SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Looking for free sermon messages?
Sermon Podcast | Audio | Video

Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Septuagint and Masoretic

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 )
PosterThread









 Re:

Quote:

KingJimmy wrote:
Stever, why did you register a new name just to make this post?

Quote:

1]Only the tribe of Levi was the custodians of the written words.



People wrote the Law all over the place. It adorned their doorposts and even their clothing.

Quote:

2]Jews were not permitted to go back to Egypt.



Jeremiah went to Egypt to prophesy. Joseph took Jesus to Egypt. Going to Egypt itself was never forbidden.

Quote:

3]No quotation in the New Testament that Jesus or the Apostles ever quotes are from the LXX[72].



This is simply wrong. Most of the NT quotes of the OT are from the LXX. Sometimes the wording is exact.

Quote:

Now tell me,Why would a non-existent Greek Old Testament that is supposed to be from 220 B.C. to be more superior than the word of God given to the Jews?



I don't think anybody here has asserted that the LXX is supperior to the Hebrew. It's like the KJV, only a translation, and a tranlsation will never be superior to the original, as something always gets lost in translation. However, studying the LXX has an advantage, as it can (but not always) better help us understand some more difficult passages in Hebrew.



xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Stever responds:

I do agree with several of the points:

1]Only the tribe of Levi were the custodians of the written words.

2) Now tell me, Why would a non-existent Greek Old Testament that is supposed to be from 220 B.C. to be more superior than the word of God given to the Jews?


I would also like to add that it is my understanding that the LXX (The Septaugint) follows word for word the 5th Column created by Origen.

The following is from the Book "Which Version is the Bible" by Floyd Nolen Jones:

ORIGEN ADAMANTIUS - THE FOUNTAINHEAD OF THE PROBLEM
Origen compiled an Old Testament called the Hexapla (c.245 A.D.). It was, in effect, a parallel Bible which had six columns. The first column was the Hebrew Old Testament. Three other columns portrayed Greek translations by men who were Ebionites. They believed in the ethical teachings of Jesus but did not believe in Paul's doctrines of grace. Indeed, they called Paul an apostate and wholly rejected all his epistles. They did not believe Jesus was Deity – that He was God with a capital "G", and taught that Joseph was the father of Jesus. Several of the Ebionites whose translations were included in these columns later apostatized, returning to Judaism.

One of them (Aquila of Sinope, 80-135 A.D.) was excommunicated from the Christian community for steadfastly refusing to give up astrology and for practicing necromancy. During the reign of Hadrian (A.D. 117-138), he supervised the building of a pagan temple to Jupiter on the site of the Temple of Solomon and placed a statue of the Emperor where the Holy of Holies had been.

Aquila produced a new translation of the Old Testament into Greek wherein he deliberately translated many sections of Scripture concerning the Messiah in such a way as to make it impossible to apply these passages to the Lord Jesus Christ. He conjectured that the Greek word "parthenos" of Matthew 1:23 was not the virgin Mary but represented a corruption in the original text. According to Aquila, the correct understanding was that Jesus was the bastard son of Mary and a blond Roman soldier of German extraction named "pantheras" (Eng. = panther).

Origen considered the works of these Ebionites to be "inspired" and thus included them in his "Bible". 5. Wallace, A Review of the New Versions op. cit., Addenda, section 3, p. 17.

[b]The fifth column (written in classical Greek) supposedly is Origen's revision of an older pre A.D. Greek Old Testament translation. Today, this 5th column is referred to by text critics (though they are loathe to admit this) as the "LXX" or the "Septuagint". [/b]
Jones, The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis, op. cit., p. 19.

Origen also worked with the New Testament. Whereas he mainly translated the Old, he edited the New. Origen traveled extensively and everywhere he found a Greek New Testament, it was altered to fit his doctrine. He, of course, felt that he was merely "correcting" the manuscripts. However, men of God do not change original manuscript readings. If one does not agree with the text of a manuscript, the place for change is at translation; but to alter the original document – never! Origen had a wealthy patron who supplied seven stenographers and seven copyists to accompany and assist him as he systematically altered Scripture.
7. Elgin S. Moyer, Who Was Who in Church History, (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1962), p. 315; also see John H. P. Reumann, The Romance of Bible Scripts and Scholars, (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1965), pp. 98-103 for a more detailed account.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

God bless,

Stever :-D

 2006/6/12 23:04
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
I would also like to add that it is my understanding that the LXX (The Septaugint) follows word for word the 5th Column created by Origen.

This known as putting the cart before the horse. The LXX came into existence c250 [u]BC[/u].


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/6/13 6:16Profile









 Re:

Quote:

philologos wrote:
Quote:
I would also like to add that it is my understanding that the LXX (The Septaugint) follows word for word the 5th Column created by Origen.

[u][b]

Philologos responds:

This known as putting the cart before the horse. The LXX came into existence c250

[/b][/u]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Stever responds to Philologos:

[b]Yes, that is the story, but there is is no historical proof that it ever existed at all, PRIOR TO THE FIRST CENTURY, 300 YEARS AFTER IT'S SUPPOSED CREATION.[/b]

The history of the origin of the Septuagint is embellished with many diverse fables, hence its actual derivation is still being debated. As to hard provable facts, little is known. To illustrate, as we peruse the "Introduction" of the Zondervan version of the LXX we find:

"The history of the origin ... embellished with various fables ... Little is known with accuracy on this subject ... we possess no information whatsoever as to the time or place of their execution ... it has recently been inferred (p. i) ... the basis of truth which appears to be under this story seems to be that ... some have thus supposed that the translation was made by Alexandrian Jews ... the most reasonable conclusion is ..." (p. ii, emphasis added)

Besides these we typically encounter:

"It is a good story – even if it doesn't have a word of truth in it ... it is highly probable ... the Aristeas story is rendered still more dubious by a consideration of the apparent origins ... It has been hotly debated whether or not there was a single original Greek translation ... the Old Testament was not all translated in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus ... we cannot be sure that it was completed by the beginning of the first century B.C. ... The Prologue to the Book of Ecclesiasticus IMPLIES that the ..."

THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT

There exist five sources as to the authenticity and origin of a pre-Christian Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures. We shall now call each to step forward to give his testimony in order that we can render an accurate and factual decision.

1. The earliest writer mentioning a Greek Old Testament is Aristobulus, a Jewish priest who wrote a commentary on the Law. Fragments of this have been preserved by Eusebius of Caesarea (Praep. Ev., VIII. x and XIII. xii). Aristobulus lived around the beginning of the second century B.C. He records that the Law was translated into Greek from the Hebrew under the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus and that one Demetrius Phalereus had been employed in bringing about its production. Eusebius (260-339 A.D.) maintains that Aristobulus was actually one of the "seventy" translators. Nevertheless, the eclectic character of the work has made doubtful the authenticity of its authorship.

Indeed, Aristobulus was dependent on Aristeas and motivated by the desire to prove that Plato, and even Homer, had borrowed from the Bible.

2. A letter, purporting to be written by a certain Aristeas to his brother Philocrates during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246 B.C.), relates how Philadelphus, persuaded by his librarian (Demetrius of Phalerum) to obtain a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures for his royal library, appealed to the high priest at Jerusalem.

The letter of Aristeas is preserved in the highly spurious non-canonical collection of fiction called "The Forgotten Books of Eden." This letter is the principal source of information concerning the origin of the Septuagint.

According to this letter, Ptolemy, desiring to collect a copy of "all the books in the world", offered in trade the freedom of 100,000 Jewish captives in exchange for a Greek translation of the Jewish Laws. Aristeas claimed to be a Greek court official of Ptolemy's. Further, that he was among those sent as an embassy by Demetrius requesting Eleazar, the high priest, to send a company of the best scholars of Israel bearing an official copy of the Law to Alexandria for the purpose of preparing that translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.

The same story is told with variations by Josephus, but later writers embellish it with miraculous details. After reading through these accounts, one is distinctly left with the impression that, rather than the miraculous, he is enmeshed in legend, fable and myth. For example, some assert that the translators were shut into separate cells and, by divine inspiration, wrote their versions exactly alike, word for word. We scan these later writings and are "informed" that the 72 translators completed the entire undertaking in 72 days, etc.

Others speculate that the LXX was primarily prepared for the benefit of a large population of Greek-speaking Jews living in and around Alexandria, Egypt. Yet, it is unlikely that in a space of approximately 35 years the Jews of Alexandria would have found such a translation needful or desirable. It is noteworthy that we find no vestige of any versions having been made by the Jews into the languages of other countries – countries in which they had settled for much longer periods than in Alexandria.

3. The third witness most often referred to is that of the prologue of the Apocryphal non-canonical book "Jesus, the Son of Sirach." Purportedly written 130 B.C., this work, is often cited as referring to a Greek version that existed in his day. However, Jesus – "Son of Sirach" – was merely translating his grandfather's work, and this work was not written in Greek but Hebrew. What he said was "... the same things expressed in Hebrew have not an equal force when translated into another language. Not only so, but even the Law and the prophecies and the rest of the books differ not a little as to the things said in them."

It can be seen that the first statement made no reference whatsoever to the Greek language. Furthermore, the second statement says nothing about a translation but refers only to what the Hebrew books said. Jesus, the Son of Sirach, said nothing whatever in the preceding quote about the Law and the Prophecies existing in a Greek Old Testament. Having undertaken to translate his grandfather's work from Hebrew to Greek, he was merely speaking of his own difficulties in translating. Thus Jesus' (the Son of Sirach) citation to the "Law and the Prophecies" had no relation to any Greek Bible.

4. Another name mentioned as having used a B.C. LXX is Philo (c.20 B.C. – c.A.D. 50) of Alexandria. A Jewish Gnostic and philosophical mystic, Philo lived during the reign of Caligula the Roman Emperor. It was the same period in which the Apostles were fruitfully engaged in the preaching of the Gospel. In his Life of Moses, he states that up unto that time a yearly feast was kept in memory of the Scriptures having been translated into Greek by the seventy-two interpreters. He also intimates that the interpreters were "inspired", by stating: "They prophesied like men possessed, not one in one way and one in another, but all producing the same words and phrases as though some unseen prompter were at the ears of each".

Some have suggested that Philo is possibly the author of The letter of Aristeas. Even if this were untrue, the possibility exists that Philo's only real knowledge of the Septuagint is the result of his having read Aristeas. The fact is that there are no actual quotes contained in his work that are cited from a Greek translation of the Old Testament.

5. Lastly, the Jewish Historian Josephus (A.D. 37-100?) is often cited as having used the Septuagint. [i][b][size=small]HOWEVER NO QUOTES OF HIS HAVING DONE SO ARE EVER OFFERED TO CERTIFY SUCH A CLAIM.[/size][/b][/i] A member of the Pharisee sect from age 19 until the end of his life, Josephus corroborates the story as related by Aristeas with only slight variations. It is generally agreed that almost certainly, he had access to the letter. Thus, Josephus is not an actual proven independent source. [i][b][size=small]MOREOVER, NO REAL EVIDENCE EXISTS THAT HE EVER USED OR EVEN SAW A SEPTUAGINT.[/size][/b][/i]

Presumably, only the first five books (The Law or the Pentateuch) were initially translated. This is said to be the "original" Septuagint. The remaining books were supposedly translated piecemeal later. Subsequently the name "Septuagint" was extended and expanded to cover all of these translations. Significantly, the apocryphal books are found interspersed throughout the canonical books in the LXX.

THE TESTIMONY OF THE "STAR WITNESS" – FALLACIOUS!

In The 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. That is, it is not authentic – it was written about 150 or more years after the supposed time that the LXX was translated. 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 witness as we 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. 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." This is a major blunder. [b]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.

[i]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 as to the true nature of "Aristeas".

The situation before us would be analogous to the author of a novel such as "Gone With the Wind" describing within the story another book as though it had been written several hundred years previously. Would such a statement be esteemed as necessarily factual, scientific, or admissible as legal evidence which would, for example, hold up in a court of Law?

The LXX version itself "speaks" to us and in so doing, bears manifest proof that it was not administered by Jews from Israel. It was generated by Jews, or those acquainted with the Hebrew tongue, who were of Egypt. This is demonstrated beyond all doubt by the presence of many words and conspicuous expressions that are unmistakably Alexandrian. This fact alone is sufficient proof that the narrative of Aristeas is mere fiction. Moreover, Melvin K. H. Peters apprises us that the story of the origin of the Septuagint was "exposed as a legend as early as 1705." [/b][/i]
xxxxxxxxxxxxx

[b]In conclusion, the fact of the matter still stands: The Septuagint follows Origen's 5th column word for word. The support for the Septuagint cannot be backed up by History. It is indeed the work of Origen, that is supported by Textural Critics of this age. Who was Origen?

Origen compiled an Old Testament called the Hexapla (c.245 A.D.). It was, in effect, a parallel Bible which had six columns. The first column was the Hebrew Old Testament. Three other columns portrayed Greek translations by men who were Ebionites. They believed in the ethical teachings of Jesus but did not believe in Paul's doctrines of grace. Indeed, they called Paul an apostate and wholly rejected all his epistles. They did not believe Jesus was Deity – that He was God with a capital "G", and taught that Joseph was the father of Jesus. Several of the Ebionites whose translations were included in these columns later apostatized, returning to Judaism.

One of them (Aquila of Sinope, 80-135 A.D.) was excommunicated from the Christian community for steadfastly refusing to give up astrology and for practicing necromancy. During the reign of Hadrian (A.D. 117-138), he supervised the building of a pagan temple to Jupiter on the site of the Temple of Solomon and placed a statue of the Emperor where the Holy of Holies had been.

Aquila produced a new translation of the Old Testament into Greek wherein he deliberately translated many sections of Scripture concerning the Messiah in such a way as to make it impossible to apply these passages to the Lord Jesus Christ. He conjectured that the Greek word "parthenos" of Matthew 1:23 was not the virgin Mary but represented a corruption in the original text. According to Aquila, the correct understanding was that Jesus was the bastard son of Mary and a blond Roman soldier of German extraction named "pantheras" (Eng. = panther). Origen considered the works of these Ebionites to be "inspired" and thus included them in his "Bible".

The fifth column (written in classical Greek) supposedly is Origen's revision of an older pre A.D. Greek Old Testament translation. Today, this 5th column is referred to by text critics (though they are loathe to admit this) as the "LXX" or the "Septuagint".

Origen also worked with the New Testament. Whereas he mainly translated the Old, he edited the New. Origen traveled extensively and everywhere he found a Greek New Testament, it was altered to fit his doctrine. He, of course, felt that he was merely "correcting" the manuscripts. However, men of God do not change original manuscript readings. If one does not agree with the text of a manuscript, the place for change is at translation; but to alter the original document – never! Origen had a wealthy patron who supplied seven stenographers and seven copyists to accompany and assist him as he systematically altered Scripture.

Origen was the third head master of a school in Alexandria, Egypt, which had been founded in 180 A.D. by the Greek philosopher Pantaenus. Pantaenus was succeeded in 202 A.D. by Clement of Alexandria (not to be confused with Clement of Rome) who taught that Plato's work was also inspired in the same sense as Scripture. Their writings indicate they were lost, albeit "religious", Greek philosophers. Neither professed a new birth apart from water baptism; indeed, it was on the basis of their having been so baptized that they declared themselves "Christian".

However, the New Testament repeatedly declares that this is not how one becomes a Christian as water neither saves nor redeems. Rather, the Bible teaches that in order to be a Savior you must live a sinless life, die on a cross and come back to life on the third day. As Mary, the Roman Catholic church, the Baptist church, Calvin, Wesley, or any present day churchmen etc. did not die on the cross and come back to life on the third day, they cannot be the savior of men's souls. Since water did not die on the cross and come back to life on the third day, it also cannot save the soul.


ORIGEN'S BELIEFS:

The following is a composite gleaned from many sources depicting the beliefs of Origen. Let us examine them to see if he was in fact a "great early Father of the Church" as we are often told.

This Greek philosopher had been taught by the founder of Neo-Platonism (Ammonius Saccas 170-243 A.D.). Neo-Platonism is a strange combination of Aristotelian logic and Oriental cult teachings. It conceives the world as being an emanation from "the one" – the impersonal one (not the personal "Abba" [Daddy or even the more intimate "Dada"] of the Bible) with whom the soul is capable of being reunited while in some sort of trance or ecstasy.

As a follower of that philosophy, Origen attempted to amalgamate its views to Christianity. The problem with Origen, as with many who profess Christianity today, was that he tried to take "the best" of the world system (that which he had learned in school - his old philosophic views etc.) and incorporate them into Christianity; but they do not mix. It will be noted that many of Origen's beliefs coincide with Roman Catholic and Jehovah's Witness doctrine, both of which are "Christian" cults. Origen believed:

1.in soul sleep (that the soul "sleeps" in the grave until the resurrection). However, the Bible teaches that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (II Cor.5:8);

2.in baptismal regeneration (belief that one is saved by water baptism). Although Satan was the originator, Origen is the first man we can find who was a strong proponent of this doctrine;

3. in universal salvation, i.e., the ultimate reconciliation of all things including Satan and the demons;
4.that the Father was God with a capital "G" and Jesus was God with a little "g" – that Jesus was only a created being. Thus, Origen was not Christian in the most basic of all doctrine, namely the person of the Lord Jesus the Christ;

5.to become sinless, one had to go to purgatory . This doctrine is nowhere to be found in Scripture;

6.in transubstantiation (that at communion the bread and wine actually turn to the body and blood of Christ); and

7.in transmigration and reincarnation of the soul. (The resurrection of Jesus corrects that error as He came back to life as the same Jesus. Hebrews 9:27 says "And it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." Thus the Bible teaches there is no reincarnation.);

8.and would not concede that any intelligent person could believe that the temptations of Jesus as recorded in the Scriptures actually happened;

9.the Scriptures were not literal (Origen was the "father of allegories");

10.neither in an actual "Adam" nor the fall of man and that Genesis 1-3 was not literal or historical;

11.the correct intrepretation of Matthew 19 was that a man of God should be casterated and thereby proceded to emasculate himself;

12.and taught eternal life was not a gift, rather that one must seize hold on and retain it (but Eph.2:8 says "By faith are ye saved through grace; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.");

13. that "Christ enters no man until he grasps mentally the doctrine of the consummation of the ages" (that would eliminate about 99% at most typical Christian gatherings);

14. or intimated that non baptized infants were hell bound; and

15. the redeemed would not experience a physical resurrection (yet I Cor.15 teaches the physical resurrection, as do many other Scriptures).

Moreover, around 200 A.D. Alexandrian "Christians" taught that Mary was the second person of the Trinity ("Quarterly Journal of Prophecy" [July, 1852], p. 329).

Origen is often depicted as a "man of God", especially because he "died for his beliefs". That is certainly a commendable character trait, but Mussulini, Karl Marx and Hitler also died for their beliefs. That does not mean they were Christians. Many people have believed in a cause enough to give their lives for it, but it does not follow that they were Christian. Origen's beliefs clearly show that he was a religious gnostic Greek philosopher and not truly a born again son of God.

Before closing this section it must be noted that the frame of reference taken in selecting the correct text from among the variant readings during the 1870-1881 revision was said to be that of a "neutral" approach. This meant that the problem was to be approached with the mind set that said readings should not be chosen which "reflect a doctrinal bias" – that Scripture displaying a doctrinal bias should be viewed suspiciously. Thus if the variant being examined read to the effect that Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh, that should be viewed as highly suspicious for it is very doctrinal. The problem with such a priori is that the Bible is a book of doctrine (II Tim.3:17).

Most modern scholars who work on Bible revision also like to think of themselves as being "neutral" maintaining that they translated or chose a reading having come to the problem with a "neutral" approach. But do we really believe that God would take a "neutral" point of view toward His Son and upon His finished work of redemption? When we read the letters of Paul and John, do we conclude that they were neutral? The standpoint that Jesus is Jehovah God – the Creator – come in the flesh is not a neutral position. Neither Peter nor Luke took a neutral position! Indeed, there is no such thing as a neutral position concerning the deity of Christ Jesus.

Westcott and Hort championed the so-called "neutral" method and it has been with us ever since. The question that must be faced is – would a man who fits the spiritual description of Origen whose work Westcott & Hort used) ever produce a neutral text? Some of these textual critics are sincere but deceived. However, most are wolves in sheep's clothing. Origen was the first wolf in this cult and the fifth column of his Hexapla along with his edited N.T. are the fruits of that wolf cult. [/b]

God bless,

Stever :-D

 2006/6/18 12:02
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

PeterAV writes

Quote:
1]Only the tribe of Levi was the custodians of the written words.


Not so, Every king of Israel was required to have his own handwritten copy of the law.
Quote:
“And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them: That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.”
(Deut 17:18-20 KJVS)

The Levites were the guardians of the original covenant document, and Paul regards the scriptures as having been trusted to the whole nation. (Rom 3:1,2)

Quote:
2]Jews were not permitted to go back to Egypt.

What is this supposed to mean? From 722 BC there have always been more 'Israelites' outside the land than in it. One of the largest groups was in Egypt.

Quote:
3]No quotation in the New Testament that Jesus or the Apostles ever quotes are from the LXX[72].

I really have no idea where you get this kind of this from. More than two-thirds of the NT quotations of the OT are from the Septuagint. The web had many places where this can be substantiated eg. [url=http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTChart.htm]Septuagint quotes in the NT.[/url]


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/6/21 10:23Profile





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy