Eastern Orthodox Christian. com

The Fake Orthodox Bible:

​

The fact is Jesus promised, in Matthew 4:4, the word of God would be preserved on Earth by God word for word, quote "every word", and that means in Hebrew for the Old Testament, and in Greek for the New Testament (with a little Aramaic in the old). Therefore anyone saying the LXX Greek is how God preserved the bible on Earth is a heretic, and is calling Jesus a liar in Matthew 4:4, and Revelation 6:9 also identifies the two languages as Greek and Hebrew. The LXX is at best simply a translation, and contains nonsense books like Tobit (voodoo) and Bel and the Dragon (absurdity) not found in the more accurate Masoretic Text, and rightly not recognized by Protestants as scripture either. (this important short paragraph will be repeated a few times on this site.)

​

The Greek Orthodox believe the Old Testament should be translated from the

 LXX. However the farce is they have no bible and use Protestant ones, that is the contempt they have for "the bible versus man made tradition".debate, or instruction and edifying of the human soul.

​

The name Septuagint (from the Latin septuaginta, “70”) was derived later from the legend that there were 72 translators, 6 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel, who worked independently to translate the whole and ultimately produced identical versions. 

It does not matter if this is true or not, the fact is these scholars produced a version of the bible that included Book the Jews said were not the word of God. It seems very likely therefore these scholars were from a sect, and as it was a sect attacking what the meaning of inspired scripture books are, by including voodoo books like Tobit, they were simply heretics. This is complicated by the fact most Jewish scholars were also heretics, ironically made so by their own traditions developed in Babylon.

​

My repost to someone claiming Jesus used the LXX:

quote:

"Well, because certain verses might match the LXX, does not say they were taken from the LXX. Why must I spoon feed you on such an obvious fact? Can you not think for yourself? You give the impression the Jews went over from Hebrew into Latin, then back to Hebrew. Preposterous. Totally preposterous. The Jews stuck entirely to Hebrew and a bit of Aramaic in Daniel. Old ms were usually buried not destroyed, so the older an ms does not show it is most accurate.
If there is a "shame" here it is you not addressing the issues WHY I said the LXX is heretical. The Jews did not ever regard the voodoo book Tobit as scripture. for example. That is just one of many books rejected for right reasons. Where do you stand on Psalm 151 for instance?
All the evidence as I see it point to the LXX being written through an heretical Pharisee Cult, the question is - did they also follow the abominations of the Talmud tradition, like the apostate Pharisees, which practices are so hideous I find it difficult to even mention them."

​

Blasphemy of the Holy Ghost?

How near to the unforgivable sin is it, knowing that the New Testament (NT) was directly inspired word for word by the Holy Ghost, to therefore be saying in a blasé and devil may care attitude "The Holy Ghost used the LXX in the writing of the New Testament through man."? It is similar to the outright blasphemy or grieving of the Holy Ghost in the doctrine of Epiklesis - the invoking of the Holy Spirit. One can simply never be blasé or disrespectful about such issues.

​

​

No official Bible???

Orthodox Christians tell me the bible they use has the NKJV of the new testament in it, but the old testament is based on the LXX. How can they have a Protestant new testament? The mind boggles! And then they make the mistake of choosing the corrupted NKJV over the KJV. That they have not ratified bible by the hierarchy they claim has such authority. or one they say is the most accurate and good for reading, is amazing. And what was the new testament then they were using for 1,000 years before the Reformation? Apparently they never bothered to compile one. It shows how the bible to them historically is nothing to their man made traditions.

After discussing this with the Orthodox there maybe an EOB in Greek, that uses a Koine Greek basis that is not Textus Receptus, but even if there is why should I go to the trouble to do massive analysis on possible differences between the Greek if its not their official bible, in some way ratified by their top wizards (bishops)?

​

The Ancient Faith EOB edition- research :

I met an Amish woman who told me she used the Greek Orthodox Greek new testament text not Textus Receptus, but I was never able to locate such an ms (and we departed as facebook friends over Amish Rumspringa and Shunning doctrines). So the Orthodox Religion has no official ratified Bible? Fact is in Greece the Orthodox church is really two separate churches split over the calendar and other issues. Would have been interesting to compare their new testament Greek and translation of them, but apparently neither exist and they both use the Protestant KJV. So in GREEK in GREECE surely they d not use a Greek translation of the NKJV ???

​

BASICS .

So let us get this straight...... God gave a promise in Matthew 4:4 (Deuteronomy 8:3) that every word of God will be perfectly preserved word for word. You say this was fulfilled by translating the entire OT into Greek, then the Hebrew was corrupted, and only the Greek LXX remains pure? When the Greek LXX is not word for word anyway? Absurd....... And then God preserved with it bunk books like the portion of Daniel called "Bel and the Dragoon" an obvious forgery. Oh...... and as your church is infallible but not your Titular Head, that makes your church practice on this "infallible". Wake up thou that sleepest - and Christ will give thee light! That would potentially require that the men who translated the LXX to have done so under inspiration - that is quite some serious doctrine to hold!

​

ok show us that in the canons or the fathers, so you can show your own bible is not to you "heterodox".

​

If the LXX was a copy of a perfect old Hebrew Text

1) Why did God preserve the LXX but not the Hebrew text it was taken from (in your theology)

2) Did this original Hebrew the LXX was copied from have Bel and the Dragon in it? And why if the Jews have never said it was scripture?

​

The Eastern Orthodox do not publish their bible online, perhaps in case you find out how corrupted it is - like how they falsely insert the word "priest" over and over again.

​

The Septuagint (LXX) used to translate the Old Testament.

​

1) The LXX contradicts the Hebrew - giving an underlying heretical basis that the prophecy of Matthew 4:4 that "every word" will be perfectly preserved by God is supposedly fulfilled in the LXX (heresy).

2) Translating from a translation into multiple languages is a corruption of text and a concoction.

3) The LXX contains Books not in the Hebrew

​

The official Orthodox bible is a fake from the very start, because they translate the old testament out of the Greek Septuagint, making it at very best a translation of a translation. What is more they did this for racist reasons, just as the modern Judaizing movement translate the new testament from absurdly corrupt and late Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts, as the inspired Textus Receptus Greek new testament (or any other come to that) blows apart the who fake premise of their cult by never calling God Yahweh once, or Jesus Yeshua once.

​

Orthodoxy also add clearly bogus books to the old testament canon, like the absurd book "Bel and the Dragon", with the hero stuffing pitch into a dragon's mouth until it explodes (ridiculous). This is why they try not to discuss "the canon" but the new testament canon only, so they can fantasize that they "gave it to us". It was given to us by God through the Apostles and disciples, and we simply recognize it, as the spiritual discern all things spiritually, just as we reject the absurd counterclaims of Orthodoxy and Catholicism - that they both represent the model of the early church, yet are both massively different in hugely important doctrinal areas, such as the Pope, the nature of Hell, and divorce, to name but a few. They both claim all the history scrolls prove beyond all doubt they are the real deal, but both are radically different. Full well the Evangelicals and the Protestants trust the bible instead.

The bible of the Eastern Orthodox is utterly corrupted by racism from the start, and even the Russians, and other countries, not just the Greeks, have bought into the Hell sent lie the old testament should be translated from the Greek. Maybe Asians think you should translate it from Chinese. The Orthodox are ridiculous, but the Catholics that translate it out of Latin are even worse. 

​

So just how accurate is the septuagint? The old testament should be translated from the Hebrew. Full stop. Period. Using the version of the 70 introduced fake apocryphal books, and made the old testament text itself fake.

​

Death by inhaling ashes.

2 Maccabees Chapter 13

this was a heathen king, thus criticisms are invalid.

​WHY THE PATRIARCHAL N.T. GREEK IS FAKE
AND THUS THE EASTERN ORTHODOX BIBLE (EOB) IS FAKE:
The same technique of deception is used in the Eastern Orthodox Bible (EOB) as was used in the modern versions of the bible, like the NIV, and it is basically very similar to a Jehovah's Witness fake new testament, except the word Jehovah has not been falsely inserted into it, as it has been in the JW modern Greek version (how dim Greek Jehovah's Witnesses must be not to notice the deliberate replacement of Theos and Kurios with Jehovah).  

WE GAVE YOU THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE:
that's as dumb as saying Orthodox or the Pope gave us "One God Father Son and Spirit". Both are simply divine truths. Rather it is their false churches that tried to give us Bel and the Dragon etc.

Modern version fakes:
When the modern versions of the bible came out, they relegated scriptures like the end of Mark 16, and John 8:1-11 to footnotes, just as the Watch Tower version does now. This meant the English speaking public largely rejected these versions, and so the sales tactic was used to put the huge number of missing verses in the text of these fake new testaments, instead of as footnotes, thus the public was tricked into reading fake bibles. 

Eastern Orthodox Bible (EOB) fakes:
The Eastern Orthodox Bible (EOB) is based on the bogus Greek "Patriarchal Text" (PT ).
Quote: "The Patriarchal Text ( PT ) was selected on Mount Athos from among a large number of reliable ecclesiastical manuscripts, the text underpinning the official ecclesiastical text published in 1904 by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople." and also, quote: "The manuscripts they selected were from the ninth to the sixteenth centuries, and were largely from lectionaries (that is, from texts that were actually used in the worship of the Church)." Preposterous, using ms from the 9th to 16th centuries only!

As time went by he Authorized Bible defenders, also known as The King James Bible, began to so thoroughly prove that the Alexandrian School of Manuscripts is corrupted, that a number of crafty tactics are now being adopted in the Eastern Orthodox New Testament to hide how totally corrupt their own "Patriarchal Text" is, in a similar, but perhaps in an even more cunning way as is seen in modern versions like the NIV and the ESV.

If the EOB stuck to its bogus Greek called "The Patriarchal Text", which was based on shallow research by green scholars, who lacked the Faith to discern the true word of God, then in just the same way as the English and American public at first shunned the modern versions, the Greeks and Russian Orthodox believers (etc) would probably dump the EOB. Therefore an even more clever way of hiding the corruptions of the Patriarchal text was found. The tactic used is to not translate only the PT (Patriarchal Text) in the OEB, and leave everything else as footnotes, but to include all the verses that are missing into the body of the actual bible text itself, and then to either 

a) use angled brackets and section it off from the Patriarchal Text translated verses, example:
<For yours is the Kingdom, the power, and the glory, now and unto ages of ages. Amen> Matthew 6:13 
with a footnotes stating quote "CT omits this" etc. Angled brackets like this infer it is not scripture. 

b) simply omit to say "PT omits" or "TR adds" and give no footnote. example:
Matthew 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day. 

c) Instead of writing PT misses out a verse, or a lot of text, they state instead far more frequently TR adds it, not PT omits it, deceiving you yet again. Example:
Revelation 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. Where it adds in a footnote quote: "TR adds "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last:". This might be done with or without an asterisk. 

d) And finally, and perhaps most craftily of all, brackets off part of the text, and then states it is in the Patriarchal Text ( PT ). This infers their precious Patriarchal Text is wrong after all. When? Confusingly sometimes when it is in fact plainly accurate and correct, for instance when PT includes the longer ending of Mark 16, as the Alexandrian Text has no resurrection, or ascension, in the Gospel of Mark, which would mean it is not a synoptic gospel if that was true, which of course it is not, the long ending of Mark 16 is the inspired word of God. example:
Mark 16: verses 9 - 20 are put in double brackets from <<Mark 16:9 Now after Jesus* had risen early.......to......Mark 16:20 the Lord working with them and confirming the word by the signs that accompanied [them]. Amen.>> and then the footnote tells you quote:

16:9-20, are not present in some ancient manuscripts, including the fourth century Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, although the omission has unusual features that make the absence of the longer ending less than decisive. Mark 16:9-20 is preserved in its traditional form in about a dozen uncials (the earliest being Codex Alexandrinus) and in all undamaged minuscules. The longer ending is generally not considered to have undisputable canonical authority but it is part of the Patriarchal Text (PT) and is attested by ancient and widespread liturgical use. It is therefore included in the main EOB text as being part of the received text of the Gospel of Mark. See print version's Appendix F for a full discussion.

The question is...... why does the EOB section off with angled brackets huge amount of scripture, (if it is really in the Patriarchal Text?) yet add others often omitted from the NIV etc and add footnotes. What is special about the angled bracketed verses that get omitted from the NIV?  And why are they giving any credibility to manuscripts like the Alexandrian text if they really believe it is corrupt?
 
CONCLUSION *** edit:
I contend that if the Orthodox believers in the USA, Europe and the UK,  had been given an EOB bible version that stuck only to the Patriarchal Text, it would have been rejected in the same way the modern versions were at first rejected. Instead both the EOB and the NIV and other modern versions used a deliberate deception tactic.  With the NIV it is Bible verses the general public regard as the definite word of God, like the Lord's Prayer, Mark 16 (or you have no resurrection) and John 8:1-11 (or the preposterous theory must be believed someone made up the story and it was inserted - when it is one of the strongest pacifist stories in the bible, and neither Catholics nor Orthodox are pacifists). 

AN ANALYSIS OF THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW:
will be given on this page to show how these deceptions were used to cover up the absolutely staggering amount of the new testament that is either MISSING or CHANGED in the Patriarchal Text ( PT ). For a comprehensive list of almost all the corruptions found in the Patriarch Text and the modern bible versions see this link:

The Authorised Bible defended:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

SO CALLED "TOUGH" QUESTIONS:

​under construction........
I do not believe in patronising people by leaving out so called "tough questions" meant to refute sola scriptura. One question is a question Hebrew Roots heretics and Judaising heretics love to ask, namely "If scripture is sufficient what did the church do in the years before any new testament scripture was given?" This is meant to imply that the early church for a short period relied solely on tradition and word of mouth. 

1) First Jesus directly stated in Luke 24:44-48, when first defining the Evangelical Gospel (later repeated in 1 Cor15:1-4) that the new covenant (Jer 31) and the gospel (Is 53, Psalm 22, Malachi 4:2, etc) and was predicted in the old testament.

You need to study the Adamic, Edenic, Noahic, Abrahamic, covenants. The Law was given by Jesus immediately in the new covenant, as did Moses Earlier, but the many other books of scripture where given to the Jews over several thousand years, such as Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Malachi, etc. The new testament was thus given FAR quicker. Which books are inspired to form a canon was discerned, but was totally misunderstood by the Orthodox, who on a racist basis chose to translate the Old Testament from ancient Greek, a foolish mistake, leading them to OK heretical Books like "Bel and the Dragon".

People act as if once Moses Law was given, everyone in Israel was given their own copy of the 4 Books of the Law  (yes 4!!) and Genesis and Job. The word Deuteronomy means "a second law" and was only written later on, and it is therefore impossible that it was placed next to the Arc of the Covenant at first with the rest of the books ( actually singular) of the law. Thus from the very beginning even after the law was written down and carried with the arc the people were taught SCRIPTURE verbally. Therefore the thousands of people who heard Jesus preaching sharing what he said, is not in contradiction to it being later written down. It was still his inspired words. It was still not man made traditions.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


If the men guiding the Eastern Orthodox Church are so anointed and godly, why do they keep the online version of the bible away from their own flock? Obviously they do not want their followers to read it, and instead want them to concentrate on things other than the bible. Or perhaps it is because their new testament is a fake. That is right!

The manuscripts they selected were from the ninth to the sixteenth centuries, and were largely from lectionaries (that is, from texts that were actually used in the worship of the Church).
​
Then where is the promise fulfilled both in the old testament and the new "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."? The EOB gives the impression the scholars who put it together used the Patriarchal Text ( PT ) but were ashamed of it in places, and were apologetic is sound, as if their minds were a hodge podge of different theologies, as if they actually believed the corrupt Alexandrian ms are in fact more accurate. 

The incredible fact is that not only has the Greek nation failed to preach the true gospel of Jesus (except a remnant of Evangelicals there today) but they have failed to defend the new testament that is written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit in their own language, as the following comparisons will show.

Where is the indignation from the Greek people that their bible is not put online properly by their so called church? Where is the outrage! Where is the protest? Where is the demand it should be? Why can the Greek and Russian people not plainly see, that these Pharisees are hiding the bible from you! As it is written "ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered." Luke 11:52.

I cannot presently obtain these verses. Be diligent and go check them out for yourself? What have they REMOVED and CHANGED in the word of God?
REMOVED VERSES - are in RED (put in brackets)
CHANGED VERSES - are in green (different translation than KJV) sometimes it is different Greek words in different texts. 

The following link is the only one I can find (not from their church), and it has whole pages missing:

Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible

THE PATRIARCHAL TEXT:

Quote: "The Patriarchal Greek New Testament (PATr) was published by the Patriarchal Press of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople on February 22, 1904. It was published as: The New Testament, Approved by the Great Church of Christ, with the intention of being the most authoritative text of the Greek New Testament available. As more critical or eclectic editions of the NT became the norm by the nineteenth century (replacing the Byzantine Text), the Patriarchate of Constantinople assembled a committee of scholars for the purposes of studying various manuscripts of the NT at both Constantinople and Mount Athos. Their goal was to provide “the best reconstruction of the most ancient text of ecclesiastical tradition and, more specifically, of the Church of Constantinople” (from the preface to the 1904 text). The manuscripts they selected were from the ninth to the sixteenth centuries, and were largely from lectionaries (that is, from texts that were actually used in the worship of the Church). After the Patriarchal Greek New Testament’s initial publication in 1904, Professor Vasileios Antoniades of the Theological School of Chalki made some minor corrections to the text in 1912."

"RPT, RPTE - Revised Patriarchal Text.  This Greek New Testament text is based on the public domain Greek Orthodox Church text (GOC in Bible Works). The text has been revised in a little over 100 places to bring it into conformity with the 350AD Byzantine Gothic text of Wulfilas. The English version is RPTE. Provided by Wayne Mitchell."

What the Orthodox Church is not telling you is that their so called "original church" was so unconcerned about the bible itself, so preoccupied steering the people to read dusty tomes written by spurious so called saints, hermits and pillarists etc, hey had not bothered to put together a proper new testament for 1900 years! And even after the Reformation they did not bother to do it, all they had was regional inaccurate versions, missing out and changing scriptures. Is such an attitude to the word of God representing a holy and zealous and godly view of the importance of the Holy Scriptures? The fact is the Orthodox religion has spent over a thousand years directing people away from the bible into reading the warped and heretical writings of their pseudo sages and saints, just as the Pharisees in Judaism used the same kind of diversion tactic with volume after volume after volume of the Talmud. Orthodox priests and Jewish Pharisees look identical down to the fuzzy beards and uniforms that are worn to receive the glory of men, and use the same diversion tactic away from reading the Word of God himself. 

ADULTERY:
Make no mistake about it, one of the most devastating changes occurs in changing the interpretation of the Greek word "porneia" in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9, and other changes to those verses! The changes are catastrophic!

Orthodox defence:

quote

"Your New Testament canon comes from St. Athanasius' paschal letter and the syndo's of Hippo and Carthage"

​

Insertion of the word "priest".

The word priest is falsely inserted into the EO new testament by the Orthodox .

​

Fake Book of Revelation Author .

Fake Epistles of John Author/s .

In a cave on Patmos the authorship of the Book of Revelation is sometimes attributed by the Orthodox to another author other than the St John who wrote the Gospel of John, variously called  and " John the Presbyter" or " John the Elder" . The same with the epistles of John. Can you imagine how serious this is? To invent a spurious Orthodox / Catholic invented person who never even existed, and then say part of the bible, even several books, were written by him, even the sacrosanct Book of Revelation! (see Rev 22: 19-20 and the threat to those who change that book!)  Why is it they their traditions do not get it clear? They have so many strange traditions they insist are true, but they cannot get this right, leaving many Orthodox teaching that the bible was partly written by one of their fake religious figures!! Did Jesus not plainly say at the end of the Gospel of John:

​

"

20Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? 

21Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? 

22Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. 

23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

24This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

"

this indicates it is John who wrote the Book of Revelation, revealed t him later by Jesus. 

​