The Apocrypha

This is a answer the a comment about the Apochrypha. I have nothing against this person, this only a response in love and respect. The comment first in whole and then i divide it per statement and adress it. 

First i adress this website you gave me. here is the contant. 

For the Jews when the law was the only covnant

The holy anointing oil (Hebrew: שמן המשחה shemen ha-mishchah, "oil of anointing") formed an integral part of the ordination of the priesthood and the High Priest as well as in the consecration of the articles of the Tabernacle (Exodus 30:26) and subsequent temples in Jerusalem. The primary purpose of anointing with the holy anointing oil was to sanctify, to set the anointed person or object apart as qodesh, or "holy" (Exodus 30:29). 

A sin offering (Hebrew: קָרְבַּן חַטָּאת‬, korban ḥatat, IPA: [ˈχatat], lit: "purification offering"[1]) is a sacrificial offering described and commanded in the Torah (Lev. 4.1-35); it could be fine flour or a proper animal.[2] A sin offering also occurs in 2 Chronicles 29:21 where seven bulls, seven rams, seven lambs and seven he-goats were sacrificed on the command of King Hezekiah for the kingdom, for the sanctuary, and for Judah. Like all types of sacrifices offered on the altar, the flour had to be unscented and the animal had to be completely unblemished. This offered sacrifice accompanied the important required core means of atonement for the committing of an unintentional transgression of a prohibition, that either has brought guilt upon the 'community of Israel' or the individual.[3] This offering is brought during or after atonement for those transgressions that had been committed inadvertently, or in ignorance: intentional transgressions could only be absolved by other forms of atonement, or in severe cases kareth.[4][5] It was distinct from the biblical guilt offering.

I have no problem with Gods having His ways of cleansing. Do you call this magic? why do you call the other ways magic? what about these scriptures?

Isaiah 38:21 ESV / 110 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful

Now Isaiah had said, "Let them take a cake of figs and apply it to the boil, that he may recover." 

Psalm 104:14-15 ESV / 79 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful

You cause the grass to grow for the livestock and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth and wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine and bread to strengthen man's heart

James 5:14 ESV / 44 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful

Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.

Thats the concept of the law of Moses that they follow. They had no other covnant revealed. They will have their blinds on untill the 7 years of tribulation and the Church has been snatched up. 

I answer that with this study.

1

2

But we have the Letter of Jeremaiah. Which is not the same prophecy as the prophecy about the 70 years.

These are 2 prophecies that are as Daniels prophecy. This gives it even more validity.  

Now to the rest of your arguement in your comment.

Do you know how many Book in the Old testament are without "thus says the Lord" or "it was written"? Do you reject those as well? Thats a weak arguement.

You claim there are no clear quotations from the Apocrypha by Jesus or the Apostles.

I reject your claim completely by the following verses.

Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.
Matt... 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.
Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.
Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.
Matt. 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.
Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13.
Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.
Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.
Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.
Matt. 27:43 - if He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.
Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.
Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17. 

It´s difficult for me to understand what you are proclaiming here. But if you are implying that it is a fabrication? There is no support for this statement. They refuse to accept the books Enoch so they have to reject Jude as valid since he confirms The books of Enoch. That's not a dilemma for me. It´s a confirmation.

Jude 14 "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of His saints" 15 "to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly anong deeds which they have committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him"

This actually proves my point on my claim on the Apocrypha. You don´t have the book of Enoch in the canon. But the canon of the Ethiopic bible has it with the Apocrypha. I don´t follow the Catholic Church and their pope and I don´t care what they reject. Even the protestant church by the ledership of Luther wanted to remove Hebrews, James, Jude and book of Revelation. I am not in any "Church division". I follow Jesus Christ. Not Church.

Abel to Zachariah has a larger content than just the order of Old Testament. and the OT Canon has nothing to do with apochrypha. I am not claiming it should be in any other order. i am claiming Apochrypha is a 3´rd set of scripture Collection. 1. Old Testament 2. New Testament 3. Apochrypha. 

It has nothing to do with the accepted books of God. The Old Testament is in that order by His will.

Abel to Zachariah, It´s a statement of Himself. All Prophets had a destiny of what He, Himself would suffer. It was typologies of Jesus. It does not exclude any scriptures reveled and inspired by the Holy spirit. Never was the apocrypha texts rejected. That rejection started around 1500 years after the resurrection, along with the change of the calendars with pagan gods as month and a globe earth spinning around the god helios(satan) and pagan planets. And I reject all those changes

This is why we study.

Abel is shown to be a type of Christ in that he was the first one to suffer for righteousness sake (Matt. 23:34-35). The hostility that Cain directed toward his brother was ultimately meant for God. Charles Spurgeon said, If Cain could have gotten at the throat of God he would have done so. This is precisely what men did in the crucifixion of Christ. Abel died because he worshiped God rightly. Jesus died because He always did the will of His Father in Heaven. Abel was the first martyr. Jesus is the anti-typical martyr. The writer of Hebrews tells us that "the blood of Jesus speaks better things than that of Abel" (Heb. 11:4; 12:24). As was true of Adam, so Abel was a type of Christ by way of comparison and contrast. He is compared with Christ in that he was martyred for righteousness; he is contrasted with Christ in that his blood cried out for vengeance while Christ's blood cries out for mercy.

Seth was a type of Christ in that he was the "seed" of the woman who-as his name intimates-was "appointed/placed/set" in the place of Abel. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the "Seed of the woman" in the sense of ultimate fulfillment of the promise of Genesis 3:15. Seth was merely a typical step in the fulfillment of the Covenant promise to send a "Seed-Redeemer." Here it is imperative for us to note a guiding interpretive principle when studying the Old Testament. Because the revelation of God is organically related to the first promise of a redeemer (Gen. 3:15), and since that first promise was to be fulfillment by "the woman" bearing a male child, every subsequent generation from Adam and Eve forward were to look expectantly to the fulfillment of the promise of redemption. We see that in Eve naming Cain. We are told in Genesis 4:1, "Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have acquired a man from the Lord.'" In faith, Eve was hoping that God had fulfilled His promise to give her a Redeemer, though nothing could have been further from the truth. The expectation of the Redeemer is bound also to the establishment of the covenantal line from which Christ would come. Seth stands at the head of that covenantal line.

Enoch was a type of Christ in that "he walked with God and was not." Enoch was an example of exceptional uprightness. In his being taken away to heaven bodily he prefigured the bodily ascension of Christ who "walked with God and was not." The bodily ascension of Enoch prefigures the resurrection and ascension of Jesus-as well as the bodily resurrection of all those united to Christ by faith.

Noah was a type of Christ in that he served as a sort of "second Adam;" he was not "The second Man," or "the Last Adam," but was a type of the One to come. Just as God had given Adam creation mandates to be fruitful and multiply so He gave Noah re-creation mandates. The Lord had given Adam instruction concerning what he could eat. So too Noah received instruction concerning food. Noah would typically be the federal representative of a new humanity. Jesus is THE federal head of the new humanity. Noah's name meant "rest." His father named him "Rest," saying, "This one will give us rest from the ground that the Lord God has cursed." Noah only brought rest in a typical sense when he walked off of the Ark with his family to inhabit a typical new creation. But Christ, the greater Noah, actually gives rest to the souls of men and women (Matt. 11:25-30). Christ alone has secured the new creation through His death and resurrection.

The Lord preserved mankind after the flood in order to fulfill His promise (Gen. 3:15) to send the "seed" of the woman to crush the head of the Serpent. He also preserved Noah on the Ark because the Redeemer was in his loins-so to speak (Luke 3:23, 35-37). Because Messiah had not yet come, God would have been unfaithful to His promise if He had utterly destroyed the world. He left a remnant so that men might multiply, and that the Christ might come and redeem a multitude of people to great to number. Though the flood had been a judgment on the wickedness of the fallen world, it could never take that wickedness out of the hearts of men, only the saving work of Christ could do so. God promised never to destroy the world in the way that He had done so for the very same reason for which He had destroyed it in the first place (Gen. 6:5-7; 8:20-22). In short, the humanity of Christ was in the Ark in Noah's loins, and everything in the Ark with Noah was going to be used in the unfolding plan of redemption.

Job was a type of Christ in that he was a righteous sufferer. Job underwent a humiliation and exaltation that finds it's antitype in the suffering and glory of the Redeemer. Job was tested by God when he was tempted by the devil. Jesus was tested by God when He was tempted by the devil. Just as God meant good for Job through his sufferings (Job 42:12), so He meant good for Christ through His sufferings. Jesus is the righteous sufferer who shows forth the righteousness of God

Melchizedek was a type of Christ in that he was the King/Priest who blessed Abraham. No one in the Old Testament serves in both offices. Jesus is the Prophet, Priest and King of His church. Melchizedek typified Him in two of the three offices (Zech. 6:12-13). He was "King of Righteousness" and "King of Priest." Jesus is the King in whom "righteousness and peace kiss" at the cross (Ps. 85:10). Like Melchizedek before Him, Jesus had "no beginning of days, nor end of life." He is the eternal Priest to whom Melchizedek pointed. He was never, and never will be, replaced as High Priest of the Church.

Abraham was a type of Christ in that he was the prototypical stranger and foreigner. Like the Redeemer, He functionally "had nowhere to lay his head." As the federal head of the Covenant, he was also the father of many nations. Jesus is the "Everlasting Father" (Isaiah 8:18, 9:6; Psalm 45:16; Hebrews 2:13) of believer who federally represented His people from every tongue, tribe, nation and language. The promises in Scripture are said to have been made to "Abraham and his Seed...who is Christ." All the promises made to Abraham were made to Him as the typical representative of the Covenant of Grace. Ultimately they were made to, and fulfilled in, Jesus Christ.

Isaac was a type of Christ in that he was the promised "son of Abraham." The promises of God were given directly to Abraham with respect to His son (offspring). Everywhere in the NT are we taught that Jesus is the true promised son of Abraham. However, in the original giving of the promise Isaac was the promised son in view. The birth and life of Isaac also typify the Redeemer. Just as Isaac's birth was the result of the supernatural power of God so too was it true of Jesus. Isaac typified the Redeemer in that he is the only other human sacrifice that God commanded, and-though God stopped Abraham from going through with the sacrifice of Isaac-he is said to have died and been risen "figuratively" (Hebrews 11:19). Jesus, the true and greater son of Abraham, was sacrificed, raised and returned to His Father.

Jacob was a type of Christ in that He was the chosen one who was named 'Israel' by God. Before Israel was a nation, He was a person. This is significant since Jesus is shown to be the true Israel in the Gospels. The fact that the name "Israel" is first given to a person reveals that the anti-typical Israel would be a person. Jacob's gave birth to the nation-church; Jesus gives birth to His church. Jesus is God's "chosen One" (Is. 42:1). He is the "last man of Israel" and the representative of the true Israel.

Joseph was a type of Christ in that he suffered unjustly and then was exalted to save his brethren. Undergoing a series of deaths and resurrections, Joseph typified the "sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow" (1 Peter 1:10-11). He was envied and hated by his brothers, suffered at their hands and was exalted to a place of power over the most powerful nation of the world. Jesus, the greater Joseph, was envied and hated by His countrymen and brethren, murdered by them and then exalted to the highest place of power and honor to save the world by feeding them with the rich granaries of heaven.

Moses was a type of Christ in that he was the typical Redeemer of the Old Covenant. He was the only other Mediator between God and His people in redemptive history; and though his mediation was also typical, He stood in the most unique position as the redeemer and lawgiver of the Covenant people. Jesus is THE Mediator between God and man-since He is both God and man. Just as Moses had a supernatural deliverance at his birth, so did Jesus. Just as Moses led Israel out of Egypt, into the wilderness, up on the mountain to give them the law, so Jesus went down into Egypt, up from Egypt, through the water, into the wilderness and up on the mountain to give God's people the law. Jesus leads His people out of bondage to Satan, sin and death through His own "exodus" (Luke 9:31) in His death and resurrection.

Joshua, as his name in Hebrew indicates, is a type of Christ in that he was the one who would lead God's people into the Promised Land. Joshua was a savior of the covenant people. Jesus is the Savior of the covenant people. Joshua went before the people to bring them to the inheritance. Jesus goes before His people to bring them to the true inheritance.

The Judges were all, respectively, types of Jesus Christ in that they were deliverers and redeemers of God's oppressed people. Whenever Israel sinned the Lord sent foreign nations to punish them for their rebellion. When they came to an end of themselves and cried out to the Lord He raised up a deliverer. In each case, the judges won the victory against God's enemies by an unexpected and unlikely victory. While each of the circumstances were different, they each had the unlikely prospect and unexpected victory in common.

Samson was a type of Christ in that he was the mightiest of all the judges. He defeated more of God's enemies in his death than he did in his life. This is also the case with the Lord Jesus. By his sacrificial death the Lord Jesus destroyed the enemies of God and His church. Jonathan Edwards drew out this typological parallel when he wrote: "the true Samson does more towards the destruction of his enemies at his death, than in his life, in yielding up himself to death, he pulls down the temple of Dagon, and destroys many thousands of his enemies, even while they are making themselves sport in his sufferings; and so he whose type was the ark, pulls down Dagon, and breaks off his head and hands in his own temple, even while he is brought in there as Dagon's captive.1

David was one of the clearest types of Christ, as is seen in the fact that the Redeemer is called "David" in the book of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 34:23-24; 37:24-25). David was a shepherd from Bethlehem who was chosen by God to be the King of Israel. David was a mighty warrior King. Jesus is the mighty warrior King. David was a shepherd/King who ruled over God's people in faithfulness. Jesus is the Good Shepherd and the King of Kings who rules over God's people in perfect covenantal faithfulness. David faced off against the enemy of the OT church and defeated him with his own weapon. Jesus faced off against the ultimate enemy of the church and defeated him with his own weapon. David was a type of Christ in that he entered into a battle of representative warfare. David had a number of men who were with him in his sufferings. Jesus had a band of "mighty men" who were with Him through the period of His humiliation and suffering. David's mighty men were with him when he ate the showbread in the Tabernacle. Jesus' mighty men were with Him when they walked though the grain fields on the Sabbath (Matt. 12: 1-8). David had a betrayer who-when his plot was uncovered-went and hanged himself. Jesus had a betrayer who-when his plot was uncovered-went and hanged himself. David crossed over the Brook Kidron when he was betrayed by Ahithophel. Jesus crossed over the Brook Kidron when He was betrayed by Judas.

Solomon was a type of Christ in that he was the "son of David." He was the initial fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant. Ultimately, Jesus was "the son of David" who sits on his throne forever. Solomon was King of Peace. Jesus is the King of Peace. Solomon was wiser than all the men who had ever lived. Jesus is "the wisdom of God." Jesus explicitly drew a parallel between Solomon and Himself when he noted that the Queen of Sheba came from the ends of the earth to see the wisdom of Solomon. Gentiles now come from the ends of the earth to hear and see the wisdom of the greater Solomon. Solomon built the Temple in Jerusalem. Jesus builds the true and greater Temple through His death and resurrection. Solomon brought peace "from the river to the ends of the earth." Jesus brought peace in the fuller and antitypical sense "from the river to the ends of the earth."

Elijah was a type of Christ is that he called the covenant people to repentance. He was rejected by all, and was, in a very real sense, a man of sorrows. His preaching of righteousness and calling the people to repentance led to his being despised by the King of Israel. Even though the King despised him, he was feared by the king. Jesus also was a preacher of righteousness, who called the covenant people to repentance. He was despised by the Herod the King and yet the king also feared Him.

Elisha was a type of Christ in that he was greater than the one who preceded him. Just as John the Baptist said of Jesus, "He who comes after me is preferred before me," so it was true of Elisha. Elijah, who was himself said to be a type of John the Baptist by our Lord Jesus, did many signs and wonders. Elisha did twice as many miracles as Elijah.

Nehemiah was a type of Christ in that he rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem. When Nehemiah was in the process of rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem, the enemies of God came and functionally said to him, "Come down." He responded, "I am doing a great work, so that I cannot come down" (Nehemiah 6:1-3). When Jesus was hanging on the cross, building the walls of the true Jerusalem, His enemies said, " If He is the King of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe Him" (Matt. 27:42). The greater Nehemiah responded by saying, "It is finished." Through His death and resurrection, our Lord Jesus Christ built the walls of protection around His Church.

Jonah was a type of Christ in that he was in the belly of the fish for three days and three nights. Just as he underwent a typical death and resurrection, so our Lord Jesus died and was raised for our justification. After Jonah was typically resurrected from the belly of the fish he went to the Gentiles. After Jesus was raised from the dead He went, though His apostles, to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles.

Jeremiah was a type of Christ in that he underwent a death and resurrection when he was thrown into a pit and brought out (Lam. 3:52-57). He was a Prophet of sorrow and acquainted with grief. Jesus is the Man of Sorrows and acquainted with grief who was thrown into the pit of God's wrath and then brought out in the resurrection. As was true of Joseph and Daniel before Him, the principle of sufferings and glory surround the stories of this prophet.

Zachariah was a type of Christ in that he was falsely accused and put on a mock trail and then killed. And Zacharias last words were "The Lord require it", so they were warned that "of that generation it should be required"

But there is more that we need to look at. 

Jesus said that Zechariah's father was named Berechiah, but 2 Chronicles states that Jehoiada was the father of Zechariah. Was Jesus mistaken? Tim Chaffey, AiG-U.S., explains.
The "Problem"
In Matthew 23, Jesus condemned the scribes and Pharisees for their hypocrisy. He concluded His rebuke with some especially strong statements.
"Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers' guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar." (Matthew 23:31-35)
Jesus clearly stated that Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, was murdered between the temple and the altar.
2 Chronicles reveals that Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada, was stoned "in the court of the house of the Lord" (2 Chronicles 24:20-21). So was Zechariah the son of Berechiah or the son of Jehoiada? How can we answer this supposed Bible contradiction?
A Popular Answer
Many Christians have attempted to address this alleged contradiction by claiming that the Hebrew word for "son" (ben, and its Greek counterpart huios) can refer to both immediate and distant descendants. In other words, perhaps Jesus referred to the father of Zechariah, whereas the writer of 2 Chronicles referred to Zechariah's grandfather. While it is true that the Hebrew language permits such a usage for this word, I do not believe this is the best solution in this case.
The Solution
Study Bibles often provide verses for the purpose of cross-referencing passages. In this case, several Bibles link Matthew 23:35 and 2 Chronicles 24:20. However, while there are several similarities in these accounts, the Bible provides the details to show us that these are two separate accounts. Remember, similarity does not necessarily equal "same-ness."
In this particular case, we know the name of the grandfather of Zechariah (the son of Berechiah). Jesus referred to the prophet whose prophecies have been preserved for us in the book of Zechariah. The first verse of that book states, "In the eighth month of the second year of Darius, the word of the Lord came to Zechariah the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo the prophet" (Zechariah 1:1). So the man to whom Jesus referred was the grandson of a man named Iddo (not Jehoiada), and his ministry as prophet began in the second year of Darius. This places the start of Zechariah's ministry around 520 BC.1
The events in 2 Chronicles 24 took place during the latter years of the reign of Joash, king of Judah (ca. 835-796 BC). This means that Zechariah the son of Jehoiada lived roughly three centuries earlier than the son of Berechiah.
So the solution to this supposed contradiction is that Jesus did not refer to the events of 2 Chronicles 24. Instead, He was speaking about the murder of the prophet Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo. This makes sense in light of the context. Jesus told the scribes and Pharisees that they were guilty of all the righteous blood that had been shed on earth, "from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah" (Matthew 23:35). Abel was the first person to be murdered, and both Jesus and the writer of Hebrews identify him as righteous (Hebrews 11:4). Zechariah the son of Berechiah lived near the end of the Old Testament.
By citing the first and last martyrs of the Old Testament, Jesus essentially assigned guilt of the murder of every prophet to the scribes and Pharisees. If He had referred to Zechariah the son of Jehoiada, then Jesus would have missed out on another 300 years of history in which several prophets were martyred.
Once again, we see that there is no contradiction. We just needed to dig a little bit deeper to find the solution.
Conclusion
This supposed contradiction can easily be answered when one studies the contexts of the relevant passages. This case also brings up an important point. The footnotes, text notes, and cross-reference notes provided in study Bibles are not inspired. Though these marginal notes are often very helpful, we must never forget that they are merely study aids developed by men, and they are far from inerrant and infallible. In this case, certain Bibles have, through cross-reference notes, misled readers to think that these two accounts referred to the same person and events.
Jesus was not mistaken when He claimed that Zechariah was the son of Berechiah. Nor was the writer of 2 Chronicles mistaken when he stated that Zechariah was the son of Jehoiada. Both were accurate because both Zechariahs were murdered in or near the temple. And both Bible passages are accurate, because they are inspired by the God of truth, who never contradicts Himself. That's why we can always trust Him and not cave in to skeptics. "end of Tims study"

Now you said that there were false teachings that the apostles rejected. I agree these are the same teachings the world has to day as "textbook facts" and these are the "wisdom" of the world. Manmade fiction and lies by satan.

James 4:4 "You adulterous people, don´t you know that friendship with the world ´means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes a enemy of God"

The teachings of the world from Greek philosophers.

Evolution

Heliocentricism

Colossians 2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.
1 Corinthians 2:13
And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
1 Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called "knowledge,"
1 Corinthians 2:1-5
And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
1 Corinthians 2:6-10
Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him"- these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.
1 Corinthians 1:21
For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.
Proverbs 25:2

It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out.

2 Timothy 3:16-17King James Version (KJV)
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

And you said that "it was written" or scripture says? You will probably tell me that the verses I gave as quotes from apocrypha to you were not exact word by word quotes from the canon. That it has to be word by word quotes.

That's why I put in this study on the Masoretic text Old Testament and Septuagint comparison on the New Testament.

But first I will make it clear that I accept both MT Old Testament as well as Septuagint Old Testament as valid scripture.

Of the approximately 300 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, approximately 2/3 of them came from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) which included the deuterocanonical books that the Protestants later removed. This is additional evidence that Jesus and the apostles viewed the deuterocanonical books as part of canon of the Old Testament. Here are some examples:
Matt. 1:23 / Isaiah 7:14 - behold, a "virgin" shall conceive. Hebrew - behold, a "young woman" shall conceive.
Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; John 1:23 / Isaiah 40:3 - make "His paths straight." Hebrew - make "level in the desert a highway."
Matt. 9:13; 12:7 / Hosea 6:6 - I desire "mercy" and not sacrifice. Hebrew - I desire "goodness" and not sacrifice.
Matt. 12:21 / Isaiah 42:4 - in His name will the Gentiles hope (or trust). Hebrew - the isles shall wait for his law.
Mark 7:6-8 - Jesus quotes Isaiah 29:13 from the Septuagint - "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men."
Luke 3:5-6 / Isaiah 40:4-5 - crooked be made straight, rough ways smooth, shall see salvation. Hebrew - omits these phrases.
Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 61:1 - and recovering of sight to the blind. Hebrew - the opening of prison to them that are bound.
Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 58:6 - to set at liberty those that are oppressed (or bruised). Hebrew - to let the oppressed go free.
John 6:31 / Psalm 78:24 - He gave them "bread" out of heaven to eat. Hebrew - gave them "food" or "grain" from heaven.
John 12:38 / Isaiah 53:1 - who has believed our "report?" Hebrew - who has believed our "message?"
John 12:40 / Isaiah 6:10 - lest they should see with eyes...turn for me to heal them. Hebrew - shut their eyes...and be healed.
Acts 2:19 / Joel 2:30 - blood and fire and "vapor" of smoke. Hebrew - blood and fire and "pillars" or "columns" of smoke.
Acts 2:25-26 / Psalm 16:8 - I saw...tongue rejoiced...dwell in hope.. Hebrew - I have set...glory rejoiced...dwell in safety.
Acts 4:26 / Psalm 2:1 - the rulers "were gathered together." Hebrew - rulers "take counsel together."
Acts 7:14 / Gen. 46:27; Deut. 10:22 - Stephen says "seventy-five" souls went down to Egypt. Hebrew - "seventy" people went.
Acts 7:27-28 / Exodus 2:14 - uses "ruler" and judge; killed the Egyptian "yesterday." Hebrew - uses "prince" and there is no reference to "yesterday."
Acts 7:43 / Amos 5:26-27 - the tent of "Moloch" and star of god of Rephan. Hebrew - "your king," shrine, and star of your god.
Acts 8:33 / Isaiah 53:7-8 - in his humiliation justice was denied him. Hebrew - by oppression...he was taken away.
Acts 13:41 / Habakkuk 1:5 - you "scoffers" and wonder and "perish." Hebrew - you "among the nations," and "be astounded."
Acts 15:17 / Amos 9:12 - the rest (or remnant) of "men." Hebrew - the remnant of "Edom."
Rom. 2:24 / Isaiah 52:5 - the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles. Hebrew - blasphemed (there is no mention of the Gentiles).
Rom. 3:4 / Psalm 51:4 - thou mayest "prevail" (or overcome) when thou art judged. Hebrew - thou might "be clear" when thou judges.
Rom. 3:12 / Psalm 14:1,3 - they "have gone wrong." Hebrew - they are "corrupt" or "filthy."
Rom. 3:13 / Psalm 5:9 - they use their tongues to deceive. Hebrew - they flatter with their tongues. There is no "deceit" language.
Rom. 3:13 / Psalm 140:3 - the venom of "asps" is under their lips. Hebrew - "Adder's" poison is under their lips.
Rom. 3:14 / Psalm 10:7 - whose mouth is full of curses and "bitterness." Hebrew - cursing and "deceit and oppression."
Rom. 9:17 / Exodus 9:16 - my power "in you"; my name may be "proclaimed." Hebrew - show "thee"; may name might be "declared."
Rom. 9:25 / Hosea 2:23 - I will call my people; I will call my beloved. Hebrew - I will have mercy (love versus mercy).
Rom. 9:27 / Isaiah 10:22 - only a remnant of them "will be saved." Hebrew - only a remnant of them "will return."
Rom. 9:29 / Isaiah 1:9 - had not left us "children." Hebrew - Jehova had left us a "very small remnant."
Rom. 9:33; 10:11; 1 Peter 2:6 / Isaiah 28:16 - he who believes will not be "put to shame." Hebrew - shall not be "in haste."
Rom. 10:18 / Psalm 19:4 - their "voice" has gone out. Hebrew - their "line" is gone out.
Rom. 10:20 / Isaiah 65:1 - I have "shown myself" to those who did not ask for me. Hebrew - I am "inquired of" by them.
Rom. 10:21 / Isaiah 65:2 - a "disobedient and contrary" people. Hebrew - a "rebellious" people.
Rom. 11:9-10 / Psalm 69:22-23 - "pitfall" and "retribution" and "bend their backs." Hebrew - "trap" and "make their loins shake."
Rom. 11:26 / Isaiah 59:20 - will banish "ungodliness." Hebrew - turn from "transgression."
Rom. 11:27 / Isaiah 27:9 - when I take away their sins. Hebrew - this is all the fruit of taking away his sin.
Rom. 11:34; 1 Cor. 2:16 / Isaiah 40:13 -the "mind" of the Lord; His "counselor." Hebrew - "spirit" of the Lord; "taught" Him.
Rom. 12:20 / Prov. 25:21 - feed him and give him to drink. Hebrew - give him "bread" to eat and "water" to drink.
Rom. 15:12 / Isaiah 11:10 - the root of Jesse..."to rule the Gentiles." Hebrew - stands for an ensign. There is nothing about the Gentiles.
Rom. 15:21 / Isaiah 52:15 - been told "of him"; heard "of him." Hebrew - does not mention "him" (the object of the prophecy).
1 Cor. 1:19 / Isaiah 29:14 - "I will destroy" the wisdom of the wise. Hebrew - wisdom of their wise men "shall perish."
1 Cor. 5:13 / Deut. 17:7 - remove the "wicked person." Hebrew - purge the "evil." This is more generic evil in the MT.
1 Cor. 15:55 / Hosea 13:14 - O death, where is thy "sting?" Hebrew - O death, where are your "plagues?"
2 Cor. 4:13 / Psalm 116:10 - I believed and so I spoke (past tense). Hebrew - I believe, for I will speak (future tense).
2 Cor. 6:2 / Isaiah 49:8 - I have "listened" to you. Hebrew - I have "answered" you.
Gal. 3:10 / Deut. 27:26 - cursed be every one who does not "abide" by all things. Hebrew - does not "confirm" the words.
Gal. 3:13 / Deut. 21:23 - cursed is everyone who hangs on a "tree." Hebrew - a hanged man is accursed. The word "tree" does not follow.
Gal. 4:27 / Isaiah 54:1 - "rejoice" and "break forth and shout." Hebrew - "sing" and "break forth into singing."
2 Tim. 2:19 / Num. 16:5 - The Lord "knows" those who are His. Hebrew - God will "show" who are His.
Heb. 1:6 / Deut. 32:43 - let all the angels of God worship Him. Hebrew - the Masoretic text omits this phrase from Deut. 32:43.
Heb. 1:12 / Psalm 102:25 - like a "mantle" ... "roll them"... "will be changed." Hebrew - "raiment"... "change"..."pass away."
Heb. 2:7 / Psalm 8:5 - thou has made Him a little "lower than angels." Hebrew - made Him but a little "lower than God."
Heb. 2:12 / Psalm 22:22 - I will " sing" thy praise. Hebrew - I will praise thee. The LXX and most NTs (but not the RSV) have "sing."
Heb. 2:13 / Isaiah 8:17 - I will "put my trust in Him." Hebrew - I will "look for Him."
Heb. 3:15 / Psalm 95:8 - do not harden your hearts as "in the rebellion." Hebrew - harden not your hearts "as at Meribah."
Heb. 3:15; 4:7 / Psalm 95:7 - when you hear His voice do not harden not your hearts. Hebrew - oh that you would hear His voice!
Heb. 8:9-10 / Jer. 31:32-33 - (nothing about husband); laws into their mind. Hebrew - I was a husband; law in their inward parts.
Heb. 9:28 / Isaiah 10:22 - "to save those" who are eagerly awaiting for Him. Hebrew - a remnant of them "shall return."
Heb. 10:5 / Psalm 40:6 - "but a body hast thou prepared for me." Hebrew - "mine ears hast thou opened."
Heb. 10:38 / Hab. 2:3-4 - if he shrinks (or draws) back, my soul shall have no pleasure. Hebrew - his soul is puffed up, not upright.
Heb. 11:5 / Gen. 5:24 - Enoch was not "found." Hebrew - Enoch was "not."
Heb. 11:21 / Gen. 47:31 - Israel, bowing "over the head of his staff." Hebrew - there is nothing about bowing over the head of his staff.
Heb. 12:6 / Prov. 3:12 - He chastises every son whom He receives. Hebrew - even as a father the son in whom he delights.
Heb. 13:6 / Psalm 118:6 - the Lord "is my helper." Hebrew - Jehova "is on my side." The LXX and the NT are identical.
James 4:6 / Prov. 3:34 - God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. Hebrew - He scoffs at scoffers and gives grace to the lowly.
1 Peter 1:24 / Isaiah 40:6 - all its "glory" like the flower. Hebrew - all the "goodliness" as the flower.
1 Pet. 2:9 / Exodus 19:6 - you are a "royal priesthood." Hebrew - you shall be to me a "kingdom of priests."
1 Pet. 2:9 / Isaiah 43:21 - God's own people...who called you out of darkness. Heb. - which I formed myself. These are different actions.
1 Pet. 2:22 / Isaiah 53:9 - he "committed no sin." Hebrew - he "had done no violence."
1 Pet. 4:18 / Prov. 11:31 - if a righteous man "is scarcely saved." Hebrew - if the righteous "is recompensed."
1 Pet. 5:5 / Prov. 3:34 - God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. Hebrew - He scoffs at scoffers and gives grace to lowly.
Isaiah 11:2 - this verse describes the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit, but the seventh gift, "piety," is only found in the Septuagint.

But how do we know if the Septuagint has been preserved and not manipulated. The study on the "dead sea scrolls" can answer that topic a little. Here is some statement from scholars about the Dead Sea scrolls in comparison with the Septuagint. This is something I found on the subject for those who likes scholars. I personally like to do my own study on anything that is presented. I suggest we all do that.

The Septuagin (Greek Translation of the OT made sometime in 300's BC in Alexandria) differs on some points form the Hebrew text (the Masoretic Text or MT). The earliest copies we have of the MT(Aleppo Codex) only Date from about 900 or 1000 AD, but the LXX goes back much further. We have whole manuscripts from 3d and 4th centuries AD, and it is quoted in much earlier works. The main Jeiwsh apologist argument against Messianic interpretation of Is. 53 is that all the references to the suffering servant, so they say, are in the plural, making him a symbol of Isreale. But in the LXX they are singular. There are also other references in the Septuagint that support the Christian reading, on Is. 53 and Ps. 22 "hands and feet peirced" and other passages. For this reason the Jewish anti-missionaries claim that the LXX only existed in the first five books before the time of Chrsit and that Chrsitians translated the rest, either late first century, or some go so far as to claim that Origen (4th century) made the trasnlations of prophetic books. The only thing that supports this view is the fact that all the really good whole Ms. come from 3d and 4th centuuries AD. But there are other proofs of the LXX's veracity.Institue for Biblcal and scientific studies OT Dead Sea Scrolls.

Most Scholars saw the LXX as inferior to the Hebrew Bible called the Masoretic Text (MT). With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, this all changed. Ancient Hebrew scrolls were found that follow the LXX, not the Masoretic Text. The DSS showed that the LXX had an underlying Hebrew Text that was different from the MT.
Now Scholars think the LXX has important readings that are superior to the MT. The LXX is now very important in textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Let's look at some of the key differences between the LXX and the MT where the LXX seems to be superior.

Harper's Bible Dictionary edited by Paul J. Achtemier (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985)
quoted on Bible text.com "Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran"
(visited 8/4/06)

It is now apparent that these differing ancient text forms of the ot deserve far greater care and attention than they received in the past. The lxx, for example, is now seen not just as a poor, tendentious translation of the Hebrew, but rather as a witness to a different pre-Christian Hebrew text form. Moreover, there appear to have been three local text types in pre-Christian times: a form of the Pentateuch known in Babylon, close to the mt; a form known in Palestine, close to the Samaritan Pentateuch; and a form of ot books known in Egypt, related to the lxx. Eventually (probably between a.d. 70 and 132 in Palestine), a process of standardization apparently set in, preferring one form of text, a set spelling, and even a definitive shape of writing.

discoveries by the dead sea, the essene controversyThe Real Jesus site (visted 8/4/06)

"...According to Frank Moore Cross (another DSS scholar) there are at least 3 'families' of texts at Qumran : the MT 'family', the 'Egyptian' family, and a 'Palestinian' family . The 'Egyptian' version which, among other things, has a different version of Jeremiah, became the basis for the LXX. The 'Palestinian ' became the basis for the Samaritan version. The MT variety was the ancestor of what we use today--although even within these 'families' there was sometimes variation. We do not know which version was being used by, say, the Sadducees of the Temple sect, or even which the Essenes themselves used. The Jewish community at Alexandria evidently used the Egyptian 'family' or the LXX." - Randolph Parrish
"The 'biblical' library of Qumran represents a fluid stage of the biblical text. Those documents show no influence of the rabbinic recension of the canon, the direct ancestor of the traditional Hebrew Bible. The scrolls help to place both the Pharisaic text and the canon in the era of Hillel, roughly the time of Jesus. In their selection of canonical books, the rabbis excluded those attributed to prophets or Patriarchs before Moses (e.g., the Enoch literature, works written in the name of Abraham and other Patriarchs). They traced the succession of prophets from Moses to figures of the Persian period. Late works were excluded, with the exception of Daniel, which, the rabbis presumably, attributed to the Persian period."

- Frank Moore Cross, Jr., "Dead Sea Scrolls: Overview"John Allegro in The Dead Sea Scrolls documents that when the LXX and Mt contradict, the LXX most often agrees with the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). (Allegro 59-83). He presents a long chart comparing readings from 1Sam. demonstrating that the text of books other than the first five existed long befroe the MT existed (about 1000 years before). Allegro also documents that most of the time when there is disagreement between LXX and MT the LXX most often agrees with the DSS and DSS with LXX over the MT. A latter article also deomonstrates that this same agreement holds for Jeremaiah. The DSS contain the longer reading for Jeremaiah deomnstrtaing significant support for the LXX.
He also documents (63) that Origen's work was that of a compulation of a text placing several existing Greek translations of the OT side by side, he used a pre-existing LXX, this is merely what any good translator does in preparing a new translation. A new one was needed because the Jews abandoned the LXX and commissioned their own (Aquilla's) becasue the Chruch had come to use the LXX as it's Bbile, and they wanted to get away form the Christian's Messianic reading. Origen did not produce the translation of the LXX prophetic books, it already existed. Moreover, it can be showen to have existed in the first century. Clement of Rome (1 Clement) quotes Isaiah 53 in AD 95, and most of the quotations of the OT in the Gospels come from the LXX.
"That the LXX existed before the time of Christ is borne out not only by the fact of agreement with the DSS but in other works as well. A. Vander Heeren states "It is certain that the law, the prophets and at lest part of the other books...existed in Greek before 135 BC, asappears from the pologue of Ecclesiasticus which does not date latter than that year" (Catholic Encycolpidea--).
"Qumran agrees 13 times with the LXX against the MT and four times witht he MT against the LXX...it seems now that to scholars engaged in this work in the future Qumran has offered a new basis for confidence in the LXX...." (Allegro 74 and 81).
James A. Sanders,Inter Testamental and Biblical Studies at Clairmont, Cannon and Community, a Guide to Canonical Criticism. Philladelphia: Forterss Press, 1984, 15-16.

"There are remarkable differences between the LXX and MT of 1 and 2 Sam. Jeremiah, Esther, Daniel, Proverbs and Ezekiel, 40-48, and on a lesser level numerious very important differences in lesser books such as Isaiah and Job. Before the discovery of the Scrolls [Dead Sea] it was difficult to know wheather most of these should be seen as translational, Or as reflecting the inner history of the Septuegent text, or all three. Now it is abundantly clear that the second period of text transmission [which is BC], actually that of the earliest texts we have, was one of limited textual pluralism. Side by side in the Qumran library lay scrolls of Jeremiah in Hebrew dating to the pre-Chrsitian Hellenistic period reflecting both the textual tradition known in the MT and the one in the LXX without any indication of preference. So also for 1 and 2 Sam."

[note: the importance of 1 and 2 sam and Jeremiah, Esther, Daniel is that it indicates the LXX existed before the time of Christ in more than the Pentetucahal form]
Institue for Biblcal and scientific studies OT Dead Sea Scrolls.

The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) like the magnificent Isaiah scroll closely follow the Masoretic Text (MT), but there are a few exceptions. For example, Psalm 145 is an alphabetical psalm. Each verse begins with the next letter in the alphabet, but "N" is missing in the MT. In the DSS it is there, so somehow a scribe left this verse out. Another important difference is in I Samuel 11 where the MT is shortened. The longer reading in the DSS explains what happens in this chapter.
Three of the most important Biblical texts from Qumran are: (1) The Isaiah Scroll from Cave 1 which has two different text types, with about 1,375 differences from the MT. (2) The Habakkuk Commentary from Cave 1 which uses the pesher method of interpretation, and the name Yahweh is written in paleo-Hebrew. (3) The Psalm scroll from Cave 11 contains 41 canonical psalms and 7 apocryphal psalms mixed in among them. The order of the psalms differs largely from the MT (Wurthwein 1979, 32).

John Allegro, one of the original translation team, the first to be put in charge of cave 4 material and the only non-religious memember of the team, The Dead Sea Scrolls Pelican, 1956, (66).[he describes how Frank Cross in 1954 found a place where the text (DSS) seemed at odds with the MT. He began to find more and more places, and then discovered that these texts which differed from the MT agreed with the LXX. Now this is a Hebrew text which agrees with LXX over MT so it's an older textual family but obviously the ancesstor of the LXX readings. He goes on:

"His excitment mouting Cross began to refurr to the principal versions and almost immediately saw that this text corrosponded with the Greek translation. The precious peices joined to others and time and time again he found corrospondences with LXX against MT, until at the end of the week he was ale to affirm that he had the answer to the text-critic's dream, a Hebrew text from the same text family of tradition as that used by the ancient translators of the LXX..."
"It seems now that, to scholars engaged on this work in the future, Qumran has offered a new basis for a confience in the LXX in at least the Historical books, which should allow them to accept better readings of that version almost as readily as if they were found in the Hebrw MT. In other words, each reading in the future must be judges on it's merits not on any preconsieved notion of the supiriority of the Hebrew version simpley because it is Hebrew.. If the Greek offers a better reading than that ought to be taken and put in the text of the translation..."(81).

The first quote above, and an article FJS posted last summer also demonstrate some of the prophetic books in that LXX tradition family are found there too.
E.C. Ulrich, The Qumran Text of Sammuel and Josephus, Schoalr's Press 1978.Emmanuel Tov The Septuagent Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch (Scholar's Press 1976)
Richard Weis "A Probe into the Formation of Jeremaiah" unpublished paper ft in Sanders 1From Catholic Encyclapedia
(a) Pre-Massoretic text

"The earliest Hebrew manuscript is the Nash papyrus. There are four fragments, which, when pieced together, give twenty-four lines of a pre-Massoretic text of the Ten Commandments and the shema (Ex., xx, 2-17; Deut., v, 6-19; vi, 4-5). The writing is without vowels and seems palæographically to be not later than the second century. This is the oldest extant Bible manuscript (see Cook, "A Pre-Massoretic Biblical Papyrus" in "Proceed. of the Soc. of Bib. Arch.", Jan., 1903). It agrees at times with the Septuagint against the Massorah. Another pre- Massoretic text is the Samaritan Pentateuch. The Samaritan recension is probably pre-exilic; it has come down to us free from Massoretic influences, is written without vowels and in Samaritan characters. The earliest Samaritan manuscript extant is that of Nablûs, which was formerly rated very much earlier than all Massoretic manuscripts, but is now assigned to the twelfth or thirteenth century A.D. (see "Facsimiles of the Fragments hitherto recovered of the Book of Ecclesiasticus in Hebrew", Oxford and Cambridge, 1901)."(Ibid)

(b) Massoretic text much latter Ms than LXX

"All other Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible are Massoretic (see MASSORAH), and belong to the tenth century or later. Some of these manuscripts are dated earlier. Text-critics consider these dates to be due either to intentional fraud or to uncritical transcription of dates of older manuscripts. For instance, a codex of the Former and Latter Prophets, how in the Karaite synagogue of Cairo, is dated A.D. 895; Neubauer assigns it to the eleventh or thirteenth century. The Cambridge manuscript no. 12, dated A.D. 856, he marks as a thirteenth-century work; the date A.D. 489, attached to the St. Petersburg Pentateuch, he rejects as utterly impossible (see Studia Biblica, III, 22). Probably the earliest Massoretic manuscripts are: "Prophetarium Posteriorum Codex Bablyonicus Petropolitanus", dated A.D. 916; the St. Petersburg Bible, written by Samuel ben Jacob and dated A.D. 1009; and "Codex Oriental. 4445" in the British Museum, which Ginsburg (Introduction, p. 469) assigns to A.D. 820-50. The text critics differ very widely in the dates they assign to certain Hebrew manuscripts. De Rossi is included to think that at most nine or ten Massoretic manuscripts are earlier than the twelfth century (Variæ Lectiones, I, p. xv)."(Ibid.)

(2) Uniformaty of Massorect is liability--we need varient readings to reach the original text.

"The critical study of this rich assortment of about 3400 Massoretic rolls and codices is not so promising of important results as it would at first thought seem to be. The manuscripts are all of quite recent date, if compared with Greek, Latin, and Syriac codices. They are all singularly alike. Some few variants are found in copies made for private use; copies made for public service in the synagogues are so uniform as to deter the critic from comparing them. All Massoretic manuscripts bring us back to one editor -- that of a textual tradition which probably began in the second century and became more and more minute until every jot and tittle of the text was almost absolutely fixed and sacred. R. Aqiba seems to have been the head of this Jewish school of the second century. Unprecedented means were taken to keep the text fixed. The scholars counted the words and consonants of each book, the middle word and middle consonants, the peculiarities of script, etc. Even when such peculiarities were clearly due to error or to accident, they were perpetuated and interpreted by a mystical meaning. Broken and inverted letters, consonants that were too small or too large, dots which were out of place -- all these oddities were handed down as God-intended. In Gen., ii, 4, bebram ("when they were created"), all manuscripts have a small Hê. Jewish scholars looked upon this peculiarity as inspired; they interpreted it: "In the letter Hê he created them"; and then set themselves to find out what that meant.This lack of variants in Massoretic manuscripts leaves us hopeless of reaching back to the original Hebrew text save through the versions. Kittel in his splendid Hebrew text gives such variants as the versions suggest."(Ibid>)

(3) Old Testament manuscripts
(a) Septuagint (LXX)

"There are three families of Septuagint manuscripts -- the Hexaplaric, Hesychian, and Lucianic. Manuscripts of Origen's Hexapla (q.v.) and Tetrapla were preserved at Cæsarea by his disciple Pamphilus. Some extant manuscripts (v.g. aleph and Q) refer in scholia to these gigantic works of Origen. In the fourth century, Pamphilus and his disciple Eusebius of Cæsarea reproduced the fifth column of the Hexapla, i.e. Origen's Hexaplaric Septuagint text, with all his critical signs. This copy is the source of the Hexaplaric family of Septuagint manuscripts. In course of time, scribes omitted the critical signs in part or entirely. Passages wanting in the Septuagint, but present in the Hebrew, and consequently supplied by Origen from either Aquila or Tehodotion, were hopelessly commingled with passages of the then extant Septuagint. Almost at the same time two other editions of the Septuagint were published -- those of Hesychius at Alexandria and of Lucian at Antioch. From these three editions the extant manuscripts of the Septuagint have descended, but by ways that have not yet been accurately traced. Very few manuscripts can be assigned with more than probability to one of the three families. The Hexaplaric, Hesychian, and Lucianic manuscripts acted one upon the other. Most extant manuscripts of the Septuagint contain, as a result, readings of each and of none of the great families. The tracing of the influence of these three great manuscripts is a work yet to be done by the text-critics."(Ibid)

Page 2Anti-missionaries argue Cave 4 was where they put bad copies.they dismiss the LXX ms because they were found in large concentration in cave 4 of Qumran, the material in cave four was not preserved in jars, leading one to believe that this was where they stored bad copies which could not be destroyed because they had the name of God in them.
there are LXX Ms from many other caves as well:Harper's Bible Dictionary edited by Paul J. Achtemier (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985)
quoted on Bible text.com "Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran"
(visited 8/4/06)

Transmission of ot Text: Prior to the discovery of the dss, the oldest copy of any extended portion of the Hebrew Bible was dated a.d. 895 (a codex of the Former and Latter Prophets, from the Cairo Genizah). In Cave One, however, a full text of Isaiah was found, dated palaeographically to 100 b.c. The differences between the Qumran text and the Masoretic Text (mt), the Hebrew text preserved from medieval manuscripts, separated in date by a thousand years, amounted to thirteen significant variants and a host of insignificant spelling differences, which have proved a gold mine for the study of first-century b.c. Palestinian Hebrew. This illustrated the care with which the text of Isaiah had been transmitted over the centuries. When Cave Four was discovered, however, a different picture appeared. For certain books of the ot, especially 1 and 2 Samuel, Jeremiah, and Exodus, there were copies of the Hebrew text, from pre-Christian times, in forms differing from the medieval mt. In some cases, the Qumran biblical texts were closer to the Greek Septuagint (lxx); in others, closer to the Samaritan Pentateuch.

The TEXTUAL ISSUES
What we are looking for here are samples of usage of "non-MT" (even though there really wasn't an "MT" at that point in history) by writers in those various segments of Judaism. Fortunately, these are quite easy to find, especially from standard Textbooks on textual criticism.
Let's go through these:
1. Qumran. This community considered itself to be the true remnant of Israel, and was thusly even more 'pure' than the Pharisees of the day. This community is associated with those documents known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. These are dated in three periods: Archaic (250-150 bc), Hasmonean (150-30 BC), and Herodian (30 bc-70 ad). These Dead Sea Scrolls show usage of LXX, Samaritan, and various proto-MT textual traditions. One of the standard TC works today is Emmanual Tov of Hebrew University [OT:TCHB]. Only 60% of the texts found there agree with the MT (OT:TCHB:115). That's leaves 40% that vary. Let me show this from some of his material.

"Before the Qumran discoveries S [symbol for Samaritan text] was thought to be an ancient text, whose nature could not be determined more precisely beyond its popular character. However, since the discovery in Qumran of texts which are exceedingly close to S, this situation has changed...The best preserved pre-Samaritan text is 4QpaleoExod(m) of which large sections of 44 columns from Exodus 6 to 37 have been preserved...The main feature characterizing these texts is the appearance of harmonizing additions within Exodus and Numbers taken from Deuteronomy...This feature links these texts exclusively with S." [OT:TCHB:97-99. He also lists 4Q158 and 4Qtest (=4Q175) as following S.]The LXX is a Greek translation, of course, so we would not expect to see it among the DSS. However, it DOES show up in fragments there(!), and since it was translated from a Palestinian Hebrew original, we also find some documents that are related to that original. Also, it must be remembered that the LXX and MT are not as widely divergent as is commonly supposed:
"The Hebrew text presupposed by the LXX basically represents a tradition which is either close to that of MT or can easily be explained as a descendant or a source of it. In several individual instances, however, the LXX represents a text that comes close to other sources, viz., certain Hebrew scrolls from Qumran and the Sam. Pent." [Tov, in HI:TCULXX:188]He points out that "Several scrolls often coincide with details in the LXX, either with the central manuscript group or with a specific group of its manuscripts" [HI:TCULLXX:188] and he gives examples of 4QJer(b), 4QJer(d,17), 4Qdeut(q), 4Qsam(a), 4QLev(d), 4Qexod(b) [pp.191-195]. Let me be clear about one thing, though. I am NOT suggesting that the Hebrew Text underlying the LXX was itself a major substrate in the DSS; merely, that the various textual traditions at Qumran had knowledge of this strain of text. It is at best a minor aspect of the DSS, as it is a minority piece of the NT quotations (as seen in the previous discussion).

2. Philo. As an Alexandrian Jew, he even ascribed the highest level of divine inspiration to the LXX (the Pentateuch only), and called the translators prophets! (Life of Moses, II.38-40):

"But this, they say, did not happen at all in the case of this translation of the law, but that, in every case, exactly corresponding Greek words were employed to translate literally the appropriate Chaldaic words, being adapted with exceeding propriety to the matters which were to be explained; (39) for just as I suppose the things which are proved in geometry and logic do not admit any variety of explanation, but the proposition which was set forth from the beginning remains unaltered, in like manner I conceive did these men find words precisely and literally corresponding to the things, which words were alone, or in the greatest possible degree, destined to explain with clearness and force the matters which it was desired to reveal. (40) And there is a very evident proof of this; for if Chaldaeans were to learn the Greek language, and if Greeks were to learn Chaldaean, and if each were to meet with those scriptures in both languages, namely, the Chaldaic and the translated version, they would admire and reverence them both as sisters, or rather as one and the same both in their facts and in their language; considering these translators not mere interpreters but hierophants and prophets to whom it had been granted it their honest and guileless minds to go along with the most pure spirit of Moses.

"Philo (ca. 25 bc-ad 40) makes the translation an act of divine inspiration, and the translators prophets: although they worked separately they produced a single text that was literally identical throughout." [WTOT:51]
3. Josephus. Josephus, like Philo, writes in Greek, but is a Palestinian Jew and not Alexandrian. He uses the LXX at places as well. "Josephus claims to have based his account on the Hebrew text of the sacred writings (Ant. I, 5). This claim appears to hold good for the Hexateuch. In the later books of the bible, however, he has clearly consulted the Septuagint." [HI:IIW:112-113].Josephus also used other Greek translations than the LXX, most notably the proto-Lucian texts [WTOT:60,n.38]. He also praises the pagan king, who received the Greek translation of the Pentateuch (Ant 1.10-13):

"I found, therefore, that the second of the Ptolemies was a king who was extraordinarily diligent in what concerned learning and the collection of books; that he was also peculiarly ambitious to procure a translation of our law, and of the constitution of our government therein contained, into the Greek tongue. (11) Now Eleazar, the high priest, one not inferior to any other of that dignity among us, did not envy the forenamed king the participation of that advantage, which otherwise he would for certain have denied him, but that he knew the custom of our nation was, to hinder nothing of what we esteemed ourselves from being communicated to others. (12) Accordingly, I thought it became me both to imitate the generosity of our high priest, and to suppose there might even now be many lovers of learning like the king; for he did not obtain all our writings at that time; but those who were sent to Alexandria as interpreters, gave him only the books of the law, (13) while there were a vast number of other matters in our sacred books.This mixture of textual elements in Josephus is noted in the ABD (s.v. "Josephus"):
"An important question centers around the issue of the biblical text that Josephus had at his disposal. It is important because the answer would help shed significant light on the state of the text in 1st-century Palestine, almost a millennium before our first extant complete Hebrew manuscript. Josephus seems to have had in his possession texts in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek; and he varied in his use of them from biblical book to book. In view of the fact that in Josephus' time there were a number of divergent Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible, we cannot be sure which version he used at any given time, especially since he usually paraphrased and elaborated rather than translated. Nor must we discount the possibility that Josephus followed a tradition independent of both the MT and the LXX, as may be seen from the fact that he agrees with Pseudo-Philo in some places that diverge from both the MT and the LXX. "The fact that Josephus was himself writing in Greek would make it seem likely that his chief textual source was the LXX, especially since he cited it as a precedent for presenting the history of the Jews to a non-Jewish audience (Ant 1. Proem 3 §10-12) and since he devoted so much space paraphrasing the account of the translation given in Let. Aris. (Ant 12.2.1-15 §11-118), hardly what one would expect in a work which is essentially a political and military rather than a cultural and religious history of the Jews. And yet, the very fact that he paraphrased the Bible in Greek would seem to indicate that he hoped to improve on that rendering, since there would hardly be much point otherwise in a new version. Hence it is not surprising that where thestyle of the LXX is more polished, as in the Additions to Esther or in 1 Esdras, he adheres more closely to its text. And yet, to have ignored the LXX, in view of the tremendous regard in which that version was held, would have been looked upon as an attempt to hide something.

Nevertheless, even when Josephus agrees with the LXX, this is not necessarily an indication that he had the LXX text before him, since he may have incorporated an exegetical tradition which had been known earlier to the translators of the LXX. Finally, the biblical texts found at Qumran indicate that the differences between the Hebrew and the Greek texts were not so great as had been previously thought.
4. Writers of the Pseudepigraphical and Apocryphal works. Here we have a vast amount of literature, from 300 bc to 300 ad, from Palestine and beyond, written in Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic (or 'other'!), by all types and stripes of theological persuasion. We can scarcely even sample this, but let's look at some of it.
As would be expected, the Greek-language and/or Egpytian-provenanced pieces demonstrate high LXX usage, but such usage is NOT confined to these texts. Below is a list of partial citations/allusions in the Pseudepigrapha to passages in the LXX. (The Apocrypha, of course, is PART of the LXX.)
[this proves that at least these parts of the LXX had to exist before the time of Christ, and thus, the high probability that Is. 53 did as well]
1 Chron 29.2 in Joseph and Asenath 2c
1 Sam 13.17 in Joseph and Asenath 24z 2 Sam 4.6 in Joseph and Asenath 10g
Dan 4.13 in Joseph and Asenath 10e
Dan 4.33a-34 in Joseph and Asenath 10b
Dan 4.33a-b in Joseph and Asenath 10h2
Dan 4.34 in Joseph and Asenath 12a
Dan 7.15 in Joseph and Asenath 12y
Deut 32.21 in 3 (Greek Apoc) of Baruch (Gk) 16.3
Deut 32.30 in Apocalypse of Daniel 4.14
Esther 3.17 in Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers 2.2
Ex 12.40 in Demetrius Frag 2.16,18
Ex 13.9 in Aristobulus Frag 2.8
Ex 17.16 in Joseph and Asenath 8d2
Ex 2.15-18 in Artapanus Frag 3.27.19
Ex 20.11 in Aristobulus Frag 5.12
Ex 22.27 in Joseph and Asenath 10v
Ex 3.20 in Aristobulus Frag 2.8
Ex 9.3 in Aristobulus Frag 2.8
Gen 1.2 in Joseph and Asenath 12d, 12e
Gen 1.3-24 in Aristobulus Frag 4.3
Gen 1.6 in Joseph and Asenath 12h
Gen 10.1 in Apocalypse of Adam 4.9
Gen 10.1f in Joseph and Asenath 2q
Gen 14.19 in Joseph and Asenath 8f
Gen 2.8 in Testament of Abraham A 11.1
Gen 22.17 in Greek Apoc. of Ezra 3.10
Gen 25.1-4 in Demetrius Frag 3.1
Gen 3.23 in Joseph and Asenath 16.n
Gen 30.37 in Greek Apoc. of Ezra 1.3
Gen 39.19 in Joseph and Asenath 23r
Gen 42.19 in Joseph and Asenath 26e
Gen 42.33 in Joseph and Asenath 26e
Gen 44.7 in Joseph and Asenath 23u
Gen 46.27 in Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers 12.64
Gen 49.24 in Joseph and Asenath 8w
Gen 5.4 in Apocalypse of Adam 1.1
Gen 50.22b-26 in Joseph and Asenath 29i
I Kings 4.29-34 in Testament of Solomon 3.5
Is 1.13 in Joseph and Asenath 14c
Is 14.12 in Greek Apoc. of Ezra 4.28
Is 26.19 in Apocryphon of Ezekiel Frag 1
Is 40.12 in Greek Apoc. of Ezra 7.5
Is 47.8 in Joseph and Asenath 11k2
Is 52.13 in Ascension of Isaiah 4.21
Is 58.11 in Joseph and Asenath 24x
Is 66.1 in Joseph and Asenath 22r
Is 8.20 in Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers 12.69
Is 9.5 in Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers 12.10
Jer 38 in Joseph and Asenath 12f
Job 38.38 in Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers 4.16
Job 9.18 in Joseph and Asenath 12x
Jonah 1.17 in Testament of Zebulun 4.4
Judges 7.16 in Joseph and Asenath 24z
Mal 1.1 in Lives of the Prophets 16.2
Micah 1.8 in 2 (Syriac) Apocalypse of Baruch 10.8
Numbers 12.8 in Greek Apoc. of Ezra 6.6
Numbers 16.48 in Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers 6.6
Prov 11.31 in Apocalypse of Daniel 11.11
Prov 24.21 in Syriac Menander 9
Prov 8.27 in 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse) of Enoch 25.4
Ps 100.3 in Odes of Solomon 7.12
Ps 102.1 in i 12y
Ps 103.2 in Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers 3.3; 12.16
Ps 103.24 in Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers 4.7
Ps 103.25 in Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers 12.24

With this said. I have done my study to the Point that i stand with what i claim.

I love you and God bless you and keep you in the name of Yeshua/Jesus

"