explicitly identify the version he used, it is widely accepted that he utilized the Septuagint, which was the dominant translation in the Hellenistic world and among early Christians.

You need better luck than Microsoft Pilot.


Here is what Dr. Phil Stringer as speaker at the Dean Burgeon Society said about it...


"CONVENTIONAL WISDOM
Conventional wisdom (politically correct theology and church history) states that Christ and the apostles routinely used the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Old Testament done about 200 B.C.) as their daily Bible and quoted from it often in the New Testament. Upon what is this statement based? Does Christ or the apostles ever say that they are quoting the Septuagint? The answer is clearly NO! Yet it is not hard to see that the "conventional wisdom" is dogmatic - that Christ and the apostles were using the Greek translation. Take for example this quote, "Christ used the Septuagint frequently in His quotations and references to the Old Testament. The use of the Septuagint was widespread in Christ's day!" The book The Savior and the Scriptures, the Smith's Bible Dictionary, the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, along with many others make similar statements.

WHY ARE SO MANY "SCHOLARS" SO DEVOTED TO THE SEPTUAGINT?

THE APOCRYPHA
Roman Catholics and liberals use this idea to help support many unbiblical beliefs. 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 Apocrypha." 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. Many Reformers and Lutherans wrote at great length refuting the validity of the Septuagint.

One Catholic lesson posted on the Internet states: "Me, I will trust the version of the Old Testament that was loved by Peter and Paul." This is in a lesson entitled "The Canon of the Bible and the Septuagint." The only reason given for accepting the Apocrypha is that Christ and the apostles quoted the Septuagint. One quote reads, "Let me reiterate: the then 300+ year old Septuagint version of Scripture was good enough for Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul, etc, which is evident in their referencing it over 300 times (out of 360 Old Testament references) in their New Testament writings - and the Septuagint includes seven books and parts of Esther and Daniel that were removed from Protestant Bibles some 1,600 years after the birth of Christ." Almost every "fact" given in the statement is incorrect but it illustrates why Roman Catholicism is so devoted to the Septuagint.

THE BIBLE IN MY OWN WORDS!
The Septuagint is a very loose translation of the Old Testament. It has much more in common with the "Revised Standard Version" or even "The Living Bible" than the King James Bible. It is used to teach against the doctrine of verbal inspiration. It is used to justify "dynamic equivalence" in translation rather than the formal literal equivalence method (which is based upon the concept of verbal
inspiration)."

From Bible Errors - Jesus Christ and Apostles did not use the Septuagint

 

[Can't think of a name]

You need better luck than Microsoft Pilot.


Here is what Dr. Phil Stringer as speaker at the Dean Burgeon Society said about it...


"CONVENTIONAL WISDOM
Conventional wisdom (politically correct theology and church history) states that Christ and the apostles routinely used the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Old Testament done about 200 B.C.) as their daily Bible and quoted from it often in the New Testament. Upon what is this statement based? Does Christ or the apostles ever say that they are quoting the Septuagint? The answer is clearly NO! Yet it is not hard to see that the "conventional wisdom" is dogmatic - that Christ and the apostles were using the Greek translation. Take for example this quote, "Christ used the Septuagint frequently in His quotations and references to the Old Testament. The use of the Septuagint was widespread in Christ's day!" The book The Savior and the Scriptures, the Smith's Bible Dictionary, the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, along with many others make similar statements.

WHY ARE SO MANY "SCHOLARS" SO DEVOTED TO THE SEPTUAGINT?

THE APOCRYPHA
Roman Catholics and liberals use this idea to help support many unbiblical beliefs. 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 Apocrypha." 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. Many Reformers and Lutherans wrote at great length refuting the validity of the Septuagint.

One Catholic lesson posted on the Internet states: "Me, I will trust the version of the Old Testament that was loved by Peter and Paul." This is in a lesson entitled "The Canon of the Bible and the Septuagint." The only reason given for accepting the Apocrypha is that Christ and the apostles quoted the Septuagint. One quote reads, "Let me reiterate: the then 300+ year old Septuagint version of Scripture was good enough for Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul, etc, which is evident in their referencing it over 300 times (out of 360 Old Testament references) in their New Testament writings - and the Septuagint includes seven books and parts of Esther and Daniel that were removed from Protestant Bibles some 1,600 years after the birth of Christ." Almost every "fact" given in the statement is incorrect but it illustrates why Roman Catholicism is so devoted to the Septuagint.

THE BIBLE IN MY OWN WORDS!
The Septuagint is a very loose translation of the Old Testament. It has much more in common with the "Revised Standard Version" or even "The Living Bible" than the King James Bible. It is used to teach against the doctrine of verbal inspiration. It is used to justify "dynamic equivalence" in translation rather than the formal literal equivalence method (which is based upon the concept of verbal
inspiration)."

From Bible Errors - Jesus Christ and Apostles did not use the Septuagint

Na, it's okay, I trust the standard view and not the view of some obscure dude who says "Almost every "fact" given is incorrect" without a shred of evidence to support it, since it's just an assertion based on a subjective belief.

It's hard to even understand how anybody could struggle with the objective facts like you are doing here. But your pride won't allow you to accept facts because you think you are "right" and the other side is "wrong", which is extremely arrogant behaviour.

 

[SetFree]

Just so those who don't know what Dr. Stringer meant by "verbal inspiration" vs. "dynamic equivalence" concerning Bible translation, here's what they mean:


"verbal inspiration" -- means that every word in The Bible is God's direct communication, and should be translated word for word, as close as possible.

"dynamic equivalence" -- is the translation method that puts more weight on the emotional response of the original text rather than translating it word for word. This means trying to make the translation feel natural to the language it's being translated to even if it means altering the original structure.


Dr. Stringer compares the RSV and The Living Bible which use "dynamic equivalence" vs. the KJV which used "verbal inspiration" during translation from the original texts. The Amplified Bible is another example of a "dynamic equivalence" type translation. There are many more using this method, and that is why one should always make their final Bible checks in a Bible version like the King James Bible.

Other reasons to use a KJV is because there are modern printings that use italics for words in English that were added by the translators that were required per the English language. Then with a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, it is a tool created by Dr. James Strong specifically assigning a number to each English word in the KJV, and then giving a definition of the original Bible 'manuscript' word per its Hebrew and Greek Lexicons that are included. Thus you can take the KJV English back to the original text it was translated from.

 

[MoreCoffee]

"dynamic equivalence" -- is the translation method that puts more weight on the emotional response of the original text rather than translating it word for word.

That is not so.
Dynamic equivalence in Bible translation is a method that aims to convey the meaning, sense, and intended impact of the original text rather than reproducing its exact wording or grammatical structure; translators using this approach prioritise natural, contemporary language that communicates the same idea to modern readers as the original would have to its first audience, even if this requires rephrasing, restructuring, or adding clarifying elements to make the message clear and readable.

 

[SetFree]

That is not so.
Dynamic equivalence in Bible translation is a method that aims to convey the meaning, sense, and intended impact of the original text rather than reproducing its exact wording or grammatical structure; translators using this approach prioritise natural, contemporary language that communicates the same idea to modern readers as the original would have to its first audience, even if this requires rephrasing, restructuring, or adding clarifying elements to make the message clear and readable.

Problem is though, who is the Authority with how Biblical meaning should be conveyed? Not men, but God. A word for word translation sticks to what God says, and not what men think... God meant.

It's kind of like a political address by the President, and when the President is done speaking a bunch of news commentators show up on the TV program claiming, "what he meant was...".

 

[MoreCoffee]

Problem is though, who is the Authority with how Biblical meaning should be conveyed? Not men, but God.

as pious as that sounds it is essentially nonsense; God doesn't consult with translators to tell them how to translate.

 

[SetFree]

as pious as that sounds it is essentially nonsense; God doesn't consult with translators to tell them how to translate.

What you say is the actual 'nonsense', because God has not given everyone to understand His Word, and that applies to even the educated scholar. Or maybe you haven't noticed how even Bible scholars disagree with each other on Biblical topics?

How then is even a scholar of the original Bible languages going to understand God's Word that is closed off to their spiritual eyes and ears unless God gives it to them? Whatever they 'try' to translate from the original will contain error in that case. Better to keep the actual 'words' which God Himself said, and then in time when God does open one's spiritual eyes and ears, what He said and meant all along will come forth.

This means of course, I am totally against a claimed Bible scholar on Bible translation committees that are NOT believers on Jesus Christ. I well remember back when God's Word was closed off to my understanding because I was not yet a Christian.

 

[Frankj]

as pious as that sounds it is essentially nonsense; God doesn't consult with translators to tell them how to translate.

Maybe we should rely on the Vulgate as the most accurate translation of original text, I can see it as being more God directed without unconsciously including later ideas and concepts that translators held that could have influenced their translations.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Maybe we should rely on the Vulgate as the most accurate translation of original text, I can see it as being more God directed without unconsciously including later ideas and concepts that translators held that could have influenced their translations.

The Vulgate is not an English translation.

 

[Frankj]

The Vulgate is not an English translation.

That's pretty much my point.

there's only one of it. it was created early in Christianity from original texts and it does not change over time like the dozens of English translations that never seem to be agreed on with that disagreement leading to another translation (such as the Eth Cepher which I believe is the latest and is claimed to be the most accurate of them all by its translators).

 

[lost trails again]

/
The Greek Orthodox Catholic Church teaches that the soul of the dead can be maintained and slightly improved concerning salvation and redemption by the prayers of the living - this is a form of Purgatory and direct intercession to the dead as also is taught by the Roman Church.


This religious rite, ritual, ceremony, observance and tradition are prescribed acts are mimicked or applied from the historical time period of the 400 Apocryphal years,

- when there was no prophet,
- no prophecy given,
- no word of God written,

yet the Catholic world demands them inspired - but the question is whom were they inspired by ?


The Catholic system claims to understand and accept a distinguishment between two senses of Scripture
as we see in - " CATECHISM / SECOND EDITION 115 "
115 - " According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: "

however - with Catholic Tradition this distinction that is purported to be distinguished proves to be untruthful, foolosh and completely false - - very untruthful. Yes, there is the Scripture written from ......
1. - " the gift of Prophecy "
2. - " Inspiration of the Holy Spirit "

we see in - Genesis through Deuteronomy - GOD DIRECTLY SAID THIS, AND GOD SAID THAT

With Adam, Noah and Abraham and Moses, the first Prophets, receiving prophecy and giving correction and providing the message from God. We see the word of God coming to - Abraham, Moses, Aaron, Mariam, Joshua, Deborah, Samuel, Gad, David, Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, Elisha, Ezra, Nehemiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hoseah, Joel, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi

and then for the next 400 years - there was no more written prophecy nor any prophet until Jesus and no writers made the claim to have written the Word Of God - the Jewish writers of the Apocrypha - never make this claim

Roman Catholic Faith demands that under Catholic authority and divinization select portions of Recorded Jewish History at a time where there was no Prophet in Israel can be applied - as something written by inspiration and divinity.


MEANING AND CONCLUSION

All of the entirety of all other previous Old Testament religious Ordinances, Ceremonies, Practices and Religious observations before the Apocrypha are not " INSPIRED and DIVINE " for Catholics to follow and practice and maintain as Religious Tradition

all of the entirety of all other previous Old Testament devotional Biblical practice before the Apocrypha are not " for Catholic believers to mimic and adherer to.

everything before the Apocrypha is forsaken by the Catholic Church to the point - that Catholics do not Ceremonialize and pay special observance to and follow any other Old Testament religious rite,

before the Apocrypha

no other Old Testament Ritual - Ceremony - Observance custom, nor any other form of worship nor Ordinance: is maintained as an authoritative prescribed act and Practice: - before the Apocrypha

All of the other Old Testament religious customs and traditions = are not a part of the Catholic faith...

it is only the 400 Apocryphal years, - when there was no prophet, no prophecy given, no word of God written ... these 400 Apocryphal years alone are - the sacred religious rite, ritual, ceremony, observance, custom traditions and authoritative prescribed acts and practices that the Roman Catholic Church incorporate into their Faith System.

All of the other Old Testament religious customs and traditions before the Apocryphal years are rejected .

Jews are living without a prophet and are practicing totally new religious practices that are not practiced and given as Priestly Temple and Godly Ceremonial practice in all of the previous 4000 + years of prophecy and divinely inspired written word.

Sola Apocryphal - Apocryphal Alone is what Rome incorporates from Old Testament tradition and calls inspired for today’s Christian world - while yet the Apocrypha makes no claim to have been inspired for the Hebrews themselves !

 

[lost trails again]

.
in full understanding for the previous comment

these religious applications originally practiced in the Apocrypha itself are copied and transferred directly into the Catholic Church.

this is a duplicated direct application

- a mimicking of the original purpose - and applied specifically for the original purpose of praying for the dead,


applied specifically for the original purpose of praying to the dead - praying to the dead
and applied specifically for the original purpose of purgatory



this is not the same for the Old Testament where the same practices are partly and similarly copied over into Catholicism - such as burning incense, pots and cups and vessels of gold and silver are used and even the eating of unleavened bread and also the wearing of robes and headwear and a wide variety and array of decorative plates, liturgical speech, linens, candles, censers and boxes and linens. All of these other Old Testament religious rites, rituals, ceremonies, observance and custom such as unleavened bread are not applied in the same way and for the same exact purpose in their direct application and are not mimicked or applied specifically for the original purpose as prescribed in the Old Testament

only the religious traditions and ceremony found in the Apocrypha are what the Catholic Church copies and transfers directly into the Catholic System to be applied as ": direct transference :"

applied in the same exact and precise way and for the same exact method and exact purpose as in their " : ORIGINAL DIRECT APPLICATION :" and - specifically for the original purpose as prescribed in the same exact way as performed in the Apocrypha.


as though Jesus still has not been born yet and risen from the dead

Nothing from the Old Testament is incorporated into the Catholic Faith System and applied as direct application applied specifically for the original purpose as prescribed in the Old Testament

the Apocrypha Alone are what the Catholic Church copies and transfers directly into the Catholic System to be applied as ": practiced :" in the same exact and precise way and for the same exact method and purpose as in their " : ORIGINAL DIRECT APPLICATION :" and - specifically for the original purpose as in the Apocrypha.


i believe this truly demonstrates just how deep the rejection of Jesus finished work on the cross truly is embedded upon the face of the Catholic world.

 

[lost trails again]

mistaken re post, sorry