Trinity Passages Can you spot the trinity in each?

[Butch5]

Firstly - I ask you please accept my humble apology - sincerely, I did not intend to create a confusion or mix-up by mentioning two different verses. But now that we are here - let’s dive deeper into reality.

Dearest - Andyindauk and all other esteemed individuals in the forum.

Please understand…………………….
I would never pretend or imagine - that Trinitarian believers view the Trinity as three separate plural God’s …….. This is not the Trinitarian positional or statement of faith
I do understand the Trinitarian’s dedication and faith - in the way they express it ……
The truth is - Trinitarians wholly affirm that God is Three Different, Distinct, Separated Divine Persons who are “ ALL THREE “ Eternally -
CO- Equal and Eternally CO – Eternal and yet - Eternally ONE SINGLE GOD. - As 3 persons.
My question, however, has been momentarily ignored or just simply lost ………………

THE REASON I WAS PREVIOUSLY ASKING - “ 'If Yahashua was always “ AT “ the right HAND of God , where did he exist before he was located / or placed to be there ? “
Because that the Trinitarian Bible Translation clearly states says concerning Jesus
Mat 22:44 -------- Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
Mar 12:36 -------- Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Act 2:34 -------- Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
HERE WE SEE that Jesus, the son is not previously or formerly sitting / dwelling on the right hand of God…
God is saying of Jesus - SIT HERE UNTIL THIS TIME COMES
If God is commanding Jesus to sit on his right hand - this means that Jesus was not formerly or previously sitting there - or God would not have cause or reason to command Jesus to relocate himself and then place himself there - ON HIS RIGHT HAND.
JESUS IS BEING ASKED TO BE RE - POSITIONED - TO SIT IN ANOTHER LOCATION - and - this place, “ at the right hand of God “ is not where God intends Jesus to sit for eternity or as a permanent location.

Jesus is only to be there UNTIL a certain time passes. AFTER THIS TIME EXPIRES -
Mar 12:36 -------- Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

The idea that ------ Jesus-Holy Spirit is omnipresent, and that there is no where or location for Him, He is everywhere.
This is not what the Bible is saying.. Jesus is relocated to a different seat or place and he is told that he will be seated or present there - O N L Y - until a specific duration of time - until a specific action is completed.
This already proves that Jesus here - was not omnipresent ………………
Can you see, that my proposed question is not answered by simply avoiding the question with an answer that contradicts the very Trinitarian Translation - that Trinitarians are claiming contains their Trinity Doctrine ? ?
This is not an answer - Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
This means that Jesus was not always there and that he will not always be there / Jesus is being relocated, passing from one location and moving to another location - a location where he was not previously - and not omnipresent he will be REMOVED and TAKEN OUT, AWAY from the RIGHT HAND OF GOD - once the time has expired………………..

Jesus is told - Sit thou here - on my right hand, until - this time has come.
I simply cannot obtain an answer from the Trinitarian believer…..

And please remember - it was the Pagan King Of Babylon who had mentioned the fourth man in the fiery furnace as - like the Son of God. ”
“Look!” he answered, “I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.” Daniel 3:25 NKJV
This fourth man did not interact and go about communicating and making himself known to the Jews.
The Jews had no idea or concept about the Godhead or the Trinity Doctrine.
And please remember - Abraham WAS NOT paying tithes to Melchizedek king of Salem - this is a complete untruth fabricated by Trinitarians - to prop up their Trinity insertions
….. ! - it is the total opposite
It was the King Melchizedek who gave Abraham a tenth of the bread and wine and the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the “ KIDNAPPED “ persons, and take the goods to thyself.
Abraham never paid tithes nor gave anything to anyone - if you read the verse it is saying
Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

:19 And he “ Melchizedek “ blessed him, “ Abraham “ saying , Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: :20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand.

And he gave him a TENTH of all. - a tenth of the bread and wine

Melchizedek gave Abraham a tenth of the bread and wine.

Here “ King Melchizedek “ is blessing Abraham and praising God and “ Melchizedek “ then gives Abraham a TENTH of the bread and wine for Abrahams men / servants / workers to eat.


:21 And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself.
But, Abraham refuses to take anything and simply says….
Gen 14:23 That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:

:24 Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.

Abraham is referring to the bread and wine that his men were eating - that King Melchizedek had given to Abraham.

The Jews had no concept about the Trinity - there is no a teaching in the Old Testament concerning The Godhead or the Trinity.
There is no mention of - THREE DISTINCT, SEPARATE Co Eternal - Co Equal Persons of God.
The actual translation of ACT 17:29 - is not what the Trinitarians have in their translations
Here is the literal translation - from the Greek

ACT 17:29 - THE OFFSPRING THEREFORE WHO ARE OF GOD NOT SHOULD REGARD GOLD OR SILVER OR STONES ENGRAVED CRAFTS AND THE THOUGHTS OF MAN THE BRIMSTONE ARE THE SAME / SIMILAR / ALIKE.

ACT 17:29 - ORIGINAL GREEK MANUSCRIPTS.
εγενος - ουν - υπαρχοντες - του - Θεου - ουκ - οφειλομεν - νομιζειν - χρυσω - η - αργυρω - η - λιθω - χαραγματι - τεχνης - και - ενθυμησεως - ανθρωπου - το - θειον - ειναι - ομοιον
The Trinitarians took the last three words in the Greek manuscripts = - το - θειον - ειναι
Meaning = the brimstone are the same - and moved these last three words back -
to the beginning of the verse and changed the word Brimstone into the word “ GODHEAD “
Because the Greek word “ θειον - THEION “ always - ALWAYS means brimstone
in every single last place where this word is used in the Bible.
θειον - THEION “ always - ALWAYS means brimstone ..
they moved the last three words saying = το - θειον - ειναι - the brimstone are the same
and changed the word THEION into GODHEAD - because the Greek word for God is “ THEOS

The fact is

all of the words such as - DIVINE DEITY GOD and GODS are all associated as FORMS of the same sounding words that sound somewhat similar and spelling.

all of these words are FORMS of similar meanings - with similar pronunciations

But the only reason that THEION / θειον brimstone is used as the same form of the word dealing and associated with divinity or deity ,
is because the Greek Pagans used the Brimstone upon the very Pagan God's - as a very part of the Pagan God's they were producing and worshiping.....

Their God's / Idols and altars were literally THEION / θειον brimstone.

Brimstone -itself - THEION / θειον - was the makeup and character and substance and very material and physical makeup of their Idols and God's - they worshiped the THEION / θειον brimstone as their Idols were made of Brimstone Theion.


the word is as " divine " in 2 Peter 1: 3-4, "theias - θειας / tʰěː.aː/ is pronounced - it is simply THEIA

Brimstone is TheioN



the word Theion, ending with a " N " Theion is a specific word that always means Brimstone,

there are hundreds of words in the Bible using the Theos related forms of the word God, Divine and Divinity -

NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM ARE THE GREEK WORD THEION - except ONE SINGLE TIME when the translators changed and altered the word in Acts 17:29

Never is THEION relating to God or Divinity in the entire Bible - never - just in Acts 17:29.

Of course, all of these forms of the word God are going to be the same forms or similar - and if you are literally worshiping and serving the Brimstone as your God and Altar construction - as a pagan - the word Brimstone will also be included as the form of the word Divinity and Godlike.

But never out of all of the hundreds of words in the Bible using the Theo / Theia related forms of the word God, Divine and Divinity -


NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM ARE THE GREEK WORD THEION - except ONE SINGLE TIME when the translators changed and altered the word in Acts 17:29

Never is THEION relating to God or Divinity in the entire Bible - never - just in Acts 17:29.

this was done by moving words around and reconstructing and purposefully changing the message in the sentence.

So what Trinitarians are claiming is that - in him " Jesus " dwelleth all the fullness of the DIVINITY / TRINITY

and claiming that Act 17:29 we ought not to think that the Godhead " TRINITY " is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.


THIS IS SOMETHING THAT GOD HAD WINKED AT AND IGNORED , AND TURNED A BLIND EYE THOSE DISOBEDIENT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
WERE IGNORING THE TRINITY AND CONCEPT OF THE GODHEAD. Lord
There was never any laws or commandments stating that “ our Lord God is three separate persons or that our Lord is also God’s son. This simply is not true in the Old Testament
But yet we have an altered and manipulated veres that has been changed from the manuscript message saying that “ we ought not to think that the Godhead " TRINITY " is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

And that the Godhead - IS SOMETHING THAT GOD HAD WINKED AT AND IGNORED , AND TURNED A BLIND EYE THOSE DISOBEDIENT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
So I ask you a new question
Do we go with the original manuscripts that say
ACT 17:29 - THE OFFSPRING THEREFORE WHO ARE OF GOD NOT SHOULD REGARD GOLD OR SILVER OR STONES ENGRAVED CRAFTS AND THE THOUGHTS OF MAN THE BRIMSTONE ARE THE SAME / SIMILAR / ALIKE.
Or the Trinitarian Translation that changes the original manuscripts by saying

Act 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the GODHEAD is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
repent - for abusing the Trinity Godhead with Gold and Silver and Stones of Idols ?

Hi only son,

What do you make of this passage?

1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.
5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:
6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.
7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.
8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him. (Heb. 7:1-10 KJV)

Also, I'd like to point out that Theion is translated Divine or God in other places.

LXE Exodus 31:3 And I have filled him with a divine spirit of wisdom, and understanding, and knowledge, to invent in every work, (Exod. 31:3 LXE)
BGT Exodus 31:3 καὶ ἐνέπλησα αὐτὸν πνεῦμα θεῖον σοφίας καὶ συνέσεως καὶ ἐπιστήμης ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ (Exod. 31:3 BGT)

LXE Exodus 35:31 and has filled him with a divine spirit of wisdom and understanding, and knowledge of all things (Exod. 35:31 LXE)
BGT Exodus 35:31 καὶ ἐνέπλησεν αὐτὸν πνεῦμα θεῖον σοφίας καὶ συνέσεως καὶ ἐπιστήμης πάντων (Exod. 35:31 BGT)

LXE Job 27:3 verily, while my breath is yet in me, and the breath of God which remains to me is in my nostrils, (Job 27:3 LXE)
BGT Job 27:3 ἦ μὴν ἔτι τῆς πνοῆς μου ἐνούσης πνεῦμα δὲ θεῖον τὸ περιόν μοι ἐν ῥισίν (Job 27:3 BGT)

LXE Job 33:4 The Divine Spirit is that which formed me, and the breath of the Almighty that which teaches me. (Job 33:4 LXE)
BGT Job 33:4 πνεῦμα θεῖον τὸ ποιῆσάν με πνοὴ δὲ παντοκράτορος ἡ διδάσκουσά με

 

[complete]

I say this in love because the bible really says that Jesus is IN / En Greek " the right of God, exiting out of God.
God's Spirit conceives himself in a woman - the Word made flesh - in the Right Of God - not at or on the right hand. in the manuscripts. the word hand was added / inserted and the Greek word IN replaced with at or on .

this concludes and completes my original unanswered question that is unanswered in the translation.

thank you

Sit EX " ek Greek " my right - sit out of - ex - my Right until I make your enemies a footstool - He is sitting in the Right of God - the eternal word having exited out of the Right of God -

the Greek vs the Canaanite fathers

Hello @only son,

Though I will be telling you nothing new, I'm sure, I would just like to say that 'The Right Hand' as attributed to God is a figure of speech denoting the highest power and most Divine authority, Exodus15:6,12; Psalm 77:10-11. It also denotes His grace and mercy in delivering and saving His People, Psalm 18:35-36, Psalm 44:3-4. It is used also of the place accorded to Christ in His human nature as now exalted, Ephesians 1:20-22, Hebrews 1:3-4, Romans 8:34, Psalm 110:1, Matthew 26:64, Mark 16:19, Acts of the apostles 2:33-34, Acts of the apostles 7:55-56, Colossians 3:1, Hebrews 8:1.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

(Ref: 'Figures of Speech Used In The Bible' by E.W. Bullinger)

 

[only son]

.
Hello there " Butch5 "

Thanks so much for responding to me. I really enjoyed reading what you had to say. Please allow me the opportunity to prove what I was saying

I do notice you are presenting passages from - The Greek Septuagint.

I will be happy to answer to what you had mentioned about Melchisedec in Heb. 7:1-10 KJV

But first regarding the Greek word " θειον "

This word " θειον " is the Greek word in the New Testament original Manuscripts - meaning = BRIMSTONE_

Luk 17:29 - it rained fire and - θειον = THEION brimstone…
Rev 9:17 - fire and smoke and - θειον = THEION brimstone…
Rev 21:8 - lake which burneth with fire and - θειον = THEION brimstone…
Rev 20:10 - cast into the lake of fire and - θειον = THEION brimstone…
Rev 19:20 - a lake of fire burning with - θειον = THEION brimstone…
Rev 9:18 - the smoke, and by the - θειον = THEION brimstone…
Rev_20:10 - the lake of fire and - θειον = THEION brimstone…
Rev_19:20 - a lake of fire burning with - θειον = THEION brimstone…
Rev_14:10 - tormented with fire and - θειον = THEION brimstone…

In fact, in The New Testament original Manuscripts - always this word is always translated as θειον - THEION = brimstone.
AND NEVER ONCE - NEVER - NOT EVEN ONCE - is translated as the word Divine - it is always the same word = brimstone.


but The Greek Septuagint , TRANSLATED FROM HEBREW takes this same word and uses this same word " θειον " for / as both
the word Divine and also uses the same Greek word " θειον " as the word brimstone.


Reading from The Greek Septuagint we see the Translated passages

Gen 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
Gen 19:24 καὶ κύριος ἔβρεξεν ἐπὶ Σοδομα καὶ Γομορρα θεῖον καὶ πῦρ παρὰ κυρίου ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ

Isa 34:9 And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch.
Isa 34:9 καὶ στραφήσονται αὐτῆς αἱ φάραγγες εἰς πίσσαν καὶ ἡ γῆ αὐτῆς εἰς θεῖον, καὶ ἔσται αὐτῆς ἡ γῆ καιομένη ὡς πίσσα

Eze 38:22 And I will plead against him with pestilence and with blood; and I will rain upon him, and upon his bands, and upon the many people that are with him, an overflowing rain, and great hailstones, fire, and brimstone.
Eze 38:22 καὶ κρινῶ αὐτὸν θανάτῳ καὶ αἵματι καὶ ὑετῷ κατακλύζοντι καὶ λίθοις χαλάζης, καὶ πῦρ καὶ θεῖον βρέξω ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸν καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας τοὺς μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐπ᾿ ἔθνη πολλὰ μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ.

Isa 34:9 And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch
Isa 34:9 καὶ στραφήσονται αὐτῆς αἱ φάραγγες εἰς πίσσαν καὶ ἡ γῆ αὐτῆς εἰς θεῖον, καὶ ἔσται αὐτῆς ἡ γῆ καιομένη ὡς πίσσα


The Greek Septuagint is nothing more than a Roman Catholic / Vatican propaganda tool that Rome has invented to undermine and pervert the original manuscripts.

Remember - in the New Testament Manuscripts this word θειον - THEION = brimstone.
AND NEVER ONCE - NEVER - NOT EVEN ONCE - is translated as the word Divine - it is always the same word = brimstone.

 

[only son]

Hey there " Complete "

I agree, the idea of the Right hand most certainly is a figure of speech.

Would you consider the difference to dwell IN and OUT of the right of God is much different than simply sitting

ON or AT the right hand of God.

The Greek manuscripts always use the Greek words in and out of the Right of God.

Also, when it mentions a literal Right Hand

We see in -Mat 5:29 And if thy - right { dexios } eye offend thee, pluck it out.
But here in Mat 5:29 - The same Greek word that Trinitarian translators are claiming means the " RIGHT HAND " - Here in Mat 5:29 is “ right eye “ … … … … .The Greek word absolutely has nothing to do with the " HAND "
However, in - Mat 5:30 it says - And if thy right dexios - hand cheir offend thee, cut it off.
Here in -Mat 5:30 = The Greek word 5495 χ ε ίρ - cheir / khire = The hand - is placed into the manuscript and is used in the original manuscripts, because the authors are intending to tell You that it is actually the literal “ right " cheir HAND "
The rest of all of these other following verses have the words right dexios - and – hand cheir placed and used together - to indicate the right dexios – hand cheir

Also, here in = Luke 6:6 A man whose right dexios - hand cheir was withered.
And - Act 3:7. And he took him by the right dexios - hand cheir and lifted him up
And - Rev 1:16. And he had in his right dexios - hand cheir seven stars:
And - Rev 1:17. And he laid his right dexios - hand cheir upon me.
And - Rev 13:16. To receive a mark in their right dexios - hand cheir or in their foreheads:
And - Rev 10:2. His right dexios - foot pous upon the sea, and his - left euōnumos - on the earth.
Mat 5:39 Thy right dexios - cheek siagōn turn to him the other also.

The Trinitarian Translators - AGAIN - have no problem continuing onward - to suitably, properly and dully and correctly translate the Greek word right dexios - and it never means “ RIGHT HAND “ - in any of these other verses.
Mar 16:5. A young man sitting on the right dexios side.
Luke 1:11. An angel . .. on the right dexios side of the altar of incense.
Luke 22:50. Cut off his right dexios ear.
John 18:10. Cut off his right dexios ear.
John 21:6. Cast the net on the right dexios.

But when it comes to the right of the throne - the Trinitarians insert and add the word - “ HAND “ When the word “ HAND “ is never, ever once placed in the manuscripts to indicate that Yahshua is on the right “ HAND “ of God or - of the throne, nor - of power.

It is always - ἐν - en – “ IN“ and EX / EX OUT OF the right of the throne, the power and of right of God in the original manuscripts. - Trinitarians never found it important to translate any of this but instead doctored up and manipulated - deleted and changed the Bible – to mold, form, and codify a trinity concept into the texts. - THE TRINITY CONCEPT IS NEVER ONCE IN THE MANUSCRIPTS.

“ NEVER ONCE. - All of these changes are ignored as Trinitarians follow their Trinity Fathers - The Popes.

Acts 2:33 The { right δ ε ξ ι ός - dexios / dex-ee-os } of God, exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

Greek 1188 - δ ε ξ ι ός - dexios / dex-ee-os' = Meaning = The right Total KJV occurrences: 53

in Greek - Χ ε ίρ means “ HAND “ - There is no hand in the verse - Acts 2:33

- " δ ε ξ ι α = RIGHT = THE RIGHT * is all that the verse says that always describe Yahshua in relation to the Father, throne or power. . δ ε ξ ι α = RIGHT = THE RIGHT There is no word HAND in the Manuscript. The Greek word hand χ ε ίρ is not in any Greek manuscripts on earth.

There is not a single instance where the Son is at the RIGHT HAND of anything in the manuscripts.
The word HAND was added by the Trinitarian Translators. Christ is always IN the RIGHT of God - RIGHT of Power and IN the RIGHT of the throne. And OUT OF THE RIGHT OF GOD

The word on the hand is not simply present in the original Greek manuscripts referring to this idea. It was inserted.

__

 

[only son]

Sorry about that Butch5

I forgot to mention that the Translators did change the word brimstone into the word GODHEAD in one single instance, while translating it as Brimstone in all of the other passages - as I explaind above.

but all of the other passages where this Greek word " Theion " is used - it is always translated as brimstone.

The Translators had to make sure to render the Translation to suit the nearly 2000 year waiting time they took to translate the Bible.

thousands of ideas and doctrines and theological inventions had been building up in the trinitarian culture.

And changing or adapting the Bible - was the only way the government authorities could continue to maintain themselves as HEAD of the church. besides = why translate the Bible correctly if you had just spent the last 2000 years killing millions of people for not conforming to the Government's perspective of the Bible. Why not continue to rule, reign and promote your ideas in a legal bible permit - authorized by Father King James.

So we have today - a Bible Permit / a Permit Bible.

the government will stand behind and uphold a Copyright of an organization's Bible translation - no other organization can legally be inspired by the same Copyright Permit.

 

[only son]

There is not really much information about Melchisedec, king of Peace.

Melchisedec suddenly disappears from the scene just as quickly as he appears.
There is no info about who he was.

My personal opinion - just a thought - I believe possibly that Melchisedec was God who manifested on earth to personally participate or oversee in assisting Abraham, from a distance - as Abrabrahm was recapturing and savin his cousin Lot and his family from the king of Elam who had kidnapped them

There is not really much more to add - from my perspective, everyone has their personal thoughts.

 

[Brother Paul]

In Isaiah 48:16 YHVH Himself is speaking and says “Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me.”

When you read the context (as the one who laid the foundations of the earth and more) it is obvious that this is YHVH speaking and NOT the prophet Isaiah (who was not there from the time it was and did not lay the fou dations of the earth). So now, though there is only one YHVH, we have this person of YHVH (one hypostasis) saying that “the Lord God” (YHVH-Elohim, the Father) sending Him, with His Spirit.

 

[Butch5]

.
Hello there " Butch5 "

Thanks so much for responding to me. I really enjoyed reading what you had to say. Please allow me the opportunity to prove what I was saying

I do notice you are presenting passages from - The Greek Septuagint.

I will be happy to answer to what you had mentioned about Melchisedec in Heb. 7:1-10 KJV

But first regarding the Greek word " θειον "

This word " θειον " is the Greek word in the New Testament original Manuscripts - meaning = BRIMSTONE_

Luk 17:29 - it rained fire and - θειον = THEION brimstone…
Rev 9:17 - fire and smoke and - θειον = THEION brimstone…
Rev 21:8 - lake which burneth with fire and - θειον = THEION brimstone…
Rev 20:10 - cast into the lake of fire and - θειον = THEION brimstone…
Rev 19:20 - a lake of fire burning with - θειον = THEION brimstone…
Rev 9:18 - the smoke, and by the - θειον = THEION brimstone…
Rev_20:10 - the lake of fire and - θειον = THEION brimstone…
Rev_19:20 - a lake of fire burning with - θειον = THEION brimstone…
Rev_14:10 - tormented with fire and - θειον = THEION brimstone…

In fact, in The New Testament original Manuscripts - always this word is always translated as θειον - THEION = brimstone.
AND NEVER ONCE - NEVER - NOT EVEN ONCE - is translated as the word Divine - it is always the same word = brimstone.


but The Greek Septuagint , TRANSLATED FROM HEBREW takes this same word and uses this same word " θειον " for / as both
the word Divine and also uses the same Greek word " θειον " as the word brimstone.


Reading from The Greek Septuagint we see the Translated passages

Gen 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
Gen 19:24 καὶ κύριος ἔβρεξεν ἐπὶ Σοδομα καὶ Γομορρα θεῖον καὶ πῦρ παρὰ κυρίου ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ

Isa 34:9 And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch.
Isa 34:9 καὶ στραφήσονται αὐτῆς αἱ φάραγγες εἰς πίσσαν καὶ ἡ γῆ αὐτῆς εἰς θεῖον, καὶ ἔσται αὐτῆς ἡ γῆ καιομένη ὡς πίσσα

Eze 38:22 And I will plead against him with pestilence and with blood; and I will rain upon him, and upon his bands, and upon the many people that are with him, an overflowing rain, and great hailstones, fire, and brimstone.
Eze 38:22 καὶ κρινῶ αὐτὸν θανάτῳ καὶ αἵματι καὶ ὑετῷ κατακλύζοντι καὶ λίθοις χαλάζης, καὶ πῦρ καὶ θεῖον βρέξω ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸν καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας τοὺς μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐπ᾿ ἔθνη πολλὰ μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ.

Isa 34:9 And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch
Isa 34:9 καὶ στραφήσονται αὐτῆς αἱ φάραγγες εἰς πίσσαν καὶ ἡ γῆ αὐτῆς εἰς θεῖον, καὶ ἔσται αὐτῆς ἡ γῆ καιομένη ὡς πίσσα


The Greek Septuagint is nothing more than a Roman Catholic / Vatican propaganda tool that Rome has invented to undermine and pervert the original manuscripts.

Remember - in the New Testament Manuscripts this word θειον - THEION = brimstone.
AND NEVER ONCE - NEVER - NOT EVEN ONCE - is translated as the word Divine - it is always the same word = brimstone.

Hi only son,

But, you said that Abraham didn't pay tithes to Melchizedek, yet the passage I posted states that he did.

Regarding Theion, the Septuagint was translated about 300-250 BC. It was around long before the Roman Catholic church. It is the version of the Bible that is most quoted in the New Testament by Jesus and the apostle. It's definitely not a propaganda tool.

How it's translated is just the translators opinion. That it was used in the Greek Old Testament and translated divine shows that that is a possible interpretation of the word.

 

[septorator]

Dearest Butch5.

I understand what you are saying, about the Septuagint.

If you felt that my post was making claim to the idea that Abraham did not pay tithing to Melchizedek I apologize.

Please realize that just because I thought it possible that Melchizedek possibly could have overseen the process of Abraham saving his cousin “ Lot “ but did this from a distance -

this is not what I believe the Bible is saying nor what the Bible is suggesting. But that this was a possibility.

If this was the case, that “ Melchizedek King Of Peace “ indeed was God in the flesh who came to assist or oversee and help Abraham “ From a distance “ without directly physically involving himself and taking a direct physical involvement with Abraham in his mission and journey to save his cousin,

But that Melchizedek King Of peace waited until the end and later approached Abraham and made physical contact with Abraham only after Abraham had completed and succeeded in regaining his cousins freedom.

In other words , if Melchizedek, from a distance assisted Abraham - after providing this assistance from a distance he then made contact and approached Abraham and that is when he received the tithing.

The Bible does say that Melchizedek received tithing from Abraham of course

But - What Melchizedek was distantly doing and where Melchizedek was “ in the distance “ before he met Abraham - is only speculation, we could all think of endless possibilities because the manuscripts do not explain this.


Also, Butch5

I believe the Septuagint is a hoax and I do respect and understand how you feel about this translation.

If I present a post to prove what I am saying, please understand that I am not directing my comments to you directly or personally.

Just as you, Butch5 -

if you were to present a post to prove that the Septuagint is true and did exist before Yahashua, your post would need to prove why the King James Bible is false and the opposing contradicting Septuagint is correct.

I believe - the KJV is also a false translation - but it is an accepted common believe that is mainly centered around the Masoretic Text manuscripts - this is main theme of the KJV.

The Masoretic Text is used as the basis for most Protestant translations of the Old Testament such as the King James Version

I believe the KJV contradicts the Masoretic Hebrew Texts and this takes time to PROVE
but it greatly in contradiction to the Septuagint and this does not need to be proven, it is clearly obvious.

JUST FROM READING THE VERY FIRST BOOK - Genesis, we can not even make it through the book of Genesis without seeing a major problem and glaring error.

We see that - Enoch at 165 years of age had Mathusala. = this was 1,287 years after creation. And Mathusala at 167 years of age had Lamech.

= this was 1,454 years after creation and Lamech at 88 years of age had Noah =

this was 1,642 years after creation.

in The Greek Septuagint - all of these numbers of this genealogy is totally different and contradicting the genealogy in The Masoretic Text of the historical Torah,

although - the flood in The Septuagint the flood does begin 600 years after Noah was born = “ 2,242 “ years after creation –

and in The Masoretic Text of the historical Torah the flood begins at “ 1,656 “ years after creation - because the timeline or generations are totally different.


But in The Greek Septuagint - If we subtract the year “ 1,287 “ when Methuselah was born from the year “ 2,242 = when the flood came.
2,242
1,287-
- - - - - = - 955 -

the math is completely off by 14 years.

The Greek Septuagint says - Gen_5:26-27 - Mathusala died at 969 years - - - ”this is “ 14 “ “years of” difference. ” A total contradiction.__

In The Greek Septuagint - not only does the math not add up - but The Septuagint shows that - Mathusala literally ” lived 14 years ” after / longer - when the flood had come ....

According to the math of The Septuagint - “ Mathusala” lived through the flood “ but was ” never ” on the ark.

I would not be offended if you would like to post a reason why the Hebrew Masoretic Hebrew Text are a fraud and why they have been perverted.

This of course would mean that you believe the KJV is also a perverted and fraudulent translation.

There a good reason that “ No mainstream modern English translations are based on the Septuagint.
Because it contradicts the - Masoretic Text manuscripts.

I hope you enjoy reading my future posts that prove that the Septuagint is a lie and a fraud. - I would love to read anything you present proving the KJV is a fraud and fake translation - and why my faith in the Hebrew Masoretic Text manuscripts is faulty and why these manuscripts are also corrupted.

 

[Butch5]

Dearest Butch5.

I understand what you are saying, about the Septuagint.

If you felt that my post was making claim to the idea that Abraham did not pay tithing to Melchizedek I apologize.

Please realize that just because I thought it possible that Melchizedek possibly could have overseen the process of Abraham saving his cousin “ Lot “ but did this from a distance -

this is not what I believe the Bible is saying nor what the Bible is suggesting. But that this was a possibility.

If this was the case, that “ Melchizedek King Of Peace “ indeed was God in the flesh who came to assist or oversee and help Abraham “ From a distance “ without directly physically involving himself and taking a direct physical involvement with Abraham in his mission and journey to save his cousin,

But that Melchizedek King Of peace waited until the end and later approached Abraham and made physical contact with Abraham only after Abraham had completed and succeeded in regaining his cousins freedom.

In other words , if Melchizedek, from a distance assisted Abraham - after providing this assistance from a distance he then made contact and approached Abraham and that is when he received the tithing.

The Bible does say that Melchizedek received tithing from Abraham of course

But - What Melchizedek was distantly doing and where Melchizedek was “ in the distance “ before he met Abraham - is only speculation, we could all think of endless possibilities because the manuscripts do not explain this.


Also, Butch5

I believe the Septuagint is a hoax and I do respect and understand how you feel about this translation.

If I present a post to prove what I am saying, please understand that I am not directing my comments to you directly or personally.

Just as you, Butch5 -

if you were to present a post to prove that the Septuagint is true and did exist before Yahashua, your post would need to prove why the King James Bible is false and the opposing contradicting Septuagint is correct.

I believe - the KJV is also a false translation - but it is an accepted common believe that is mainly centered around the Masoretic Text manuscripts - this is main theme of the KJV.

The Masoretic Text is used as the basis for most Protestant translations of the Old Testament such as the King James Version

I believe the KJV contradicts the Masoretic Hebrew Texts and this takes time to PROVE
but it greatly in contradiction to the Septuagint and this does not need to be proven, it is clearly obvious.

JUST FROM READING THE VERY FIRST BOOK - Genesis, we can not even make it through the book of Genesis without seeing a major problem and glaring error.

We see that - Enoch at 165 years of age had Mathusala. = this was 1,287 years after creation. And Mathusala at 167 years of age had Lamech.

= this was 1,454 years after creation and Lamech at 88 years of age had Noah =

this was 1,642 years after creation.

in The Greek Septuagint - all of these numbers of this genealogy is totally different and contradicting the genealogy in The Masoretic Text of the historical Torah,

although - the flood in The Septuagint the flood does begin 600 years after Noah was born = “ 2,242 “ years after creation –

and in The Masoretic Text of the historical Torah the flood begins at “ 1,656 “ years after creation - because the timeline or generations are totally different.


But in The Greek Septuagint - If we subtract the year “ 1,287 “ when Methuselah was born from the year “ 2,242 = when the flood came.
2,242
1,287-
- - - - - = - 955 -

the math is completely off by 14 years.

The Greek Septuagint says - Gen_5:26-27 - Mathusala died at 969 years - - - ”this is “ 14 “ “years of” difference. ” A total contradiction.__

In The Greek Septuagint - not only does the math not add up - but The Septuagint shows that - Mathusala literally ” lived 14 years ” after / longer - when the flood had come ....

According to the math of The Septuagint - “ Mathusala” lived through the flood “ but was ” never ” on the ark.

I would not be offended if you would like to post a reason why the Hebrew Masoretic Hebrew Text are a fraud and why they have been perverted.

This of course would mean that you believe the KJV is also a perverted and fraudulent translation.

There a good reason that “ No mainstream modern English translations are based on the Septuagint.
Because it contradicts the - Masoretic Text manuscripts.

I hope you enjoy reading my future posts that prove that the Septuagint is a lie and a fraud. - I would love to read anything you present proving the KJV is a fraud and fake translation - and why my faith in the Hebrew Masoretic Text manuscripts are also corrupted.
and

Hi Septorator,

My first question would be, if the Masoretic text (700 ad.) Is correct and the Septugint 250 bc. Is incorrect, why do the apostles primarily quote from the Septuagint and not the Masoretic text?

 

[septorator]

.

When we take a look at the Original manuscripts of the - Masoretic Hebrew Text, they do not reflect what is in the Greek Septuagint,

There are contradictions and major differences everywhere

The King James Translators and all Trinitarian Translations went back and forth between - jumping and circling back and forth between the Masoretic Hebrew Text and then lurching over to Greek Septuagint attempting to insert the Trinity into the Old Testament.

because the Masoretic Greek Septuagint was not RECONSTRUCTED until 300 - 500 years after Yahashua.

although the KJV and most all modern Trinitarian Translations make every effort to project and insert the Trinity into everything they possibly can - in the Old testament and they use the Greek Septuagint to defend this alteration and modification and change -

but Trinitarians mainly only use the Greek Septuagint to support their Faith System and reject the Greek Septuagint when for the rest of their Translation - jumping back over to the Masoretic Hebrew Text

Brother Paul - mentioned Isa 48:16

Isa 48:16 in the Masoretic Hebrew Text is completely different from the Greek Septuagint

here is the Masoretic Hebrew Text

קרבו - come close - אלי - upon - שׁמעו hear, - זאת this - לא is not - מראשׁ from the
beginning - בסתר secretly - דברתי spoken - מעת in time - היותה that which was
- שׁם - there,
אני Myself - ועתה now - אדני - The Lord יהוה - Yahawha - שׁלחני - send ורוחו׃ the spirit.


MEANING - = Isa 48:16 This is not from the beginning secretly spoken in time that which was there,

Myself now The Lord Yahawha send the spirit.

= = = =

This is much different than the Trinitarian Translation and the Greek Septuagint

Isa 48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.

The real question is not WHEN was the Greek Septuagint reconstructed.

The real question is

HOW DID TRINITARIANS RECONSTRUCT THE SEPTUAGINT - ?

HOW DID TRINITARIANS RECONSTRUCT THE SEPTUAGINT ?


because there did not exist, a completed RECONSTRUCTED Greek Septuagint until 300 - 500 A. D.

This Greek Bible is CLAIMED to have existed before Yahashua but - after Yahashua it was lost, destroyed and suddenly it completely disappeared.

They did not complete and RECONSTRUCT a completed Greek Septuagint until 300 - 500 A. D.

Trinitarians had to literally remake and reconstruct the Septuagint.

What did they use to recontruct ?

THE FACT IS - the Finding of little thumbnail-sized fragments and

and the Finding of the shreds and tiny - teeny pieces of shredded, trashed and abandoned and scattered fragments

and the Finding of the limited very tiny fragments - most of these fragments are not even enough to reconstruct even a single part - of even a complete verse of the Bible

This is not even enough to reconstruct even a verse - and they are taking these fragments that most of them - are not even half- sentences and half words that crossword puzzled together to match what they pretend or imagine

And they are taking tiny little fragments that do not even makeup even a single complete page of the Bible

not even 1 % of the bible a fraction of fragments so small to imagine

and they are telling you that they have reconstructed The Greek completed Septuagint

This is beyond ignorance - this is absolute evil and blasphemy - a total lie.


So the question is - what are Trinitarians using to complete and reconstruct The Greek Septuagint ?


They are going into the libraries of their mother Rome and looking for Catholic Produced Greek 4 th and 5 th century Greek manuscripts { Produced by the Catholic Church }

and they literally sort through all of these Greek manuscripts and find anything they can find that matches up to anything resembling the MAJORITY TEXT - THE MASORETIC TEXT

Anything they find that can be even remotely compared to - THE MASORETIC TEXT

and they toss out all Greek text that do not relate to the existing MASORETIC TEXT and anything they do not agree with - and anything they do not like - or anything that they feel is not correct.

AND THEY GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE VATICAN 4 th and 5 th century GREEK TEXT AND THEY LITERALLY RECONSTRUCT " THE ENTIRE OLD TESTAMENT "

AND CLAIM THAT THE - less than 1 % of fragments that they have and pretend are The Greek Septuagint

the claim is

These - less than 1 % of remaining fragments of the Greek Septuagint Bible - together with the 4 th and 5 th century Catholic Greek texts - this is the The Greek Septuagint that Jesus used and the entire completed Old Testament in Greek. ?

But Trinitarians use the Roman Catholic Greek Old Testament from 300 - 500 AD - to inject the Trinity doctrine directly into the Old Testament when they make modern translations - this is why the Greek Septuagint can never be rejected by the Trinitarian community - even though it is in total disharmony and contradiction with the THE MASORETIC TEXT

This is not something that Christians and servants of God will do.


Trinitarians are Finding little thumbnail-sized shreds and pieces and bits and thumbnail-sized partial sentences and partial words and little tiny shreds of half verses that they claim existed before Christ

and literally shuffling and sorting and rummaging through the Greek Old testament - in the Vatican -

groping and searching and pawing through the Vatican, to find anything they can find that relates the MAJORITY TEXT - THE MASORETIC TEXT

and literally inventing a new version of the Bible and claiming this Bible existed hundreds of years before Christ.

This is the earliest complete manuscript of the Septuagint = a fourth century AD catholic reconstruction of the Old Testament. -

 

[Butch5]

.

When we take a look at the Original manuscripts of the - Masoretic Hebrew Text, they do not reflect what is in the Greek Septuagint,

There are contradictions and major differences everywhere

The King James Translators and all Trinitarian Translations went back and forth between - jumping and circling back and forth between the Masoretic Hebrew Text and then lurching over to Greek Septuagint attempting to insert the Trinity into the Old Testament.

because the Masoretic Greek Septuagint was not RECONSTRUCTED until 300 - 500 years after Yahashua.

although the KJV and most all modern Trinitarian Translations make every effort to project and insert the Trinity into everything they possibly can - in the Old testament and they use the Greek Septuagint to defend this alteration and modification and change -

but Trinitarians mainly only use the Greek Septuagint to support their Faith System and reject the Greek Septuagint when for the rest of their Translation - jumping back over to the Masoretic Hebrew Text

Brother Paul - mentioned Isa 48:16

Isa 48:16 in the Masoretic Hebrew Text is completely different from the Greek Septuagint

here is the Masoretic Hebrew Text

קרבו - come close - אלי - upon - שׁמעו hear, - זאת this - לא is not - מראשׁ from the
beginning - בסתר secretly - דברתי spoken - מעת in time - היותה that which was
- שׁם - there,
אני Myself - ועתה now - אדני - The Lord יהוה - Yahawha - שׁלחני - send ורוחו׃ the spirit.


MEANING - = Isa 48:16 This is not from the beginning secretly spoken in time that which was there,

Myself now The Lord Yahawha send the spirit.

= = = =

This is much different than the Trinitarian Translation and the Greek Septuagint

Isa 48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.

The real question is not WHEN was the Greek Septuagint reconstructed.

The real question is

HOW DID TRINITARIANS RECONSTRUCT THE SEPTUAGINT - ?

HOW DID TRINITARIANS RECONSTRUCT THE SEPTUAGINT ?


because there did not exist, a completed RECONSTRUCTED Greek Septuagint until 300 - 500 A. D.

This Greek Bible is CLAIMED to have existed before Yahashua but - after Yahashua it was lost, destroyed and suddenly it completely disappeared.

They did not complete and RECONSTRUCT a completed Greek Septuagint until 300 - 500 A. D.

Trinitarians had to literally remake and reconstruct the Septuagint.

What did they use to recontruct ?

THE FACT IS - the Finding of little thumbnail-sized fragments and

and the Finding of the shreds and tiny - teeny pieces of shredded, trashed and abandoned and scattered fragments

and the Finding of the limited very tiny fragments - most of these fragments are not even enough to reconstruct even a single part - of even a complete verse of the Bible

This is not even enough to reconstruct even a verse - and they are taking these fragments that most of them - are not even half- sentences and half words that crossword puzzled together to match what they pretend or imagine

And they are taking tiny little fragments that do not even makeup even a single complete page of the Bible

not even 1 % of the bible a fraction of fragments so small to imagine

and they are telling you that they have reconstructed The Greek completed Septuagint

This is beyond ignorance - this is absolute evil and blasphemy - a total lie.


So the question is - what are Trinitarians using to complete and reconstruct The Greek Septuagint ?


They are going into the libraries of their mother Rome and looking for Catholic Produced Greek 4 th and 5 th century Greek manuscripts { Produced by the Catholic Church }

and they literally sort through all of these Greek manuscripts and find anything they can find that matches up to anything resembling the MAJORITY TEXT - THE MASORETIC TEXT

Anything they find that can be even remotely compared to - THE MASORETIC TEXT

and they toss out all Greek text that do not relate to the existing MASORETIC TEXT and anything they do not agree with - and anything they do not like - or anything that they feel is not correct.

AND THEY GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE VATICAN 4 th and 5 th century GREEK TEXT AND THEY LITERALLY RECONSTRUCT " THE ENTIRE OLD TESTAMENT "

AND CLAIM THAT THE - less than 1 % of fragments that they have and pretend are The Greek Septuagint

the claim is

These - less than 1 % of remaining fragments of the Greek Septuagint Bible - together with the 4 th and 5 th century Catholic Greek texts - this is the The Greek Septuagint that Jesus used and the entire completed Old Testament in Greek. ?

But Trinitarians use the Roman Catholic Greek Old Testament from 300 - 500 AD - to inject the Trinity doctrine directly into the Old Testament when they make modern translations - this is why the Greek Septuagint can never be rejected by the Trinitarian community - even though it is in total disharmony and contradiction with the THE MASORETIC TEXT

This is not something that Christians and servants of God will do.


Trinitarians are Finding little thumbnail-sized shreds and pieces and bits and thumbnail-sized partial sentences and partial words and little tiny shreds of half verses that they claim existed before Christ

and literally shuffling and sorting and rummaging through the Greek Old testament - in the Vatican -

groping and searching and pawing through the Vatican, to find anything they can find that relates the MAJORITY TEXT - THE MASORETIC TEXT

and literally inventing a new version of the Bible and claiming this Bible existed hundreds of years before Christ.

This is the earliest complete manuscript of the Septuagint = a fourth century AD catholic reconstruction of the Old Testament. -

You didn't answer my question. If the Masoretic text is correct why did the apostles quote from the Septuagint?

The Masoretic text we have today is from around 700-1000 AD.

 

[septorator]

.

 

[septorator]

.
Any found surviving fragments, - these shredded, crumbled and little pieces of the Greek Old Testament -

they do not even amount to - { less then 1 % of the Old Testament } in Greek, this is all that exists of the so-called Greek Septuagint

How can you show that any Greek O.T - B. C. manuscripts, before Yahashua are quoting anything, they
have nothing but a very small amount of tiny crumbled and shredded fragments that are not even complete verses.

There is nothing there to prove anything.

They are taking the Vaticans produced " Greek Old Testament manuscripts " the majority were invented and produced by the Catholic Church after Jerome had produced the Latin Vulgate and very few before or during his lifetime - and they are re - inventing / inventing a completely new version of the O.T

ALL BASED UPON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH MANUSCRIPTS THAT THEY INVENTED AND RE - PRODUCED 300 - 500 YEARS AFTER YAHASHUA.

With less than 1 % of tiny these little flakes and pieces of fragments and shreds and claiming they have RECONSTRUCTED THE O.T - into a Pre Christ Greek Translation.

When Jerome made the Latin Vulgate he did not have enough fake Greek manuscripts to do anything with even beginning to reproduce anything from the Greek O.T.


Jerome originally started off pretended that there was a Greek translation of The Old testament -but as he went along he admited there was absolutely nothing - VALID or complete - in Greek whatsoever - concerning the Old Testament. So Jerome turned to the Hebrew Masoretic Text manuscripts.


What is stunning about the whole situation is that Jerome and His Catholic Church did not even preserve the original Hebrew manuscripts from which he had translated from.

They Trashed everything in Hebrew - threw it away or have it hidden away - and spent the next nearly 2000 years spitting out and distributing and transmitting everything about the O. T into Greek.

They did not even produce any Translation outside of Latin - and Greek for the next nearly 2000 years - in 1582

THIS IS ASTONISHING - think of it

Jerome and His Catholic Church did not even preserve the original Hebrew manuscripts from which he had translated from.

The Catholic Church preserved Jerome's writings that tell-all - all about his problems with using the limited Greek texts that the Catholic Church had already invented - But they did not preserve any of the Hebrew Masoretic Text that Jerome claims were so vital and critical and helpful in translating the Bible into Latin.

The real question is -

AND WHY DID THE CATHOLIC CHURCH NEED TO MAKE ANOTHER LATIN TRANSLATION TO CORRECT THE PREVIOUS CORRUPTED LATIN TRANSLATION ?

They claim the previous Latin translation was corrupted.

This means the previous version of the Latin Bible had been corrupted while - IN THE VATICAN. !

The truth is The Catholic did not not exist for 400 years after Christ - There was no Roman Catholic Church to be concerned about anything - Rome was destroying anything about the Bible and destroying every Bible manuscript they could find.

Their formation of the Catholic Church was to produce fraudulent manuscripts and a fraudulent gospel.

The Roman Catholic Church has attempted to make 5 or 6 new and different Greek Old Testaments - so there is plenty of information and sources for the promoters of the Septuagint to use - they just take these Vatican manuscripts and make a Septuagint hoax.

If we search - we find that - The Aleppo Codex ( 920 AD ) and Leningrad Codex (c. 1008 AD ) were once the oldest known Hebrew language manuscripts of the Tanakh.

What did the Catholic Church do with the Hebrew Manuscripts that Jerome used to translate from ?

Rome and Egypt should have at least a handful of crumbled dust and rotten fragments of manuscripts to show for - concerning what they used to translate the Septuagint from.

In Adam Clarke's commentary on Psalm 14 he notes: "Yet IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED, PARTICULARLY BY ST. JEROME, THAT PAUL DID NOT QUOTE THEM (the verses in Romans 3:10-18) from this Psalm; but...he collected from different parts several passages that bore upon the subject, and united them here....AND THAT SUCCEEDING COPYISTS, FINDING THEM IN ROMANS INSERTED THEM INTO THE SEPTUAGINT, from which it was presumed they had been lost.

Clarke continues - It does not appear that they made a part of this Psalm in Origen's Hexapla. In the portions that still exist of this Psalm there is not a word of these additional verses referred to in that collection, neither here nor in the parallel Psalm 53."

in 380 A.D - Jerome began to consult the Hebrew texts. Here Jerome claimed that The available SEPTUAGINT borrowed whole verses from the already-completed N.T. text, and transplanted them back into their SEPTUAGINT version.

CHARACTERISTICS OF ST. JEROME'S WORK

Jerome then began to write several works on the supremacy of the Hebrew texts over the various Greek translations. Jerome writes: “ It would be tedious now to enumerate, what great additions and omissions the Septuagint has made, and all the passages which in church-copies are marked with daggers and asterisks [symbols indicating words present in the Greek but absent in the Hebrew, and vice versa].

[ Jerome's Letter LVII]”


The SEPTUAGINT was written - AFTER the New Testament. Some of the New Testament was inserted / placed back into The SEPTUAGINT O.T. translation

The SEPTUAGINT translators took the already completed New Testament writings and transplanted them back into their Greek translation. Just like the Douay Rheims Catholics Translators of 1582 - also - transplanted the Greek word “ Christ “ back into their English Old Testament, numerous times.

They are taking NT – Greek - verses and inserting them word for word in their Greek translation when NO Hebrew text anywhere exist for the way these New Testament verses are written. They got them directly from the New Testament -

Also - If the acclaimed Pre-Christ SEPTUAGINT already existed and was spread and used by thousands of people - why, after the New Testament was completed, did at least three or four different men ( Origen, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotian ) attempt to make new Greek translations between 140 A.D. and 240 A.D.?

Why was the Roman Catholic Church still attempting to make 5 or 6 new different Greek Old Testaments. ?

All copies of the SEPTUAGINT are beginning with the editorial work of Origen from the 3 rd century. This is the only manuscript source that reflects anything that resembles from what the SEPTUAGINT was copied from.

There are no Hebrew manuscripts that reflect the SEPTUAGINT contradictions that compare to the Masoretic texts.

AND there are no Hebrew manuscripts that reflect the SEPTUAGINT's contradictions between different the Greek variant copies of the SEPTUAGINT itself.


The only manuscripts for The SEPTUAGINT in any bulk volume whatsoever { STILL INCOMPLETE AS AN EARLY TEXT } these are The Codex Vaticanus (Vatican Library), dating from about 350 AD.

The Vatican has added pages to make the collection over the centuries, it contains 617 leaves that have been added, INSERTED into the collection.

Also - The Codex Sinaiticus. in 1933 the British Museum purchased this fourth-century Codex from the Soviet Government for about $500,000. Even these are incomplete scriptures filled with thousands and thousands of contradictions and errors.

When we speak of lack of proof - the SEPTUAGINT has no proof to disprove - just a fragmented and broken and contradicting void of a molding and building and injecting and inserting pages to eventually complete a Greek Old Testament - that did not exist as a completed OT book until 350 to 500 years after Yahashua.

Concerning the SEPTUAGINT - there are no facts nor evidence pertaining to the SEPTUAGINT itself - to even review.

Just an empty void that we can imagine and demand is filled with Romes finished works.

__

 

[Butch5]

And yet you're claiming that Masoretic texts from 700-1000 AD are the true texts. We know from the EFC's that the Hebrew texts were altered in their day. How is it that relatively modern Masoretic texts are correct?

You keep saying the Catholic church created the Septuagint. Do you have any proof?. Also, they had the Masoretic text. Maybe they created the Masoretic text too.

 

[septorator]

Actually, the Masoretic texts were made in the 6 th century.

I think of the pre 6 th century Hebrew Manuscripts as the same as Masoretic texts because I believe the Scriptures were preserved. I failed to mention that Masoretic texts were not called or labled as the Masoretic texts when Jerome translated his Latin Vulgate.

Jerome was supposed to have been friends with a Rabbi Priest who assisted him in translating from the existing Hebrew Tanakh - Hebrew manuscripts - that existed but somehow also suddenly disappeared.

And this is way Trinitarians needed it. They needed to completely eradicate and remove everything original from the face of the earth and reinvent a translation that reflected their personal doctrines and ideas.

This is the reason the Masoretic texts are so important because they were produced by Jews who were dedicated to preserving the word of God - as where the Greek Old Testament is purposefully and deliberately used to pervert, after and change and reconstruct the Bible. - and remove and alter everything they did not like about it.

This is the problem - that Trinitarians have attempted to purposefully create for the world - by outlawing and banning and prohibiting the translation of the Bible for nearly 2000 years.

- all of the originals would have been lost, destroyed and burned . Individuals attempting to translate using the Bible were burned alive by the Trinitarians with their manuscripts and translating tools hung around their necks until everything was lost and destroyed and altered

The Trinitarians along with Muslims, created their own reality of a world with no original manuscripts preserved - they destroyed everything and created a harsh and impossible, violent, and deadly environment for those trying to preserve and make copies and translate them.

While only promoting and building upon the Latin and Greek and Arabic Quran- for NEARLY 2000 YEARS.


The Roman Catholic Church Father - Augustine wrote in his book The City of God (Book XVIII)

Augustine (A.D. 354–430)

Chapter 43.— Of the Authority of the Septuagint Translation, Which, Saving the Honor of the Hebrew Original, is to Be Preferred to All Translations.

Jerome, a man most learned, and skilled in all three languages, who translated these same Scriptures into the Latin speech, not from the Greek, but from the Hebrew.

 

[Butch5]

Actually, the Masoretic texts were made in the 6 th century.

I think of the pre 6 th century Hebrew Manuscripts as the same as Masoretic texts because I believe the Scriptures were preserved. I failed to mention that Masoretic texts were not called or labled as the Masoretic texts when Jerome translated his Latin Vulgate.

Jerome was supposed to have been friends with a Rabbi Priest who assisted him in translating from the existing Hebrew Tanakh - Hebrew manuscripts - that existed but somehow also suddenly disappeared.

And this is way Trinitarians needed it. They needed to completely eradicate and remove everything original from the face of the earth and reinvent a translation that reflected their personal doctrines and ideas.

This is the reason the Masoretic texts are so important because they were produced by Jews who were dedicated to preserving the word of God - as where the Greek Old Testament is purposefully and deliberately used to pervert, after and change and reconstruct the Bible. - and remove and alter everything they did not like about it.

This is the problem - that Trinitarians have attempted to purposefully create for the world - by outlawing and banning and prohibiting the translation of the Bible for nearly 2000 years.

- all of the originals would have been lost, destroyed and burned . Individuals attempting to translate using the Bible were burned alive by the Trinitarians with their manuscripts and translating tools hung around their necks until everything was lost and destroyed and altered

The Trinitarians along with Muslims, created their own reality of a world with no original manuscripts preserved - they destroyed everything and created a harsh and impossible, violent, and deadly environment for those trying to preserve and make copies and translate them.

While only promoting and building upon the Latin and Greek and Arabic Quran- for NEARLY 2000 YEARS.


The Roman Catholic Church Father - Augustine wrote in his book The City of God (Book XVIII)

Augustine (A.D. 354–430)

Chapter 43.— Of the Authority of the Septuagint Translation, Which, Saving the Honor of the Hebrew Original, is to Be Preferred to All Translations.

Jerome, a man most learned, and skilled in all three languages, who translated these same Scriptures into the Latin speech, not from the Greek, but from the Hebrew.

You keep saying that the Septuagint is no good, yet you haven't given any proof except what you believe. Do you know why the Jews rejected the Septuagint? They rejected it because the early Christians were using it effectively to prove that Jesus is the Christ. They were so effective at this that the Jews, who had rejected Christ, now had to reject the Septuagint also.

Also, I don't believe Jerome was the stand up guy you think him to be. here's a link to some audios that look at the issues between the Masoretic and Septuagintal texts.

Search Results for “why don't we use the same Bible” – Scroll Publishing Company

scrollpublishing.com

You said,

And this is way Trinitarians needed it. They needed to completely eradicate and remove everything original from the face of the earth and reinvent a translation that reflected their personal doctrines and ideas.

This is the reason the Masoretic texts are so important because they were produced by Jews who were dedicated to preserving the word of God - as where the Greek Old Testament is purposefully and deliberately used to pervert, after and change and reconstruct the Bible. - and remove and alter everything they did not like about it.

The Septuagint was also translated by Jews who were dedicated to preserving the word of God. The difference is that when the Septuagint was translated, Jesus had not come yet. There were no Christians. So there was absolute NO Christian influence on the translation. So, to say it was used by Trinitarians to prove their doctrine doesn't make sense. Christ wasn't even around when it was translated. However, the Masoretic text came after Christ when there were many Christians around.

You say the Masoretic text is important because it was translated by Jews who were dedicated to the word of God. Presumable so it can counter those "Trinitarians" who are supposedly trying to change it. Let's look at. Which text is trinitarian?

Masoretic Text
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. (Isa. 9:6 KJV)

Clearly this passage from the Masoretic text says that the Son is the Father. That sure sounds like Trinitarian doctrine to me. Now let's look at the Septuagint.

Septuagint Text.
For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: <1> for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him. (Isa. 9:6 LXE)

There's nothing here in the Septuagint about the Son being the Father. There's nothing Trinitarian about this passage in the Septuagint, unlike the Masoretic text.

 

[septorator]

Yes understood

This sharp lurch was already worked into the development of the Trinity doctrine by the end of 400 AD

Isa. 9:6 - does prove that Yahashua is the Father - " manifested in the flesh "

but to Trinitarians developing the trinity doctrine in Rome - this was not acceptable, for them - Yahashua is not the father manifested in the flesh - The Trinity Yahashua is Co Eternal and Co Equal and is a manifestation of himself. - not the Father.

Trinitarian theology demands that Yahashua is Co Eternal, Co Equal and Co Omnipresent and a second ETERNALLY and EQUAL separate, / separated individual or person who has always existed with the father.

And he is eternally at or on the right hand of the father.

So leaving out the Isa. 9:6 portion that names " father eternal " as the name that will be given to the son this would never be acceptable to the creators of the Septuagint.

Remember it had only been 300 - 500 years since Yahashua has been born, died, resurrected and ascended to heaven - Rome had complete dominion and control of everything regarding the understanding of the scriptures, there were no available manuscripts in the open - out in the average public, they were all hidden away , rare and scarce and slowly diminishing - as Rome had planned for 300 years.

Creating the Septuagint was something that was done after Rome developed its Catholic Government System - with Rome in control the Septuagint was made under the idea and impression that its authors could change anything they wanted, move and words around and leave out and add anything and the vast majority for all of time forward would never know the difference.

TO THE TRINITARIAN.................

............. Isa. 9:6 - does not support the Trinity, it contradicts the Trinity - go into a mainstream average Trinitarian forum and present Isa. 9:6 as proof that Yahashua is the Father manifested in the flesh - and the trinitarians there will be outraged and present dozens of other New Testament verses that cancel out and contradict Isa. 9:6

because Isa. 9:6 does not mean the Trinity, to Trinitarians - it means Yahashua simply holds the characteristics of God. Trinitarians will also demand that - “Wonderful Counselor” or “Mighty God” or “Prince of Peace”? None of these phrases are used of Jesus in the New Testament.

So, therefore, this verse does not support the Trinity - this is what Trinitarians will demand

Just search this online CLICK HERE

You will see that every Trinitarian online strongly demands that this verse is not a part of the Trinity.

And they are right - -they have many manipulated and altered verses in their Catholic JKV that cancel out and contradict Isa. 9:6

So translating Isa. 9:6 correctly in the Septuagint - this would never be something that a Roman Catholic could do - they will convince themselves and everyone around them that this is simply a mistranslation or that the original authors of the Bible simply made a typo......

Roman Catholics even fixed it - changing it in their Douay Rhiems Translation of 1582.

Isa 9:6 For a CHILD IS BORN to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace.

This is not the Trinity in the Catholic Translation - they fixed it

the Father of the world to come - this is someone and something far away into the distant future in some distant alternative universe that no one knows about nor have they even thought of.


To Trinitarians - this may not even be Yahashua - it could be the antichrist as far as they are concerned.

they don't care what it says or means - they drop it and take a step back and present mistranslated and altered and changed TRINITARIAN verses in their N.T. to cancel out, undermine and contradict and change and erase the narrative of the Isa 9:6 passage and its exact manuscript message

 

[Butch5]

Yes understood

This sharp lurch was already worked into the development of the Trinity doctrine by the end of 400 AD

Isa. 9:6 - does prove that Yahashua is the Father - " manifested in the flesh "

but to Trinitarians developing the trinity doctrine in Rome - this was not acceptable, for them - Yahashua is not the father manifested in the flesh - The Trinity Yahashua is Co Eternal and Co Equal and is a manifestation of himself. - not the Father.

Trinitarian theology demands that Yahashua is Co Eternal, Co Equal and Co Omnipresent and a second ETERNALLY and EQUAL separate, / separated individual or person who has always existed with the father.

And he is eternally at or on the right hand of the father.

So leaving out the Isa. 9:6 portion that names " father eternal " as the name that will be given to the son this would never be acceptable to the creators of the Septuagint.

Remember it had only been 300 - 500 years since Yahashua has been born, died, resurrected and ascended to heaven - Rome had complete dominion and control of everything regarding the understanding of the scriptures, there were no available manuscripts in the open - out in the average public, they were all hidden away , rare and scarce and slowly diminishing - as Rome had planned for 300 years.

Creating the Septuagint was something that was done after Rome developed its Catholic Government System - with Rome in control the Septuagint was made under the idea and impression that its authors could change anything they wanted, move and words around and leave out and add anything and the vast majority for all of time forward would never know the difference.

TO THE TRINITARIAN.................

............. Isa. 9:6 - does not support the Trinity, it contradicts the Trinity - go into a mainstream average Trinitarian forum and present Isa. 9:6 as proof that Yahashua is the Father manifested in the flesh - and the trinitarians there will be outraged and present dozens of other New Testament verses that cancel out and contradict Isa. 9:6

because Isa. 9:6 does not mean the Trinity, to Trinitarians - it means Yahashua simply holds the characteristics of God. Trinitarians will also demand that - “Wonderful Counselor” or “Mighty God” or “Prince of Peace”? None of these phrases are used of Jesus in the New Testament.

So, therefore, this verse does not support the Trinity - this is what Trinitarians will demand

Just search this online CLICK HERE

You will see that every Trinitarian online strongly demands that this verse is not a part of the Trinity.

And they are right - -they have many manipulated and altered verses in their Catholic JKV that cancel out and contradict Isa. 9:6

So translating Isa. 9:6 correctly in the Septuagint - this would never be something that a Roman Catholic could do - they will convince themselves and everyone around them that this is simply a mistranslation or that the original authors of the Bible simply made a typo......

Roman Catholics even fixed it - changing it in their Douay Rhiems Translation of 1582.

Isa 9:6 For a CHILD IS BORN to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace.

This is not the Trinity in the Catholic Translation - they fixed it

the Father of the world to come - this is someone and something far away into the distant future in some distant alternative universe that no one knows about nor have they even thought of.


To Trinitarians - this may not even be Yahashua - it could be the antichrist as far as they are concerned.

they don't care what it says or means - they drop it and take a step back and present mistranslated and altered and changed TRINITARIAN verses in their N.T. to cancel out, undermine and contradict and change and erase the narrative of the Isa 9:6 passage and its exact manuscript message

I'm aware that Is. 9:6 doesn't support the Trinity doctrine. It actually supports Modalism. However, Trinitaeians do quote Is. 9:6 to claim Jesus is God. My point was to show the verse is much more Trinitarian sounding in the Masoreric text than the same verse in the Seotuagint.

You're arguing that the Septuagint isn't any good, yet you've not given me any reason to accept what you're arguing. Yes, the Catholic Church had control of the Scriptures in the west. However that was. Not the case in the east. The Septuagint continued on as the Old Testemant in the east.

Please, give me some evidence that the Septuagint is no good. So far you've given me a grand conspiracy theory. Why? Why would the Catholic Church have this grand conspiracy to create the Trinity doctrine? What did the Church gain by doing this?

You say the Masoretic text is the better text. The Jews had the Hebrew texts. Yet, the early Christians were using the Septuagint to prove to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ. Now, you have to ask yourself, why didn't the Jews see this. If the Hebrew text was as pure as you say, they should have seen this. Why was it necessary to prove it from the Septuagint?

The apostles quote from the Septuagint over and over again. One has to wonder why, if it's no good. You say it was reconstructed. I'm sorry, there are just to many prophecies and passages quoted for me to believe that a bunch of guys with desire to push a doctrine could reconstruct the book. There would be some mistakes somewhere.

On the other hand, its seems to me that you're just dismissing any evidence presented suggesting that the Masoretic text might be questionable. As I pointed out, the Maosreric texts aren't that old. What about the Hebrew texts the Masoretic come from? Can you speak to their purity?

 

[only son]

.

thank you so much for responding,


Please consider that you do not understand the problem and delusion that your claim truly represents.

There are no Septuagint manuscripts that date before Yahashua -

This AD date is so very important - because the different Greek versions and codices that date AFTER YAHAUSHA are so vastly different from one another, that the huge differences between these Greek versions - so different and contradictory to one another that even today - 2000 years later if you do your research you will find that the AD Greek Old Testament manuscripts are so filled with corrections, changes and editing comments that these are not even manuscripts or translations.

And none of them are completed OT Greek Bibles - completed until 500 years after Yahashua….

The Codex Sinaiticus - Codex Vaticanus, the Alexandrian text-type

These are all mostly rough drafts, undergoing editing and textual criticism and edited transitions - the Vatican does not put this garbage up on the internet in any complete format.

IN FACT =

Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, are representatives of the fragments of the Alexandrian text-type, and Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have many differences between these two manuscripts.

It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two manuscripts contradict and differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they agree.

This tells us everything we need to know about the claims of the Septuagint,

- because of the fact that - This AD date provides a marker in a timeline that shows that there is nothing completed or uniform - concerning any Greek O. T.

And this is all that exists for any evidence of the Septuagint. A combination of several incomplete rough drafts undergoing editing and corrections and changes - that are filled with contradictions and variants and major differences between them.

This info is found here -

CLICK HERE - Comparison of codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus - Wikipedia



So . What you ask for - concerning proof that Masoretic text are the true manuscripts Vs the Septuagint



this is impossible to prove imperially - because the Roman Catholic Church and Pre Roman Catholic Rome - completely destroyed them - on purpose - it was not just Rome alone but also other entities such as Islam and many other Trinitarian groups.

It is impossible to provide proof from something that has been destroyed and deliberately / purposefully and methodically suppressed and manipulated for nearly 2000 years.

The Roman Catholic Church did not translate any completed Bible Translation until nearly 500 years A.D. AND then did not translate a Bible into any other language outside of Latin alone - until nearly 2000 years A.D.


While producing incomplete rough drafts and works of the Old Testament into Greek that were undergoing editing and corrections until 500 + years after Yahashua.

While burning millions of people alive, torturing and imprisoning and persecuting any who tried to translate the bible.

Today

Modern versions such as the RSV, NIV that sometimes reject a specific Masoretic Hebrew passages will leave a footnote: saying - " SOME Septuagint versions say.... "

This is because the bulk of ONLY Greek O. T. manuscripts THAT EXISTED before 500 A. D.

are so different from one another

And this is exactly and truly - EXACTLY - what your Septuagint is

So when you prove and validate your Greek Septuagint what are you proving and validating.

????/ ????????????????

You are proving and validating the fact that - SOME Septuagint versions say....

That is all your Septuagint is - SOME Septuagint versions say....



And SOME Septuagint versions do not say....



And that is all that exist of the Greek Old Testament. - there are no manuscripts and no scrolls of the Septuagint pre -dating Yahashua.



As I stated before - The Septuagint had to be RECONSTRUCTED and INVENTED out of the nothingness of the less that 1 % of the fragments that existed before Yahashua are not enough to even translate a single page of the Old Testament.

THIS IS THE FACTS - we know

The B. C. Septuagint can not be shown to have existed as a completed OT Greek Translation that was duplicated and copied and widely spread and transmitted to the major cities and churches throughout Egypt and nearby areas.

There are no Septuagint manuscripts - only tiny, teeny shards and shreds of crumbled rotten and flakes of abandoned, lost and thrown away fragments that no one wanted or cared about to preserve a single page - not even a single page was preserved - and probably not even completed.



The Non - Greek O. T. MANUSCRIPTS, however, are mastered and preserved with precision and care precisely duplicated and fervently distributed and transmitted spreading around the world in secular books and letters and documents written on papyrus, parchment, hides, and paper in Hebrew characters, Hebrew Masoretic manuscripts have been preserved in archives and public and private libraries. It has been estimated that there are about 60,000 manuscripts (codices) and about 200,000 fragments if the Masoretic - and they all agree so closely and perfectly that we can look and see the typo and scribal error that randomly happens when thousands upon thousands of copies are being duplicated by thousands of different people.

The Septuagint however - is built upon a flake fantasy consisting of several Vatican-produced rough drafts, undergoing editing and textual criticism and edited transitions that were not even nearly completed until 500 + years after Yahashua.

- the Vatican does not put this garbage up on the internet in any complete format for the public to review, study and understand - they hire and promote scholars to prop up these useless blasphemous jack rags - as something that is important to the Biblical community..

There is absolutely no proof of a Pre-Christian Septuagint.

What is referred to as the Septuagint today is nothing more than compilations of the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus,

and these manuscript versions do not even agree with each other and were never completed within the A. D era with intent = to be distributed and transmitted to the public and community.