What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. Romans 3:1-2 Notice that the oracles of God were not committed to the Greeks. In a synagogue in the 1st century, one could only read the Hebrew scrolls or the Targum (a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic). Greek was forbidden. Recall that Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the Solomon’s temple circa 170 BC. Thus, the need for Herod to build the 2nd temple. The Jews of the 1st century despised the Greeks, for that and other reasons. The only evidence for a BC Septuagint is the letter of Aristeas, which no one believers but everyone quotes. It is a fantastic tale (read fantasy). There is no reference to a Septuagint prior to 50 AD (+/-). If you trace all the reference to a BC Septuagint, you will find that each and every on them references the Letter of Aristeas in one form or another. So, the only witness to a BC Septuagint is the Letter of Aristeas (LOA). If one believes the LOA, one has to believe also that the 10 northern tribes of Israel were not dispersed to four winds after 721 BC. From this diaspora they never returned. Rather you have to believe that they were still in Israel in 285 BC, since the LOA claims that 6 scribes from each of the 12 tribes of Israel were assembled in Egypt by Ptolemy Philadelphus. Incidentally, a land to which the Jews were forbidden ever to return to. Deuteronomy 17:16, Deuteronomy 28:68, Jeremiah 42:13-17, Jeremiah 44 (entire). Incidentally, none of the ancient writers who refer to the LOA agree on which Ptolemy is referred to. Only the Levites were allowed to copy the scriptures (with the exception of the King who had to make a copy for himself). So, one has to add to that belief that 72 scribes (not Levites) defiled themselves among the Greeks and defied the scriptures and God’s wishes in order to copy the scriptures as well as going to a land to which they were forbidden ever to return. More so, add to that belief, that 72 scribes, each without a copy of the Hebrew scriptures, translated them from memory into Greek in 72 days and every single word was identical all the while being locked up in 72 chambers on the isle of Pharos without any collaboration between them. And by the way, why is it called LXX "The 70" and not LXXII 72? And may I say ”Incidentally” again? Incidentally, the Pharos light house was not built until 280 BC, 5 years after the blessed event. A minor point. To sum up, we are to believe that God inspired the work of 72 (not 70) disobedient, non-Levitical scribes who rendered 72 identical copies of the Hebrew scriptures from memory into Greek. Really? Incidentally (one more time), the LOA section 176 says that the whole scroll was written in gold. Really? Where is it? You’d think that someone would have a vested interest in preserving such a priceless document. Where is it? It doesn’t exist! Finally, If you were to get a copy of the Septuagint, you would find that it is nothing more than the Old Testament portions of the codex Alexandrinus, the codex Sinaiticus and the codex Vaticanus, along with the Apocrypha. The Dead Sea scrolls contains only a few scraps of Greek OT words, certainly no Septuagint. Earlier English translations included the apocryphal books as part of the old testament. The KJB translators included the apocryphal books because it was part of their mandate, but they placed them in a separate section called the “Apocrypha” meaning “writings…not considered genuine”. And they headed each page with the title Apocrypha to dispel any doubt of their intention. Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one "jot" or one "tittle" shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. "Jot" and "tittle" are transliterated from the Hebrew into Greek and then into English. They don't appear in any Greek copy of the Old Testament anywhere. Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. "The Law of Moses, The Prophets, and The Psalms" is how the Jews organized the Old Testament. There is no Greek copy anywhere in any century which organizes the Old Testament in that fashion. There is a strong argument to be made that Philo of Alexandria 50 AD is the author of the Letter of Aristeas (LOA). The only witness that anyone can point to, definitively, is the LOA. You really should read it. It is just not believable. And scholars have read it and they don't believe it. And yet they point to it as proof. "But everybody knows and all scholars agree...bla bla bla". Be careful of the "argument from authority". It is very often the case that "all scholars" are quoting from someone in authority who just happened to be wrong. "Scholars" by and large are lazy and love quoting other scholars because it's easy. All Hebrew scholars agreed that “baca” meant mulberry trees. They were all quoting Hebrew scholar Burchart. Dr Robert Dick Wilson of Princeton University proved conclusively that baca meant aqueduct. “Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools.” Psalm 84:6. How does passing through the valley of mulberry trees make it a well? It doesn’t! its nonsensical. But passing through the valley of a aqueduct makes perfect sense to make it a well. Supposedly the LXX was written for the disaffected Jews living in Alexandria Egypt. That part I believe. But what would possess Jesus Christ to quote from it in Israel, where the vast majority of the population spoke Aramaic (except the Scribes Pharisees and Sadducees who also spoke Hebrew) and hated the Greeks and their language which had been imposed on them by their oppressors the Romans and the Greeks before them. "...,And the common people heard him gladly." Mark 12:37. Heard Him gladly what? Read from a Greek Old Testament? Really? You will say to me that "the Dead Sea Scrolls contain the LXX". They don't. They contain a few scraps of Old Testament words in Greek. Not even enough to fill a whole page. Certainly not the LXX. If you believe that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, you have to also believe that Jesus endorsed the Apocrypha. Including paying (indulgences) for the dead! Including approving committing Suicide? Including An angel of God lying! Including prayers for the dead! Including Sorcery and Magic! Including praying to angels! Including purgatory! The Septuagint? Really? It is harder to convince someone that they have been fooled than to fool them in the first place.

To prefer the Septuagint Greek translation over the Hebrew Tanakh (Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim), the basis of the Old Testament translation of the King James Bible ONLY (not so for modern so-called "Bible" (per-)versions), you have to accept the following assumptions; 1. 72 = 70 Yes! LXX = 70 but 72 translators were used. Schoolboy mathematical error as LXXII = 72! 2. 6 translators were chosen from the 12 tribes (they were ALL permitted to handle the Scriptures, although technically only the Levites were allowed to) = 6 x 12 = 6 x (6 + 6) (Revelation 13:18 anyone?!) 3. The 72 translators worked separately over 72 days in Egypt to produce a word perfect translation with each other, something the very best translation committee from 1604 to 1611 (7 years) of the best 54 Linguists under King James couldn't do! 4. From the 3rd Century B.C. until the 1st Century A.D., the Jews predominantly spoke Greek loving the Gentiles for this "opportunity", and they "forgot" to speak Hebrew and Aramaic 5. The Jews used a Greek translation in their synagogues in preference to Hebrew (see point 4) 6. The Vaticanus MSS held by the Roman Catholic Church is utterly trustworthy especially as it is pretty much alone in evidencing the Septuagint 7. The Apocryphal books are accepted Scripture and support Romanist doctrines, e.g. "purgatory" 8. Jesus quoted from the "law, prophets and psalms" but He really meant to quote the different divisions of the Septuagint which are not the same

You know that jeremiah returned to Egypt as well right?

E'had is "one", A'hadim is the plural version, Yi'hed is (He) United verb

I wonder what the date is of the Mitzvot or Torah or whatever you are reading? Maybe centuries later?

03:22 This is one of those where you need to read it for yourself and becareful moments. 601 of the 631 says to not permanently dwell in Egypt. And Deut 17:16 is about the King sending people to buy horses in Egypt and going back in that way. After if you aren't to go back to Egypt, then is Gaza still Egypt's.

Did you know that the apocrypha was included in the Dead Sea Scrolls?

The original Septuagint 72 rabbis were forced to translate into Greek was only Genesis to Deuteronomy only. Later Hellenistic apostates put together the Lxx Septuagint. No one has the original Septuagint. Origen put together the "Old testament" much later.

WHILST TRANSLATING = WE HAVE TO PUT OURSELVES TO LIVE IN THAT ERA B.C.E. = THEREFORE EVERY YOUNG LADY IN THAT ERA WAS A VIRGIN BEFORE MARRIAGE = THAT WAS CUSTOMARY. BEING A VIRGIN WAS ALSO CUSTOMARY RIGHT INTO THE 1800s TOO = HENCE, VIRGINITY WAS MOST IMPORTANT IN THOSE DAYS 🕊🕊🕊

Immaculate Conception is not the same as the Virgin Birth (and conception).

I was under the impression the septuagint was used at the time of Jesus. But I do know that both Jesus and Jeremiah went to Egypt. And the Deuteronomy 17:16 passage dealt with the king not making his people go back to Egypt (as shown in the verse before it) to multiply horses, not that anyone can't go to Egypt.

The jews had the custom of distributing the offerings after Sabbath services. St. Paul, who was an insider, likely knew about the corruption of the jewish priesthood (egs. Rm. 2:11, 2 Tim. 2:15*). * This verse also refers to Gen. 4:7 but _only_ in the Septuagint.

If it does say they should not return to Egypt, is it saying they could never step foot in Egypt ever? Maybe it is saying that they could not go to Egypt to live? Either way there were many Jews living in Egypt already. Wasn't that the reason for the Septuagint? It was created for the Greek speaking Jews in the Diaspora especially in Egypt.

It's really strange, if not suspicious, to show such depreciation to a book well known and used by the evangelists of the Jesus era, even Jesus himself, and instead promote versions compiled and manipulated centuries later. OK, one can prefer the Masoretic versions, it's legit, but dont show such disrespect to the Septuagint which shaped Christianity. I don't think that Paul and the other apostles going to Rome and all over the world used the Masoretic texts, it's absurd.

You probably don't realize that the OT was given to the Jewish people. The OT was also called the Old Covenant and didn't apply to anyone but the Jews. Fast forward to Jesus and the NT which is also called the New Covenant. The Old Covenant no longer applies.

2 Thes 2:15 Jesus started the Catholic Church Mat 16:18-19. They are authorized to teach.