Thursday, September 24, 2015
Sunday, September 6, 2015
There is a war and it did not start in the 20th century, but in the very beginning.
Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"
The first sin we see the devil commit, was to question the word of God.
Hebrews 11: 24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; 25 choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; 26 esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward. 27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible."
The faith of Moses is understood by His clash with the Pharaoh. There is a strict contrast between these two lifestyles. The Pharaoh represented the epitome of wealth and power and sin.
Exodus 7:10 And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the Lord had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent. 11 Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments. 12 For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods. 13 And he hardened Pharaoh’s heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had said.
20 And Moses and Aaron did so, as the Lord commanded; and he lifted up the rod, and smote the waters that were in the river, in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the sight of his servants; and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood. 21 And the fish that was in the river died; and the river stank, and the Egyptians could not drink of the water of the river; and there was blood throughout all the land of Egypt. 22 And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments: and Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, neither did he hearken unto them; as the Lord had said.
Exodus 8: 5 And the Lord spake unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Stretch forth thine hand with thy rod over the streams, over the rivers, and over the ponds, and cause frogs to come up upon the land of Egypt. 6 And Aaron stretched out his hand over the waters of Egypt; and the frogs came up, and covered the land of Egypt. 7 And the magicians did so with their enchantments, and brought up frogs upon the land of Egypt."
17 And they did so; for Aaron stretched out his hand with his rod, and smote the dust of the earth, and it became lice in man, and in beast; all the dust of the land became lice throughout all the land of Egypt. 18 And the magicians did so with their enchantments to bring forth lice, but they could not: so there were lice upon man, and upon beast. 19 Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God: and Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and he hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had said."
In the battle, between Moses and these Satanic Egyptian sorcerers, you may notice that the key to Egyptian power is the mimicry of the power the Power of God. This ability to counterfeit hardened the heart of the pharaoh even after these warlocks had forfeited their trickery to the power of God.
In just the same way the Egyptian scriptures are a counterfeit to God's Word and they have hardened the hearts of many a Bible scholar to where the truth is no longer an option for their seared conscious nesses.
The world of paganism is not a world that rejects the idea of God. But their idea of God is by nature different than the God of the Bible. Thus, if we introduce the gentile/heathen understanding of God into the faith we will alter it and dilute it. Philosopher Gordon Clark clarifies the difference between the pagan "God" and the Biblical God.
"The source of all contrasts between paganism and Christianity is the difference in their concepts of God... Sometimes it is said that whereas Greek Philosophy had known only immanent principles, the Hebrew-Christian religion introduced the idea of transcendence. ... However, with certain clarifications, the first or divine principles of the Greek philosophers may be called immanent in the stricter sense so that all notion of the transcendence is precluded, and thus the pagan systems are throughout radically different from Christianity." Gordon Clark, Thales to Dewey ch.5 pg. 183
So the God of the Bible is transcendent. Space, time, matter and the laws of science are principles of the universe within God and God is limited and within them for He is their creator and source. God is not just a being within reality. God upholds reality. The fundamental idea of Judeo-Christian monotheism is the center of all other concepts of the worldview. While the contrasted idea of "God" or "gods" within the universe and under the sway of various principles is the foundation of all pagan philosophy.
When we look upon the Septuagint (a.k.a. LXX), we have to ask "Is this culture a godly culture that the Lord would deem fit to preserve His Words more than the Israelite Hebrews?"
This is a foreign and unpopular path to travel down in today's society, yet in a world before globalism, capitalism and democracy the societies were autonomous and separate from each other. Religion, politics, language culture and economics were all fused, philosophy was unified. So the nations were either in a good or bad direction and usually in a bad direction. Let us look upon the origin of Egypt.
Genesis 10:6 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan."
10:13 And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim, 14 and Pathrusim, and Casluhim, (out of whom came Philistim,) and Caphtorim."
Egypt or Mizraim was born from the Line of Ham. Ham was the trouble-making Son of Noah. Some of those descendants such as Canaan, Babyon and Egypt would that way for centuries.
Genesis 12:10 And there was a famine in the land: and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there; for the famine was grievous in the land."
Abraham only went there because of the force of Famine.
Genesis 21:9 And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking.
Genesis 21:18 Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation"
Genesis 21:21 And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran: and his mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt.
Ishmael who would be father of the Arabic peoples, was half-Egyptian and took an Egyptian Wife.
The New Testament has revelation dealing with this fact!
Galatians 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free."
The bondage and slavery of Egypt is passed down to the Arabs and more importantly to the Old Covenant.
Now the Arabs have the land of the law system (Mt. Sinai) and are slaves and both Egypt and Arabia are slavery cultures. The codex of Sinaiticus which provides us the Septuagint is providing the Text of a people which is enslaved to works based salvation. The Septuagint would provide Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christians with the legalistic gospel of purgatory as a remedy for the discovery of Jewish Paganism.
This contradicts the scriptures:
Ezekiel 18: 4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die."
1 ]ohn 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. 17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death."
2 Corinthians 5:6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 7 (for we walk by faith, not by sight:) 8 we are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. "
This is the bedrock of the debate between Catholics and Protestants. Purgatory has no other biblical claim and it is through this doctrine that justification by good works is argued.
Genesis 25:12 Now these are the generations of Ishmael, Abraham’s son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah’s handmaid, bare unto Abraham: 13 and these are the names of the sons of Ishmael, by their names, according to their generations: the firstborn of Ishmael, Nebajoth; and Kedar, and Adbeel, and Mibsam, 14 and Mishma, and Dumah, and Massa, 15 Hadar, and Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah: 16 these are the sons of Ishmael, and these are their names, by their towns, and by their castles; twelve princes according to their nations. 17 And these are the years of the life of Ishmael, an hundred and thirty and seven years: and he gave up the ghost and died; and was gathered unto his people. 18 And they dwelt from Havilah unto Shur, that is before Egypt, as thou goest toward Assyria: and he died in the presence of all his brethren."
When Abraham disobeyed God and took God's promises in his own hands, he slept with an Egyptian woman Hagar Ishmael would go on to be the father of the Arabic people who historically hated and competed with the Jews.
Genesis 26:1 And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines unto Gerar. 2 And the Lord appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of: 3 sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father; 4 and I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; 5 because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."
The Hebrews are told to stay away from Egypt. Israel's blessing would have dependence on staying away from Egypt. This is crucial stating that anytime the Hebrews went to stay in Egypt, they were breaking the covenant and would be cursed.
Genesis 37:25 And they sat down to eat bread: and they lifted up their eyes and looked, and, behold, a company of Ishmeelites came from Gilead with their camels bearing spicery and balm and myrrh, going to carry it down to Egypt. 26 And Judah said unto his brethren, What profit is it if we slay our brother, and conceal his blood? 27 Come, and let us sell him to the Ishmeelites, and let not our hand be upon him; for he is our brother and our flesh. And his brethren were content. 28 Then there passed by Midianites merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmeelites for twenty pieces of silver: and they brought Joseph into Egypt."
The Sons of Jacob intended to kill their brother Joseph, but they knew it wasn't proper to murder him. Low and behold, none other than Ishmael's descendants come and Hebrews sell him into slavery. Do they take him to their home in Arabia? No they take him to Egypt.
Genesis 46: 3 And he said, I am God, the God of thy father: fear not to go down into Egypt; for I will there make of thee a great nation: 4 I will go down with thee into Egypt; and I will also surely bring thee up again: and Joseph shall put his hand upon thine eyes."
Obviously having to move away from their promised home into this pagan land was a curse for their dastardly deed to Joseph. However, God will help the Israelite s to thrive and to multiply there through this process.
Genesis 47:29 And the time drew nigh that Israel must die: and he called his son Joseph, and said unto him, If now I have found grace in thy sight, put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh, and deal kindly and truly with me; bury me not, I pray thee, in Egypt:"
Israel hoped for restoration from God. Therefore, he hoped that he would get to be buried first and foremost, not in Egypt but in his homeland.
Exodus 20:2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
The essential nature of Egypt is the place of bondage or slavery
The curse of Egypt is well attested to in scripture
Ezekiel 29:13 Yet thus saith the Lord God; At the end of forty years will I gather the Egyptians from the people whither they were scattered: 14 and I will bring again the captivity of Egypt, and will cause them to return into the land of Pathros, into the land of their habitation; and they shall be there a base kingdom. 15 It shall be the basest of the kingdoms; neither shall it exalt itself any more above the nations: for I will diminish them, that they shall no more rule over the nations. 16 And it shall be no more the confidence of the house of Israel, which bringeth their iniquity to remembrance, when they shall look after them: but they shall know that I am the Lord God."
Ezekiel 32:2 Son of man, take up a lamentation for Pharaoh king of Egypt, and say unto him,Thou art like a young lion of the nations, and thou art as a whale in the seas: and thou camest forth with thy rivers, and troubledst the waters with thy feet, and fouledst their rivers.3 Thus saith the Lord God; I will therefore spread out my net over thee with a company of many people; and they shall bring thee up in my net.4 Then will I leave thee upon the land, I will cast thee forth upon the open field, and will cause all the fowls of the heaven to remain upon thee, and I will fill the beasts of the whole earth with thee.5 And I will lay thy flesh upon the mountains, and fill the valleys with thy height.6 I will also water with thy blood the land wherein thou swimmest, even to the mountains; and the rivers shall be full of thee."
The Egyptian empire is cursed not to be restored.
Isaiah 30:Woe to the rebellious children, saith the Lord,that take counsel, but not of me;
"In later times Egypt was conquered by the Persians (B.C. 525) and by the Greeks under Alexander the Great (B.C.332) after whom the Ptolemies ruled the country for three centuries. Subsequently it was for a time a province of the Roman Empire: and at last, in A.D. 1517, it fell into the hands of the Turks, of whose empire it still forms nominally a part," Easton's Bible Dictionary
The LORD remembered the iniquities of the unrelenting Egyptian society and so it is obvious that his response was to curse them. Egypt never recovered as a people, even to this day. For Israel, Egypt is traditionally a curse, they should not have been there in the 1st place. It has always been tragic when the Jews stayed in Egypt.
Hosea 11:1When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.2 As they called them, so they went from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images.3 I taught Ephraim also to go, taking them by their arms; but they knew not that I healed them.4 I drew them with cords of a man,with bands of love: and I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I laid meat unto them.5 He shall not return into the land of Egypt, but the Assyrian shall be his king, because they refused to return.6 And the sword shall abide on his cities, and shall consume his branches, and devour them, because of their own counsels.7 And my people are bent to backsliding from me: though they called them to the most High, none at all would exalt him."
"The Jew in Egypt followed a very different development from the Bab. Jew and this Egypt type largely influenced Christianity. In the colony at Syene a woman named "trust Yaveh" had no objection to swearing by the Egyptian goddess Seti when making an Egyptian contract: and in Jerimiah 44:15-19, the Jews boasted of their Heathen Worship in Egypt. Oniah had no scruple in establishing a temple and sacrifices apart from Jerus without any of the particularism of the Maccabean zealots. Philo at Alexandria labored all his life for the union of Jewish thought with Greek philosophy" The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Vol. II (Egypt 22 The Egyptian Jew)
Jeremiah 44:15 Then all the men which knew that their wives had burned incense unto other gods, and all the women that stood by, a great multitude, even all the people that dwelt in the land of Egypt, in Pathros, answered Jeremiah, saying, 16 As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. 17 But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil. 18 But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine. 19 And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven, and poured out drink offerings unto her, did we make her cakes to worship her, and pour out drink offerings unto her, without our men?"
We can obviously see from the historic testimony (as usual non-KJVO) that the Alexandrian Jews were not Faithful to the Old Covenant. So why should we count them as such faithful in the reproduction of it?
Were the Egyptian Jews pagans? We know that they were entangled with Gnosticism.
"Contemporary scholarship largely agrees that Gnosticism has Jewish or Judeo-Christian origins, originating in the late First Century AD in nonrabbinical Jewish sects and early Christian sects.[note 14] Many heads of gnostic schools were identified as Jewish Christians by Church Fathers, and Hebrew words and names of God were applied in some gnostic systems. The cosmogonic speculations among Christian Gnostics had partial origins in Ma`aseh Bereshit and Ma`aseh Merkabah. This theses is most notably put forward by Gershom Scholem (1897–1982) and Gilles Quispel (1916-2006). Scholem detected Jewish gnosis in the imagery of the merkavah, which can also be found in "Christian" Gnostic documents, for example Paul's ascension to the third heaven. Quispel sees Gnosticism as an independent Jewish development, tracing its origins to Alexandrian Jews, to which group Valentinus was also connected."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism#Judaism_and_Gnosticism
Occultists recognize a bond between pagan Judaism and Egyptian paganism.
"To conceive of God as an actuality, and not as a mere non-substance or name, which involved non-existence, the kabalah, like the Egyptians, imagined Him to be "a most occult Light,"" pg. 741
"Profoundly ignorant of the nature of these mighty agents of Divine Power, we conceal our ignorance by words that have no meaning; and we might well be asked why Light may not be an effluence from the deity, as has been agreed by all the religions of all Ages of the World. All truly dogmatic religions have issued from the Kabalah and returned to it everything scientific and grand in the religious dreams of all the illuminati, Jacob Boehme, Swedenborg, Saint Martin, and others is borrowed from the kabalah; all the masonic associations owe it their Secrets and their symbols. The Kabalah alone consecrates the alliance of the Universal Reason and the Divine Word; it establishes, by the counterpoises of two forces apparently opposite, the eternal balance of being; it alone reconciles Reason with Faith, power with Liberty, Science with Mystery; it has the keys of the Present, the Past, and the Future. The Bible with all the allegories it contains, expresses in an incomplete and veiled manner only, the religious science of the Hebrews. The doctrine of Moses and the prophets identical at bottum with that of the ancient Egyptians, also had it's outward meaning and its veils. The Hebrew Books were written only to recall memory and traditions; and they were written in symbols unintelligible to the Profane. The Pentateuch and the prophetic poems were merely elementary books of doctrine, morals or liturgy; and the true secret and traditional philosophy was only written afterward, under veils, still less transparent. Thus was a second Bible born, unknown to, or rather uncomprehended by the Christians;" Albert Pike Morals and Dogma pg. 744-45 Kabalah though a later mystical movement is spiritually identical to the Egyptian Gnosticism of the day; which is also understood to be like the new age movement of today
Matthew 2:13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. 14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:"
It should be noted that the only thing that Jesus had to do with Egypt was being called out of it. This prophecy is not simply a quote from Hosea but an allusion to Israel. Like Israel the only reason Jesus stayed there was the threat of death. (at the hands of Herod) Unlike Israel, Jesus was called out of Egypt and had no problem leaving. He overcame the bondage that many Jews never got over. He also was never enslaved to idolatry or sin.
Isaiah 19:18 In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the Lord of hosts; one shall be called, The city of destruction.19 In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the Lord. 20 And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the Lord of hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the Lord because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them. 21 And the Lord shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know the Lord in that day, and shall do sacrifice and oblation; yea, they shall vow a vow unto the Lord, and perform it. 22 And the Lord shall smite Egypt: he shall smite and heal it: and they shall return even to the Lord, and he shall be intreated of them, and shall heal them.23 In that day shall there be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians shall serve with the Assyrians. 24 In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land:"
This I believe has happened and will not happen most likely until the Second Coming. If this prophecy has happened then the following must historically have happened...
1. Five cities in the land of Egypt must be speaking Hebrew
2. One of these cities is named the city of destruction (in some language possibly Hebrew)
3. A monument must stand in Egypt dedicated to Jehovah.
4. Sacrifices are to be made for Jehovah as well as a vow made in Jehovah's name.
5.Assyria, Egypt and Israel have to have a peaceful alliance and a highway.
6. There must be salvation brought to Egypt by the messiah (most likely personally)
7. This salvation seems to have political implications
Now I know that some point to Onias temple as fulfillment of this. Yet this was a period where extra temples were not regulated by God. If he were to pour out the judgments he did at Bethel, why would he have allowed this in Egypt. Jesus didn't show any acceptance of the idea but instead looked to the future. Now like all peoples, Egypt will have a remnant, and I look forward as their country (like the rest of all the earth) will be restored and as they (like we all) will accept Jesus as Lord. Although I don't want to chase this rabbit outside of the Bible version debate territory.
The Egyptian Christian Church has a cloudy history.
"However historically substantial these Coptic traditions of Mark's ministry in Alexandria, one thing seems very substantial indeed; the next sixty to one hundred years of Christian History in the empire's second city are a blank. Eusebius, who composed the first comprehensive history of the church in the early fourth century, list the names of the Bishops who succeeded Mark-Anianus, Abilus,Cerdon and so forth but it is not until the tenth Bishop, Julian, that he supplies more than a bare name, and by then , more than a hundred years have passed 'If Christianity was taken to Egypt by the middle first century' writes C. Wilfred Griggs in his authoritative Early Egyptian Christianity. 'an inexplicable silence in Christian sources concerning leaders of the movement and development of the church over then next 125 to 150 years is probably unique in the history of Christianity..." pg. 201
"So what happened? Were the Christians and gnostics in keen dispute during these missing years? There is no evidence of it. One theory is that the Story of Mark's Evangelism in Alexandria is a myth: and that Christianity came tot he city later from an unknown source." pg. 202 The Christians: Their First Two Thousand Years second volume
In conclusion, ancient Egypt was a cursed nation and would be the least likely place and people to preserve the Holy Words of God since they were intense idolaters. The Christians of this period were also idolatrous and believe mostly in Gnosticism. Why would we trust the unfaithful with the divine Word of God?
Philo: Alexandrian Jewish Philosopher
I am not here concerned with whether or not Philo had any influence in the production of the LXX. But he is the most famous representative of the neo-Platonist Jewish worldview prevailing among the Alexandrian Jews.
"For God, being God, foreknew that a beautiful copy could not be produced without a good model and that nothing perceptible to the senses could be faultless unless fashioned with reference to an archetypal Idea conceived by the intellect. When therefore he determine to create this visible world, he first formed the intelligible world in order to have a divine, incorporeal pattern for the production of a material world as a later creation, the image of the earlier, containing as many species in the ideal world" Philo De Opificio, IV, 16 Gordon Clark, Thales to Dewey pg. 200
This passage clearly demonstrates that Philo is borrowing from Plato in his philosophy of forms. The ideal world being a mental construct, from which the material world is based. For the Platonism and later Gnostics the material world is the source of evil while the spiritual world is the source of good. Philo is impressed with Plato's philosophy and tries to find a biblical case for the doctrine. He argues from scriptural position using examples such as anthropomorphic descriptions of God referring to Him physically when in fact he is a spirit or suggestions in scripture about the temple being symbolic of a heavenly temple. But applying to this to all the cosmos is not what we find in the Bible. God created a world which he called "very good" (Gen. 1:31) The earth had evil and death and destruction but these were things that resulted from sin. (Genesis 3, Romans 5:12-15, 8:21-23). Plato is ignorant of the genesis account of creation and so makes this explanation to alleviate the rational dilemma. (2 Pe.3:4-7). But Philo following the platonic philosophy must alter creation.
"There is, however one troublesome difficulty in connection with the creation of the visible world. Sometimes Philo speaks of God not as creating the world ex nihilo, but as forming it out of matter or out of reality. Then when he says that God is not only a demiurge but also a creator, it is argued that God is the creator of the ideas but only the demiurge of the visible world. "Gordon Clark, Thales to Dewey pg. 203
So you see how the pagan understanding reality now creeps into the system of the theologian? I am not arguing that Philo had any desire to make the Jewish faith pagan and yet here we find Him submitting the transcendence of God for philosophical fellowship with Plato.
"But the heyday of Jewish Colonization in Egypt dawned when Alexander the Great founded Alexandria in 331 B.C. Practically from the first, Jews formed a very important element in the population of this great commercial and cultural capital. Most of the members of the Ptolemy dynasty, which fell heir to Alexander's Empire in Egypt and the neighboring territories and had it's seat of government at Alexandria. By the early years of the Christian era we are told that there were almost a million Jews in Egypt, that two out of the five wards of Alexandria were known as Jewish districts, and that others were scattered throughout the remaining three wards. Alexandria was from the start a Greek-speaking city, and its Jewish population soon forgot their Palestinian vernacular and came to speak exclusively in Greek. If these people were to make any use of the Hebrew Bible, it must be in a translation." F.F.Bruce The books and the Parchments pg. 137-138
This author has worked alongside large minority population of immigrants, you are much more likely that you will learn their language than it is that they will learn yours. Yet here is a people with an alleged reputation to be specially chosen by God forgetting their own language. It is obvious that these people are ashamed of where they came from. This is like a reverse mission these people are trying to evangelize themselves if they are even trying to attempt that at all.
Tampering with mail is scholarly offense!
"Letter to Aristeas, the Egyptian king banqueted the seventy two for seven days. During this interval, he put questions to each of them to supposedly test their proficiency and skill for the task at hand. Extraordinarily, not one question or answer in the entire lengthy dialogue was related to the
differences in Greek and Hebrew idioms, verb tenses, writing styles of the various Hebrew authors, or to the divine nature of the Hebrew writings, Scriptural preservation, Biblical translating or Biblical languages. The questions related to such things as politics, military affairs, and kings' reigns–with emphasis on Athenian Greek Philosophy. Yet strangely we read that three days later, Ptolemy II Philadelphus granted them permission to translate the Old Testament into Greek for his library, being somehow assured of their competency in Biblical scholarship. Does this ring likely or logical? Moreover, Aristeas' letter belongs to the 2nd century B.C.7 That is, it is not authentic–it was written about 150 or more years after the supposed time that the LXX was untranslated. Further, many hold that the writer of Aristeas was probably not a Gentile, but a Jew. Regardless of nationality, he was deeply enmeshed in pagan Greek philosophy and was certainly not a courtier in the court of Ptolemy Philadelphus. Thus, Aristeas is not who he claims. He is not a first hand witnesses were led to believe by the narrative. The writer has lied to us, and often at that. Aristeas further blunders in naming Demetrius of Phalerum (c.345-c.283 B.C.) as a member of the court and keeper of Ptolemy Philadelphus’ (285-247 B.C.) library. The latter part of Demetrius’ life was spent in the court of Ptolemy Soter, not Philadelphus. Moreover, having lost favor with Philadelphus, Demetrius was banished by that monarch. Indeed, he was never the royal librarian.1 The author further indicts himself when just prior to the banquet given in honor of the translators he states: "it happens to be the anniversary of our naval victory over Antigonus."2 This is a major blunder. The writer has either transformed a decisive defeat of the Egyptian navy at the battle of Cos (c.260 B.C.) into a victory or this is a reference to an actual victory at Andros around B.C. 245. Regardless, both of these battles occurred long after the c.283 decease of Demetrius.3 Such historical errors recorded in the Letter of Aristeas disclose the undeniable fact that the work is not of the time period it claims. Moreover, an attempt to enumerate all the many obvious errors and inaccuracies in this work would necessitate going far beyond the scope and intended purpose of the study. Surely enough has already been said to alert the reader to the true nature of "Aristeas"." http://standardbearers.net/uploads/The_Septuagint_A_Critical_Analysis_Dr_Floyd_Nolen_Jones_PhD_ThD.pdf#page=13&zoom=auto,-13,760
The Septuagint 72 contenders against the Levite scribes
The first issue is the date of the septuagint. Popular scholarship teaches us that the LXX was written at about 300B.C. Therefore I assumed this to be true. Some would say it has to be true since it has been taught at so many schools. You read any high school textbook on biology, during the last century, you will see many hoaxes such as Piltdown Man and Ernst Haekyl's drawings of Embryos, even though both were debunked decades earlier. So obviously it is possible for popular scholarship to be wrong. Here are some contradictions to holding the Septuagint to be pre-Christian and superior to the Masoretic text. If you accept the historicity of the LXX, then you must accept all it's accounts as factual. Many such as Philo have claimed that there were 72 translators from 12 tribes of Israel who separated themselves, and over 7 days were inspired, and all had produced identical copies of the LXX. If you believe Philo and Augustine that these were in fact historical accounts as to when they were written, then it would be obvious that we should accept the account that apparently these 72 were inspired. The problem being that the Alexandrine advocates like to interpret naturalistic-ally and in principle disbelieve in this type of legend. After all they constantly like to build up straw-man arguments labeling all KJV advocates as followers of a demonized version of Peter Ruckman. There are theological problems to this interpretation as well. Why would God inspire scribes for an area under a curse? (Psalms 106:22, Jeremiah 44:26, Ezekiel 29:13-15, Revelation 11:18). Why would God want all 12 tribes translate the text into Greek when the preservation of the text was the sole responsibility of the tribe of Levi? (Malachi 2:7-8, Deuteronomy 31:24-5)
Faith in the Lxx being produced before the Christian era is based mainly on "The Letter to Aristas" However this document has been historically proved fallacious for the following reasons. The date of the letter is usually dated in the second century B.C. (The International Bible Encyclopedia suggested a date around 100-80B.C. pg. 2724) which is a out 150 years after the LXX was supposed to be translated. This letter is also historically inaccurate in that it names Demetrius of Phalerum (345-283B.C.) as a member of the court and keeper of Ptolemy Philadelphus' library (285-247B.C.) since Demetrius spent the last part of his life in the court of Ptolemy Soter not Philadelphus. In Fact, Demetrius was banished by Philadelphus! The final historical blunder of this document is that "it happens to be the anniversary of our naval victory over Antigonus." This could either be referring to defeat at the battle of Cos (260 B.C.) or an actual victory in 245B.C. Either which way both of these events took place decades after Demetrius death. Modern Scholars tend to recognize the inaccuracy of this letter.
"The Septuagint was the earliest Greek of the Hebrew Scriptures. According to the letter of Aristeas, it was translated by seventy-two translators in Alexandria under Pharoah PtolemyII (285-247B.C.) The letter of Aristeas, however appears to have been written to promote the accuracy and authority, of the Septuagint (often abbreviated LXX) Actually, the Greek translations came into being over a period of time." Holman Bible Handbook pg.526
endorse by Palestinian Israel. ''This version was never officially read by the Jews in Palestine who spoke in Aramaic and read in Hebrew. Instead the Jewish authorities condemned the work and declared a period of mourning because of the defects in the version." Preface to The Holy Bible from Ancient Manuscripts IPeshitta} George M. Lamsa
I don't have a problem with the passages of the Old Testament being translated into Greek or any other language. Yet is there any evidence that an entire body of material such as the LXX legitimately existed at that time? Why have a body of work with a false canon in the wrong language be considered superior at preserving the text more accurately than the Hebrew and claim to be the text of Jesus and the apostles?
Question: If Jesus read from LXX and not the Hebrew Bible, why did he refer to the Hebrew Bible arrangement? Jots and tittles are not part of the Greek language but the Hebrew. Divisions like the Law, Prophets and Psalms are not found in LXX. Jesus refers to the blood of the prophet alluding to martyrs at the beginning and end of the Hebrew Canon. However the last prophet to die, Zecharias was Martyred in 2 Chronicles which, though last in the Hebrew, is not the last book in the LXX. Yet even Alexandrian advocates have to admit that these texts are not quoted specifically.
"What we commonly referred to as the LXX ' version is the more stereotyped form which they assumed as result of the work of ...scholars (notably Origen). Therefore, when we say that NT writers quote from LXX, this does nor imply that we can check their quotations by reference to a contemporary LXX norm (except, to some degree, for quotations from the Pentateuch)."
Is Codex Sinaiticus truly as antiquated as has been lauded?
One fact that I was unaware of after Bible college and a masters of theology was the fact that within 2 years of Constantine Tischendorf's discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus that the antiquity was challenged by one claiming collated the codex. His name is Constantine Simonides.
Constantine Simonides (1820–1890), palaeographer, dealer of icons, man with extensive learning, knowledge of manuscripts, miraculous calligraphy. He surpassed his contemporaries in literary ability. According to opinion of paleographers, he was the most versatile forger of the nineteenth century"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_Simonides
Falconer Madan, Books in manuscript : a short introduction to their study and use. With a Chapter on Records, London 1898, p. 124.
"Simonides lived in the monasteries on Mount Athos between 1839 and 1841 and again in 1852, during which time he acquired some of the biblical manuscripts that he later sold. He produced a lot of manuscripts ascribed to Hellenistic and early Byzantine periods. He allegedly forged a number of documents and manuscripts and claimed they were the originals of the Gospel of Mark, as well as original manuscripts of poems of Homer. He sold some of these manuscripts to the King of Greece. Greek scholars exposed what some claimed to be forgeries quickly and he left Greece and traveled from country to country with his manuscripts. He visited England between 1853 and 1855 and other European countries, and his literary activity was extraordinary. Some of his works were published in Moscow, Odessa, in England, and in Germany. He also wrote many other works which were never published."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_Simonides
Constantine is an amazing historical character, a villain and hero and adventurer whose life would look like an Indiana Jones sequel.
Documentary movie producer Chris Pinto has brought this contention; His documentary movies on this are "A lamp in the Dark", "Tares among the Wheat" etc.
David W. Daniels has taken up this theory and has added a great deal of research himself to it.
The thesis in general, is that Simonides' Uncle Benedict of Athos was an Eastern Orthodox Professor in the late 1700's teaching at a college in Sidonia at a time where the Greeks were flourishing in Turkey given a special dispensation by the Ottoman Turks. Benedict's training was much different in the sense that he was in other parts of Europe learning the western textual criticism in contradiction with traditional orthodox thought. He wanted to erect a manuscript with an Alexandrian flavor to overturn the Textus Receptus dominance. He was not allowed to teach on this for fear of the conservative Bishops, but worked for well over 30 years at night by candle light, making errors rather easily and scrapping what other Alexandrian scribal readings he could find. In his old age he was not able to complete this work, but his nephew was a promising scholar who could put together the finishing touches. The Ottoman Turks would later shut down these territories losing patience.
David W. Daniels has informed this author that he is publishing a book contemporary with this publication. It is entitled "Is the World's Oldest Bible a Fake?"
I listened to a debate between Chris Pinto and James White. White asserted that Pinto was arguing out of ignorance. This is so sad, if he were bringing this up is out of ignorance it is only because academia failed to inform it's readers of these events!! Even if you disagree, the academic silence on this topic has been devastating.
"Answers in Genesis" Spent time on it's website dealing with the amount of factual differences in the genealogies of these OT manuscripts. We must remember that AIG is not trying to advocate KJVO. Their purpose for these articles was simply to portray and defend a consistent biblical history and chronology. The article is remarks to a biblical chronology.
Here is a chart.
|NAME||Age at begetting||Remaining years of life|
|LXX||Masoretic Text||Samaritan Pentateuch||LXX||Masoretic Text||Samaritan Pentateuch|
Pete Williams has been a graduate student at the University of Cambridge, England, where he has received an M.A. (Cantab.) in Classics and Hebrew, and an M.Phil. In Hebrew Studies, and has a Ph.D. on the Syriac (Peshitta) translation of the Old Testament. At time of writing, he was carrying out post-doctoral research on weapons in Ancient Hebrew at the Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge..(author of AIG article, not the chapter)
Now the LXX conforms to a greater degree to the Egyptian Chronology. LXX advocates use this to say that it is therefore more factual of the 2 accounts. But when we look at the Samaritan Penteteuch we know that the Samaritans had an obvious theological bias wanting their history to override the Jewish chronology to allow them relevancy. With the criticisms of LXX chronology it is much more likely that the LXX is piggybacking off of the Samaritan Pentateuch and extrapolating further, as opposed tot he other way around.
Greek of lxx inferior to the Hebrew OT
Son of Sirach 1:c "I entreat you therefore to come with benevolence, and to read with attention, and to pardon us for those things wherein we may seem, while we follow the image of wisdom, to come short in the composition of words; for the Hebrew words have not the same force in them when translated into another tongue. And not only these, but the law also itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language."
So here we see a LXX manuscript claiming the inferiority of the lxx to a Hebrew most likely masoretic, Hebrew reading. The LXX frankly, is not in Hebrew! If we gave it the LXX Authority it would not have authority! This position is logically unsustainable!
Gap (proven by apocrypha in 1Maccabees)
There had been a ceasing of the prophets
“There had not been such great distress in Israel since the time prophets ceased to appear among the people” 1 Macc. 9:27
There currently was no prophet
“They stored the stones in a suitable place on the temple hill, until a prophet should come and decided what to do with them” 1 Macc. 4:46
They were waiting for a prophet
If we were to assume that Maccabees the most popular of the apocryphal works was inspired without error, what the revealed message implied is that the apocryphal works were not inspired because they were published while the people were waiting for a prophet. Thus from these verses alone the apocrypha is not inspired of God.
Sirach 4:4 Give to the merciful and uphold not the sinner: God will repay vengeance to the ungodly and to sinners, and keep them against the day of vengeance.
As opposed to christ...
Matthew 5: 42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Tobit (New Revised Standard Version: catholic edition)
1:3 I, Tobit, walked in the ways of truth and righteousness all the days of my life. I performed many acts of charity for my kindred and my people who had gone with me in exile to Nineveh in the land of the Assyrians.
kjv proverbs 27: 1 Boast not thyself of tomorrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth.2 Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips.
False prophetic links debunked
In a debate Jay Dyer held to the Eastern Orthodox Church position (a online debate with calvinist Josh Brisby) and denied Sola Scriptura. His thesis made sense.
My first argument is that if the Protestant has the wrong canon, then his claim of sola scriptura is completely groundless and falls flat. Let me preface this by saying we believe in soli verbum Dei, the Word of God alone, not Scripture alone. The Divine Logos is a living Person (Heb. 4:12, John 5:39), not a book, though the written Revelation of Himself in the canonical Scriptures is inerrant and infallible. It is not, as will be demonstrated below, the sole means of knowing Christ and obtaining infallibly true religious propositions."Then he gave examples of apocryphal text that he claimed were in the New Testament.
"Suffice it to say in summary that it is completely false that the New Testament never quotes the DC. For example, we see the following citations very clearly:
Ecclus. 11:31 and 2 John 10."
Ecclus 11:31 Bring not every man into thy house: for many are the snares of the deceitful.
2 john 10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:"
Ok, this is not a quote, nor a prophetic fulfillment. It is simply a subject which is universal among ancient middle eastern peoples. Worse, it is not exactly the same topic! The New Testament is referring to doctrine and nothing else.
"Ecclus. 11:18-20 compared with Christ’s parable of the wealthy farmer in Luke 12:19."
Eclus.11:18 There is one that is enriched by living sparingly, and this is the portion of his reward.
19 In that he saith: I have found me rest, and now I will eat of my goods alone:
20 And he knoweth not what time shall pass, and that death approacheth, and that he must leave all to others, and shall die."
luke 12:19 And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou ha"st much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.
Yet again, not a quote or even a reference to prophecy. this was simply a common saying.
"Further, Jesus’ statements about the eye making the whole body dark in Matthew 6:22 seems to clearly refer to Ecclus. 14:8-11."
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
Sirach 14:8-11 The eye of the envious is wicked: and he turneth away his face, and despiseth his own soul.9 The eye of the covetous man is insatiable in his portion of iniquity: he will not be satisfied till he consume his own soul, drying it up.
10 An evil eye is towards evil things: and he shall not have his fill of bread, but shall be needy and pensive at his own table.11 My son, if thou have any thing, do good to thyself, and offer to God worthy offerings.
matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. definitely not a quote!
"Wisdom 12-13 is almost exactly parallel with Romans 1:18-32. F.F. Bruce admits this in his “Canon of Scripture,” where he writes that St. Paul obviously had this in mind when penning Romans."
romans 1:18-32 is 14 verses. Wisdom is 2 chapters and a total of 46 verses. Wisdom is focused on Israel whil Romans is focused on all mankind. Jay is really stretching here. of course the Bible can use similar themes to previous writing. That Does not mean that these other books are all of the sudden divine.
"Wisdom 2 and Baruch contains clear prophecies of Christ, as evidenced here.
Hebrews 11:35 refers to women and children who refused to be delivered from death (martyrdom) that they might receive a better resurrection. Now, there is nothing like this in the Protestant canonical OT (based on the Palestinian Jewish canon), where a woman refuses to have her children saved in order to merit for them a more glorious resurrection. But there is exactly that situation in 2 Maccabees 7, where the mother and her seven sons refuse to be delivered so that they might obtain a better resurrection."
First of all many books after the Old Testament made messianic prophecies. Such as the works found in the dead sea scrolls. Since the Jews were expecting the coming Messiah this was nothing new.
However the wisdom passage contradicts the teachings of christ.
have returned from hell:
Wisdom 2:2 For we are born of nothing, and after this we shall be as if we had not been: for the breath in our nostrils is smoke: and speech a spark to move our heart,
This contradicts Christ teaching on the afterlife.
Luke 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
"Thus, we see that the NT writers clearly had no Protestant dislike of the Deuterocanon (from now on DC). I fact, it is well known that many early Protestant vernaculars contained still contained the DC Books, or at least some of them, such as the early King James and the original Geneva Bible. Who, then, is right on the canon? Who has the full written Word of God? If a Protestant cannot give a cogent account as to what constitutes canonicity, who makes that decision, and the historical events that makeup canonicity, then he continue to claim sola scriptura as a viable principle. It might simply be asked, why follow Luther in rejecting them? Luther himself admitted he had theological reasons for rejecting them. But that begs the question—to reject the DC because it doesn’t fit with “the Word of God,” as many Protestants do, is merely presupposing you already have the correct canon. But that’s what is in question. If you do not even have the correct canon, it logically follows that you are also wrong about sola scriptura."
They did not contain the apocrypha in the traditional sense. The apocrypha was always separate because they were not translating from the LXX they were translating from the Hebrew which did not contain the apocrypha. They did this for historical perspective. Letting the books inform the reader of the history.
Here we are coming to Jay's fundamental misunderstanding of inspiration.
It just comes across so ridiculous in my mind. "Who Decides what God says?"
God!! He determines His Word.
psalm 119:89 For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.
Jay appears to be missing the fundamental question. "What is the word of God to begin with?" Is it a set of Holy Books? Or is it the Revelation of God? The Church does not make something the Word of God. The Church simply has a responsibility to recognize what we know that God has revealed.
But the Bible does draw a strict line between the word of God and the word of man.
Deuteronomy 4:2 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.
Deuteronomy 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. "