Do Greek speaking Christians still use the Septuagint and original New Testament text? Or do they have a "modern Greek translation"? I ask because the New Testament is 2000 years old, presumably the Greek language has changed and evolved a lot in that time and so the original NT might not even be understandable to a modern Greek speaker. I'm interested in what Greek speaking Christians use in general (Catholics, Orthodox, Protestant), but I'm also very interested in the Greek Orthodox church in particular. I'm curious what version of the scriptures they draw upon in their liturgy: the originals? or a modern paraphrase/translation?

I know that in Eastern Orthodoxy, the Scripture is held to be a part of Sacred Tradition, with equal authority to all the rest of that tradition which was handed down from the Apostles without having been penned by them. Despite not being different in authority, there is plainly some difference between the Scripture and other traditions, as the EO publishes Bibles which include the canonical Scriptures, but not (for example) the decrees of the councils (which are also considered sacred and infallible). Scripture evidently has a unique place, distinct from the councils and the rest of Sacred Tradition, though the mode of difference isn't clear to me. **What is the difference, if it is neither in sacredness nor authority?** Perhaps there is some clear-cut difference in function, which I only perceive vaguely.

### Motivation of the question I find out that many debates about "Scripture", "tradition", and "authority" result in **cross talk** because each of the 3 main branches don't sufficiently define what they mean by those 3 key terms. At the same time all 3 main branches acknowledge much commonality, which more or less coalesce under the banner of "rule of faith", "apostolic tradition", or "Apostle's Creed". In the spirit of **Peacemaking** (Matt 5:9), this question asks for VERY PRECISE **common core** definition of "tradition" **that all 3 branches can *first* AGREE**. Only then can each branch propose: 1. their own meaning of "tradition" (which has to be related precisely with the common definition) 1. their own precise location of authority and its relationship to tradition and Scripture ### Evidence of the existence of a common core "tradition" in all 3 branches 1. Eastern Orthodox Churches can say that their authority is centered on the relatively "frozen" **"Holy Tradition"** which includes BOTH Scripture and Tradition (defined by EO as an extension of the common core "tradition" asked for in this Q). "Tradition" in EO's extended sense (which includes all non-Scripture parts of the Holy Tradition) is of equal importance to Scripture, both exerting equal authority to believers. This extended EO "Tradition" includes proper interpretation of Scripture. 1. The Roman Catholic Church can say that their authority is centered on the **Magisterium** who interprets the current meaning and the current application of BOTH Scripture and "Tradition" (defined by RC as an extension of the common core definition of "tradition" asked for in this Q). 1. Protestantism can say that their authority is centered on **Scripture** (said by *sola scriptura* as the *norm*, but not the *exclusion*, of everything else), but they have to account for *how the various interpretations are related* to the common core definition of "tradition" asked for in this Q. I realize this may require a paradigm shift for Protestants, but if we are honest: - EACH interpretation **IS** a part of a denomination's "tradition" **which includes** a certain *orthodox* interpretation that ALL 3 main branches agree to (thus giving substance to the common core "tradition" asked for in this Q), that would yield an agreement on the doctrine of the Trinity for instance (let's not worry about the *filioque* here), and on the majority of the propositions in the Apostle's Creed. - This common core definition of "tradition" has a Biblical basis in 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15, and Jude 1:3 (see Note #2 below). - Although some Protestants claim that "it's obvious" (under the banner of perspicuity) that John 1:1 implies the pre-existence of Christ, this interpretation (that was subsequently fought over until today) counts as part of the common core "tradition" asked for in this Q, which **can even be argued** to be included in the "tradition" referred to by the 3 verses above. ### Ways to answer the question 1. For RC and EO, specify a *criteria* on HOW to **delimit** the common core subset out of their respective (more expansive) Traditions. On the other hand, Protestants can come up with a Biblical exegesis of ALL verses that imply the existence of an apostolic "tradition" (such as 3 verses mentioned above) and specify a *criteria* to **populate "tradition"** so that we know what the apostles meant by "tradition" in those verses. 1. For each branch, list the common interpretation / common doctrines to populate the common core definition of "tradition". Examples: the Chalcedon definition of the dual nature of Christ, the necessity of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, justification by grace only, Pre-existence of Christ, etc. 1. Cite elements of statement of faith from an ecumenical Christian organization (such as World Council of Churches). 1. List common doctrines in each branch's confessions / documents, even if you have to notate slight differences such as how each branch deals with Original Sin, which was clearly articulated for the first time by Augustine and since then *handed down* to us today (thus part of "tradition" by definition) with minor variations. 1. List common features of all 3 branches' theology. For example we can argue that Divine Simplicity ***is*** a tradition, so are Resurrection of the Body and how one's decision *for* or *against* God is frozen at death. Or cite books such as C.S. Lewis's *Mere Christianity*. 1. Etc. (Come up with your own strategy so that the definition is agreeable by all 3 branches) ### NOTES 1. I don't want debate on the various canons. For the purpose of this question, it's already a given that each branch has their own canon. What matters is Scripture's relationship to the common definition of "tradition". 1. "tradition" as a lexical definition means "that which is handed over"; but it is too general and too vague to explicate - what 1 Cor 11:2 refers to ("maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you") - what Jude 1:3 refers to as what was "delivered to the saints" - what 2 Thess 2:15 means by "traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter" all 3 verses are Biblical hint to the **existence** of the **common** core definition of "tradition" asked for in this Q. On the other extreme, definitions of "tradition" can include accretions since the writing of the Book of Revelation. 1. WARNING: Answers which do not include common *core* definition of "tradition" *ACCEPTABLE* to all 3 branches will be rejected. 1. The answer's own proposal of how the common *core* definition of "tradition" relates to Authority and to Scripture can be added as a bonus. I prefer that the answer attempts to isolate the common core of "authority" *first* before fleshing out the branch's more extended definition of "authority".

Please correct me if I am wrong, but from my understanding, Dispensationalism suggests that there is a distinct and sharp contrast between Israel and the Church. It holds to the notion that God has a separate plan and purpose for each throughout redemptive history, even into the eschatological future. For example, the 70th week of Daniel is often understood in dispensationalist thought as the Great Tribulation, a period where God deals specifically with Israel, with the Church being raptured prior to this time. Now, my question is not regarding the application of the dispensationalist view of Israel vs. the Church but rather the defense of such a view. As I’ve studied the relationship between Israel and the Church, Scripture seems to continually point to something other than a distinct differentiation between the two and instead highlights their unity and cohesion. For instance, we see verses like **1 Peter 2:9-10**: > *“But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.”* In this passage, Peter seems to be directly using the exact verbiage used throughout the Old Testament to describe the nation of Israel in **Exodus**, **Leviticus**, and **Deuteronomy**. Additionally, in **Galatians 3:28-29**, Paul states: > *“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.”* Here, Paul emphasizes that believers in Christ—regardless of ethnic background—are Abraham’s seed and heirs of the promise, which is a foundational identity tied to Israel in the Old Testament. Another example is found in **Ephesians 2:14-16**, which reads: > *“For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby.”* And further in **Ephesians 3:6**, Paul elaborates on this unity, stating: > *“That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.”* This passage seems to underscore the idea that Gentiles are now fellow heirs with Israel, sharing in the same body and the promises originally given to Israel. Additionally, in **Acts 15:9**, during the Jerusalem Council, the apostles and elders discuss the issue of whether Gentile believers must follow the Jewish law, particularly circumcision, to be saved. Peter, addressing the council, says: > *“And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.”* This statement is particularly significant because the Council ultimately concludes that Gentiles are not required to observe the Jewish law, recognizing that there is no longer any distinction between Jew and Gentile in Christ. Furthermore, the council affirms that even Jewish believers are no longer bound to the law for salvation. This moment seems to suggest a deep unity between Jewish and Gentile believers, challenging the idea of a permanent, God-ordained distinction between Israel and the Church. How do dispensationalists interpret such passages to maintain their framework of a distinct differentiation between Israel and the Church? Are there common principles or hermeneutical approaches they use to address these kinds of verses? Thank you for helping me understand this perspective better. All verses are from KJV. God bless!

2000 years ago, written works were extremely valuable. It's not like every Jewish family had their own "family scroll" that they read to their children every night. It's doubtful even that every Rabbi had their own scroll. Before the printing press, it's known that Christian Monks would spend countless hours copying the pages of the bible by hand, and that those Bibles were often chained to a table in a church and locked shut when not being read. How were scrolls reproduced? Who kept them? And how did a common person obtain access to them in Christ's time? One final question: Did Christ own a physical copy of the scriptures?

So after reading the comments here . I got curious. I see non-mormons citing the Journal of discourses all the time, but have never heard a mormon cite them. Wikipedia tells me where they come from and what they are, but why do modern mormons not use them and not consider them scripture?

The Apostle Paul said, "All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." (2 Tim 3:16-17 HCSB) Now, I am aware of the canonization of the New Testament. This was done some 300 plus years after these letters were written. Now, some of these letters do contain scripture references in them but to call them the word of God. I don't think that was the intent of the writers. Why do scholars today say that the whole Bible is the word of God?

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SECOND EDITION > 103: For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she **venerates the Lord's Body**. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body.

Heb 4:12: > For the **word of God** is **living** and effective and sharper than any double-edged sword, penetrating as far as the separation of soul and spirit, joints and marrow. **It is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.** (CSB) > For the **word of God** is **quick**, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and **is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart**. (KJV) is quoted a lot by evangelicals in promoting devotional Bible study as though *the act of reading the Bible text in itself* produces the benefit that the Pastor of the book of Hebrews mentions in the verse, i.e. "judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart". But technically, isn't it true that it is **NOT** the text on paper that "judges" but **Jesus (God the Word)** speaking to us? Jesus is the one living, not the text. The theme of the sermon makes it clear what "word of God" refers to, *cf* Heb 1:1-2: > Long ago God spoke to our ancestors by the **prophets** at different times and in different ways. In these last days, **he has spoken to us by his Son**. God has appointed him heir of all things and **made the universe through him**. (CSB) > God, who at sundry times and in divers manners **spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets**, Hath in these last days **spoken unto us by his Son**, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; (KJV) which more precisely refers to the words God spoke by the OT prophets, culminating in His word by Jesus's body, life, action, and words. V. 2 alludes to the words through which God spoke creation into existence (Gen 1) that the Pastor implied as "through Jesus". It seems clear to me that proper exegesis should center the referent of "the word of God" in Heb 4:12 on Jesus who *indeed* is **living and present** preaching to us through the various ways alluded by Heb 1:1-2: - prophecy to OT fathers by the prophets - voice of our conscience (part of the created order), - the beauty & order of nature herself (testified in Job, Psalms, etc.) rather than ***ONLY*** through the words of the text of the Bible (though of course the Bible is the inscripturated word of God also). Furthermore, the more immediate context of Heb 4:12 is Heb 3:1-4:13 about the warning from the lesson learned at Kadesh Barnea's rebellion where they didn't heed the word of God delivered through Moses. Thus the warning of that passage is so that we heed Christ's words to our soul TODAY (*cf* frequent reference to Ps 95:7-8) now that God has spoken to us a lot more clearly by sending Jesus, His own incarnation, greater than the word He spoke to Moses. So why do Evangelicals, whenever they cite the verse in many sermons, Bible study guides, proof-text for apologetics, etc., regularly shift the referent of Heb 4:12 from Jesus to the text of the Bible itself, even broadening the scope to the NT text that has *yet* to be recognized as Scripture? ### 2 illustrations of the consequence of bad exegesis I think my concern for my evangelical brothers and sisters is important when considering **the two disturbing practices I notice** which seems directly to follow from this bad Evangelical exegesis: 1. In several evangelical churches I have attended, they imply that to obtain the benefit in Heb 4:12b, reading the Bible text in itself *is more efficacious* than other books (such as a good theology book, the Catechism, or a C.S. Lewis book), as though God works in a MORE SPECIAL MANNER in producing the benefit when the text read is the Bible but not other books. They seem fearful as though theology books can be more corrupting than the effect of uninformed straight reading of the Bible that has the risk of bad private interpretation if not checked by the church's interpretation mediated by the pastor's sermons. Some even eschew using a commentary, fearing that the commentator's interpretation obscures Scripture rather than making it brighter to the mind! To me this is not coherent. Doesn't the **agent** need to be someone LIVING rather than words on a page? But Evangelical careful readers (adopting the Berean discernment) certainly prioritize the teaching in Scripture to serve as a norm and a rule to judge whether a book elucidate or distorts the orthodox teachings of the Bible. Thus they pick and choose better parts of C.S. Lewis books and quote judiciously from writers such as Dallas Willard / A.W. Tozer. When a Christian reading those books became convicted of their sins and obtained more wisdom to know their hearts more clearly (thus obtaining the benefit of Heb 4:12b), can we *not* say it was Jesus speaking through those books? Can we *not* say it was Jesus speaking through a Biblical sermon prepared with lots of research including the use of commentaries, philosophy, and theology books? No one is going to mistake those books as "word of God", put them on the same level as the Bible, or attribute the author or the pastor as "Jesus speaking". By the way, I am in no way disputing the status of the text of the Bible as Scripture, nor am I excluding Scripture from the "word of God". Evangelical doctrines of - Verbal inspiration of Scripture - Infallibility of Scripture - *Sola Scriptura* as the norm for interpreting other sources such as tradition, council canons, patristic writings, church doctrines, post-NT prophecies, etc. - Protestant understanding of canon of "recognition" instead of Magisterium can be derived from other parts of the Bible instead of misusing this verse in support of the above, which in turn make the above doctrines stand on a less secure foundation. 1. The advice I got from several fundamentalist leaning evangelicals is that to evangelize you HAVE to look for an opportunity to cite a series of strategic Bible verses as though by the very act of reading them aloud to the non-Christian you're speaking to, the Holy Spirit can work BETTER in convicting him/her. One such sequence is this: 1. Romans 10:9 1. John 1:12 1. John 3:36 1. Rev 3:20 1. Rom 6:23 They say I am NOT supposed to let my own explanation to cloud over the reciting of those verses, even explanation of the CONTEXT of each verse! Nor is it necessary to let him/her talk about his/her current misunderstanding of the gospel or the difficulties he/she has with Christianity. **One should simply recite the verses to let them "work" in the hearer's heart unmediated by explanation**. I think I'm justified to say that this practice is adding a mystical element to the Bible text itself, as though the text has mystical power akin to incantation. So my question is: **Why do evangelicals tend to conflate "word of God" in Heb 4:12 with the "text of Scripture", thus with a meaning that ascribes animacy and agency to the words of the Bible text instead of to the Living God?**

In the beginning when God instituted marriage, He commanded Adam and Eve to multiply and fill the whole world. Both the Old and New Testaments are initiated by marriage contexts, Adam and Eve were married and Jesus who is the savior is born into a marriage headed by Joseph and Mary. These two contexts show how marriage is of value in the scripture. *Genesis 1:28* >Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” When God said those words, it meant every human being who is capable of marriage should fulfill that obligation to populate the world, but then Paul taught that marriage is optional, and one should be married when overcome with passion. Why would marriage be optional when every man is commanded to leave his parents and be joined to his wife? *Genesis 2:24* >Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. Genesis 2:24

In [Did John misread the Septuagint? - Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/90362/did-john-misread-the-septuagint) , we have conflicting views: > … given our belief that Christ dictated the book [of Revelation] … and: > … the vision was from Jesus, but the words were not necessarily dictated, rather they could have been John's own words of what he observed in that vision. What is the division of beliefs among the various denominations regarding scripture?: - The text was literally dictated by God (or holy agent). - The text was the writers' words (except where explicitly stated. E.g. Revelation 2:1's "*Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; …*"), as inspired by God. - The text contains sacred truths, but also human opinions etc. - The text originates solely from the human imagination. Note that I'm not asking which view is correct, only about which major denominations hold which views. Also, I would hope the last category is empty, but it won't be surprising if it isn't.

I was listening to a discussion in which someone mentioned that the phrase "the scripture cannot be broken" was a technical phrase used in rabbinic discussions in first-century Judaism, but no explanation was given. My guess is if that's true then it must mean something like the authority of the scripture can't be negated. Any help here?

At Luke 4:16-17 we read: " When he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, he went to the synagogue on the sabbath day, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him...." I would like to know what the relevance of a synagogue in day-to-day life of an average Jew was; and whether Jesus had formally been given authority to preach in the synagogue. What does the Catholic tell us on the subject ?

The existence of Holy Scripture not contained in the present-day Bible editions can hardly be debated against, since there are numerous references to Scriptures we do not have within the Scriptures that we do have. It is understood that this may be partly a question of what qualifies as canon , or of mistranslation, corruption or degradation of extant texts, but perhaps mostly of documents that *simply have not been found*, and might even no longer exist in physical form. Apocryphal documents quoted in canonical Scripture are an example of extant, partially translated and possibly corrupted texts that contain some truths corroborated in Scripture but on the whole might not read entirely like Scripture, although this question is not so much about Apocryphal writings as it is about content that could be clearly identified as Scriptural. It can be identified as such since it has been alluded to, referenced, or even directly quoted within Holy Scripture as being of a similar nature, written by the same prophets or those having the same calling, etc. Examples may include the Book of the Wars of the Lord referenced in Numbers 21:13–14, Paul's lost letters , the Book of Gad the Seer , the Book of Nathan the Prophet , the prophecy of Ahijah, the visions of Iddo the seer, and many more. Knowing what I know of the tremendous doctrinal and instructional value of the Pauline epistles, and the remarkable visions and prophecies of ancient prophets and seers, it would obviously be a great boon to any Christian library to have access to, or even further hints of what is contained in those lost books of Scripture. Having two or three more Pauline epistles could even radically improve general understanding of the teachings of Christianity, by triangulating the Doctrine of Jesus Christ more finely, specifying additional verifiable historic details, eliminating ambiguity through cross-referencing of existing texts, and so on. I believe there are reasons, attested within Scripture, why God does not give us all of His books at once--first and foremost of which is to try our faith. If historians an emperors could not pretend that the accounts of Jesus and His resurrection were merely fiction or accounts of some obscure extremist carpenter who died a tragic death due to his opposition against religious leaders, due to the overwhelming nature and number of additional highly public witnesses, we might suppose a greater proportion of the Earth's population would be converted. What is an overview of Christian denominations that (1) acknowledge the existence of lost Scripture, and (2) have some published prophetic statements or other doctrine about the missing books and passages of Scripture? Finally, (3) how are they doctrinally bound (if at all) to treat such Scripture?

Dean John Burgon (1813-1888) says in his book 'Revisions Revised' that he had catalogued 96,000 references to the scriptures in the early church fathers (such as Jerome, Eusebius, Augustine etc) in order to collate them in regard to Textual Criticism. These 96,000 'Patristic Citations', as they are known, must be held somewhere but I could not find them at the British Library in London where I would have expected them to be documented. Where else would these be catalogued ?

[Trent Horn's](https://www.catholic.com/audio/cot/a-neglected-argument-against-sola-scriptura) quote > Modern scholars even doubt that they consider the New Testament a divinely inspired authority at all, much less a part of the only infallible rule of faith. Here’s some of those quotes, you might recognize them, I’ll share them in the debate. Michael Krueger, who shares a lot of views with Gavin, he tries to defend a model of the canon that will affirm sola scriptura. But he admits, for many modern scholars the key time is the end of the second century. Only then, largely due to the influence of Irenaeus, were these books first regarded as scripture. **The New Testament scholar, Gordon Fee, says the term scripture meant only the Old Testament for Christians until the end of the second century.** Can you find the reference of Fee's book and some similar quotes about early Christians reference of "scripture" basically to mean the OT?

This question is important to an on-going topic on CSE-Meta as to whether the biblical-basis tag has become obsolete. I understand that Latter-day Saints, in using the term Scripture, include not only biblical texts but also The Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price (if I have excluded any I apologize). Would a Latter-day Saint ever be comfortable (or is it allowed) to refer to one of these other writings as the Bible?

Pertaining to Genesis 12:3 "I will curse those who curse you" is God referring only to unbelievers in Jesus? Is God referring to any human regardless of religious belief when He says: I will bless those who bless you (Genesis 12:3).

Everything I know about Christianity and Jesus is based on the "original" word of God. But I am having trouble understanding what is meant by "original". For example, Paul's source for his scripture is divine revelation only. So God's supernatural word was transmitted to Paul's brain and stored as a memory. Are those memories in Paul's brain the "original" word of God? Unfortunately the human brain can forget things, so perhaps it would be better to call the first words that Paul wrote down the "original" word of God. However it bothers me to move further from the source of the "original" word because Paul may not have transcribed it accurately. As a different example, Luke uses for his gospel Mark and the writings of Flavius Josephus as sources, and possibly another unknown source Q. Suppose that tomorrow we find the Q source, and it just so happens to be everything in Luke that is not contained in Mark or the writings of Flavius Josephus. In this case Luke is simply an anthology, so what would we say the "original" word of God is with respect to Luke?

From this link : > Christians have said Scripture is infallible because they have > believed that God’s Word is incapable of erring and thus contains no > errors The above sentences maybe to everyone else is easy to be understood by the Calvinist, but not for me (especially I'm not a Christian). To me, God's Word is absolutely the truth. So to me it doesn't need to be believed. It's just like there is an ice cube in the fridge, then it doesn't make sense if I say *"I believe that ice cube is cold"*. To me, the chronological order is like this :
Christians have believed that "X" writing is God's Words.
So, Christians believe that "X" writing is Scripture.
Since God's Words is infallible, then Christians believe that "X" writing is infallible. So to me, the "believe" is not on the God's Words, but that "X" writing which is believed God's Words. The chronological order is : *IF there is a writing which is believed God's Words THEN that writing is infallible*. Later on : *Because this writing is believed God's Words then this writing is infallible* Another quote from the same link: > **If God never lies**, His Word never lies either. We can therefore trust > it to be free from all error The same, it's confusing to me as the IF is on "God never lies", while my own chronological order the IF is on "the writing" ---> **IF this X writing is God's Words** THEN there is no lie in this X writing. (Why the "THEN" is like that ? because God never lies). Because to me the IF is : *IF the writing is believed God's Words then the writing does not endorse anything untrue in the point of view whoever believe that writing is God's Words* then it raise a question: *how *"God never lies"* is the IF ?* > *"The Christians have believed that God’s Word is incapable of erring"* So my question is:
how *"God's Words is incapable of erring"* is a believe ? ---------- Please ignore the question if the sentence in the quote is just a circular sentence like this :
*1. Christians have said Scripture is infallible because they have believed that Scripture is incapable of erring and thus contains no errors
2. If Scripture never lies, Scripture never lies either. We can therefore trust it to be free from all error*