RELIGION....(part 2)

[klavel]

---

^^i do respect others' views regarding religion..doesn't really matter what belief you're into..whether you're a Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist or an Atheist, it all boils down to the fact that mankind craves something to believe in or in the case of an atheist, nothing to believe in..For me, what matters most in life is that you're not stepping on other people's toes while pursuing your own happiness (be it love, religion, etal.)..

[Gwynhuever]

@klavel...kudos to the comment sis....i share the same opinion.

[shoeless_rebel]

ditto gwyn. hehehehehehe....

[mannyamador]

As far as I'm concerned, whatever one's belief (or non-belief), one should be able to back up one's claims with proof. Simply threatening others with fire and brimstone or calling them names isn't proof. I take the time to back up my beliefs, so if someone wants to contest them, he ought to be able to back up his claims.

Unfortunately, we get lots of loud claims but little proof from some people.

[mannyamador]

Was Origen the Origin of the Septuagint?
Debunking the false history of Bible fanatics

It has been asserted that the Alexandrian canon of the Hebrew scriptures, which was used by the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament), was created by Origen, perhaps in coordination with the allegedly quarrelsome scholars in Alexandria. It is also asserted that this Alexandrian canon is a corrupted canon of the Bible first put together in Antioch, and is thus not a the real Bible.

These claims are totally false, as we shall see.

Origen the Origin?

The claim that Origen created the Alexandrian canon, whch is supposedly a corruption of the Antioch canon of the Bible is patently false. This is clear from the historical facts.

FACT: The Alexandrian canon was created BEFORE the foundation of Christianity

Historians generally acknowledge that the Septuagint version, using the Alexandrian canon, was established way before Christ's Incarnation. For example:

• From: http://www.septuagint.net/
  
  Septuagint (sometimes abbreviated LXX) is the name given to the Greek translation of the Jewish
  Scriptures. The Septuagint has its origin in Alexandria, Egypt and was translated between
  300-200 BC. Widely used among Hellenistic Jews, this Greek translation was produced because
  many Jews spread throughout the empire were beginning to lose their Hebrew language. The process
  of translating the Hebrew to Greek also gave many non-Jews a glimpse into Judaism. According to an
  ancient document called the Letter of Aristeas, it is believed that 70 to 72 Jewish scholars were
  commissioned during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus to carry out the task of translation. The term
  "Septuagint" means seventy in Latin, and the text is so named to the credit of these 70 scholars
  
  
  
• From a non-Catholic source (actually, anti-catholic)
  History of the Bible: How The Bible Came To Us (By Wesley Ringer)
  http://www.godandscience.org/apologe...bleorigin.html
  
  250 B.C. The Old Testament was translated into Greek. This translation is known as the Septuagint. It is
  sometimes designated "LXX" (which is Roman numeral for "70") because it was believed that 70 to 72
  translators worked to translate the Hebrew Old Testament in Greek. The Septuagint was often used by
  New Testament writers when they quoted from the Old Testament. The LXX was translation of the Old
  Testament that was used by the early Church.
  
  
  
• From: The Catholic Encyclopedia
  Old Testament
  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14526a.htm
  
  The Bible Text before Christ
  
  As regards the preceding centuries, we are relatively well informed. In place of the missing manuscripts
  we have the ancient Greek Version of the Old Testament, the so- called Septuagint, or Alexandrian,
  Version. The Pentateuch was translated in the first half of the third century, but it cannot be determined
  in what order and at what intervals the other books followed. Yet in the case of the majority of the
  books the work was probably completed about the middle of the second century B.C.
  

Other references:

• Septuagint
  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm
  
  
• Canon of the Old Testament
  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

FACT: Origen was born around 185 AD.
See the following articles on Origen:

• From the Catholic Encyclopedia
  Origen
  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm
  
  
  
• From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  http://www.iep.utm.edu/o/origen.htm
  

So, is Origen the origin of the Alexandrian canon? Not so. Origen wrote the Hexapla, his version of the Old Testament in Hebrew and Greek. But prior to that, the early Church was already using the Septuagint!

It is also important to note that the Catholic Church does NOT consider Origen to be a Church Father, contrary to what some anti-catholic literature claims. At the the Second Council of Constantinople in 553., the anathema against Origen and others states:

If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and
Origen, as well as their impious writings, as also all other heretics already condemned and anathematized
by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and by the aforesaid four Holy Synods and [if anyone does
not equally anathematize] all those who have held and hold or who in their impiety persist in holding to
the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned: let him be anathema.
(http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const2.html)

Christ and the Septuagint

Christ Himself used the Septuagint version. Protestant often like to quote Mark 7:6-8 and use it to attack the Catholic Church. Here, Christ condemns "teaching as doctrines human traditions." But they forget that that in Mark 7:6-8 Jesus was quoting the version of Isaiah that is found only in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. And the Septuagint contains the Deuterocanonical books which Protestants consider to be "apocrypha"! Quite contradictory.

Hebrews 11:35 also refers to incidents that cannot be found anywhere in the Protestant canon. But it is found in 2 Maccabees, which is in the Septuagint, whiich is in Catholic versions of the Bible!

The historical and scriptuiral record is quite clear. Origen did not make the Alexandrian canon, and neither did he corrupt the Catholic Bible. if there is any corruption being done, it is by those who have removed the Deuterocanonical Books!

[Sovabon]

References should be universal or non partisan. It would be very obvious of defending one's claims.

[tarsus]

anyway i agree with klavel those are the guys that we need...

hahaha...imagine no religion!!! and this thread would not be burning -
imagine no heaven..
imagine mannyamador and soulshock with nothing to argue..huhhuh..
no need to argue - -

[akari]

With all these confusing claims, mixed truths claiming that bible is false.

I suggest you don't listen or hear the words those types of Anti-Bible Fanatics.
Those that claim that it is so is confused and does'nt understand the bible.

Clearly these anti-bible people based their beliefs and truths on culture and tradition
raplacing the bible truth and occasionnaly mixing it with tradition and a very dangerous standpoint leading christians to confusion and partial belief of the bible.

Now I won't start a never ending down the hole argument here. Since other anti-bible so called "christians" dominate in this area of argument.

The best thing I can do to ease this confusion is I would like to invite you to watch 3ABN channel 54 on skycable. A very interesting pastors about their explenation of the bible Particularly speakers such as Doug Batchelor, and Lyle Arbreight (not syre of the spelling of his last name better rememer his first name nalang). I really don't know the time ususally about 5:30pm to 9 in between.

Its up to you if you really seek some information and truths then I'd encourage you to watch 3ABN channel 54 on skycable.

As for me I even watch the catholic, the babtist channel and even the buddhist channels.

[mannyamador]

With all these confusing claims, mixed truths claiming that bible is false.

Could you tell me who is claiming the Bible is false?

What I've proven is:

1. That the claim that only one translation (the KJV) is true and valid is actually a false claim.
2. That the Bible itself makes no claim that it is the SOLE and FINAL authority.

Those, of course, do NOT mean the Bible is false. It only means that it is not the sole and final authority. There's a big difference.

I suggest you understand what is being claimed first before commenting on them.

Also, you should be very careful about listening to these so-called pastors who merely substitute their PERSONAL interpretations instead of the true Apostolic teachings of the Church. These pastors have no authority and just make up their claims. The Church, on the other hand, relies on the claims made by the Apostles of Christ themselves and merely passes them on.

[SamuraiArcher]

In GOD We Trust................