"Truth is beleaguered with a vast force of enemies, and yet how secure she is in her own inherent strength! And naturally enough when from her very adversaries she gains to her side whomsoever she will, as her friends and protectors, and prostrates the entire host of her assailants."

-- Tertullian

God in The Lord of the Rings

A friend asked me a fascinating question today--managing to bring two of my three very favorite things to talk about into one discussion--and I thought it could make an interesting blog post.

The question was, if Tolkien was a Christian and, in Middle Earth, Iluvatar represents Jehovah, why do the characters in The Lord of the Rings never talk about Iluvatar? Why is there no religion?

And my answer is this:

There is some mention of religion, but it's very low-key. The "High Hallow" where Aragorn finds the white tree is a place where the kings go to do whatever rites they have to Iluvatar. There was a similar thing on Numenor, on top of the highest mountain. And the Elves worship through their song and arts, rejoicing under the stars and all that. Tolkien being a Catholic, there is a strong sense of worshiping the Creator through intermediaries, i.e., Elbereth, Lady of Stars (Mary, Queen of Heaven), etc. Also, the Elves are more closely connected with the Valar and the Earth, whereas Men have this strange destiny which the Elves don't understand, which includes mortality, but they are also apparently more directly connected with Iluvatar himself than the Elves are (foreshadowing the Incarnation in ages to come). In the background works of mythology which underlie The Lord of the Rings, it is explicitly stated that Elves are forever bound to "the circles of the world" whereas Men, when they die, depart "the Elves know not whence" and it is only after all things are made new that Elves and Men will finally be reunited.

As it's set in a pre-historic age of this Earth, the concept, I think, is sort of like in the Patriarchal ages before Moses, when religion, magic, and kingship weren't separated but all one thing. So in a sense, Gandalf is a priest and a prophet. Like Noah or Abraham. The patriarch is priest, prophet, and king. This is the early state of mankind, not only in the Bible, but in other societies as well. See James Fraser's The Golden Bough, for instance.

And there is the much more obvious, but dark, religion of those who worship Morgoth and Sauron, representing the cruel, ignorant, and bloody side of paganism.

So what he's doing is reconciling, cosmologically, his Catholic faith with his love of pagan mythology. He wants his stories to take place in the stark sort of hard and cruel world which informs things like Beowulf, the Volsungsaga, and to a lesser degree, Greco-Roman literature. But he is definitely a devout Catholic, and wants God--The God--to be above all, and for beauty, truth, and goodness to triumph in the end (remember Sam's epiphany in Mordor, when he looks up at the stars and realizes that even Sauron and Mordor, powerful as they seem, are only fleeting temporalities). So he creates this universe in which the Creator created through the agency of his greater created beings (the Valar), then sort of left everything in their hands. They are, however flawed, and thus so is the world, but he lets it run its course (like the wheat and the tares) and only directly intervenes in very subtle and secret ways. Thus he gets both the Eternal, Omniscient, Omnipotent God of his Catholic faith and the lesser, limited, anthropomorphic gods of myth who, as gods, are infinitely less desirable than the True One who is all Love, but as characters in a story, are very interesting and useful.

Also, I think the very reverent Catholic sense of the Holiness of God and our separation from him pervades it. Contrast to the Protestant concept found in Narnia: Aslan is right there in person. But he is still there, in Middle Earth, in more subtle ways. Like when Gandalf says "Behind that there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker. In which case you also were meant to have it. And that may be an encouraging thought." That means Iluvatar. And it is, of course, Iluvatar, who arranges for Gollum to be there to complete the quest when Frodo can't. But it only works if they obey His will--and show mercy.

"Stand firm on the counsel of your heart, for no one is more faithful to you than it. For a man's soul sometimes tells him more than seven watchmen sitting on a high tower. And in all matters, pray to the Most High, that He may direct your way in truth." -- Ecclesiasticus 38:13-15

"Men more easily believe the evil that is false than the good that is true."

-- Tertullian, Ad Nationes

Tertullian on Free Will

"It is a fundamental human right, a privilege of nature, that every man should worship according to his own convictions: one man's religion neither harms nor helps another man. It is assuredly no part of religion to compel religion--to which free-will and not force should lead us." -- Tertullian, 217 AD

This is the fundamental point on which the institutions of Christianity have so often gone wrong: the Catholicism of the Inquisition, the various repressive Reformed communities, the harsh religiosity of the post Awakening churches. Even twentieth-century American Evangelicalism--the religious right--is guilty of this to a great degree. This sense of the latter that our great commission means the constant preaching, nagging, and haranguing of every single person we can reach, to agree with our doctrines and become like us is, in my opinion, a great perversion of the Gospel, and is demonstrably supremely ineffective anyhow. You can't trick, force, coerce, or browbeat someone into truly turning to Christ. You may get someone to repeat the "sinner's prayer" but that doesn't mean that person is really ready to surrender to God. I once read that Billy Graham estimated that less than ten percent of the "conversions" at his crusades were sincere and actually led to a changed life.

Our task as Christians is not to try and ensure that everyone else around us conforms to our own convictions. Our task is to live what we believe, to love God and man with all our strength, and to show forth the Light of Christ through our lives more than our words. There is a time and place for the actual preaching or proclaiming of the Message. But the far more effective message is that of living a life of conspicuous goodness and love, without an agenda.

"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." -- James 1:27

I met a girl the other day. She was quite attractive, and I found myself flirting before I even thought about what I was doing. We ended up talking for over an hour, and I'm supposed to go back and meet her again. She's a lovely young lady, and I enjoyed her company.

But I'm not going to do it.

It seems innocent enough, on the surface, right? This is what people do: they meet, they flirt, they get together and get to know each other, and then maybe they date.

But here's the problem. Or problems, I should say:

1. My attraction to her is primarily physical. And that's the wrong reason to become involved with someone. There's nothing wrong with physical attraction; it's just that, alone, it's not a good enough reason to pursue a relationship. Not for a Christian, anyway. And definitely not for me. A relationship pursued only or mostly for that reason has a very good chance of leading somewhere I shouldn't be going.

2. My physical attraction to her is primarily on account of that she reminds me powerfully of Someone Else. And that's very not fair to her.

3. Even if I went into it with the intention of not pursuing a physical relationship, I would be only doing it because I'm lonely and bored and would enjoy the companionship of a beautiful young woman. And maybe to soothe my sense of rejection. In other words, I'd be using her to meet my own needs. Yes, I'd be good to her and treat her well, because that's who I am. But it would ultimately end in pain for her, and probably for me too.

4. This is a fork in the road for me. I would be taking the first step on a path which leads away from God and into Self, and that's the road to the dark side. And my dark side could become very dark indeed.

And as I considered these things, I gained an insight: I've never been able to quite put my finger exactly on my objection to the dating paradigm as it exists in this current society. But that's it. It's because it's all about using the other person to meet your own needs. So not only does everyone get hurt, but it's the totally opposite motivation for going into a relationship from what we should have. That's not love. Love is not self-seeking. And so any relationship or marriage built on such a foundation is doomed to at least very difficult times, as we re-learn to give of ourselves rather than take from the other, and very often to complete failure. And it's why almost nobody is able to really open themselves up, be vulnerable, and truly give of themselves to the other: we're all so wounded and afraid, and have learned to be so hard-hearted and self-protective, that it takes the greatest of acts of courage to even crack the door and peek out.

So no, I'm not going to do anything to keep perpetuating this cycle. I choose real love, or nothing at all. I choose to trust the Lord with my needs, and wait for him to meet them in his time and way, because he loves me.

The Temple, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Ark of the Covenant

Since I was a boy, I've heard that nobody knows what happened to the Ark. Indiana Jones, documentaries, historians, biblical scholars, treasure hunters, and conspiracy theorists always repeat a variation of the same thing: that the Bible simply stops mentioning the Ark just before the Babylonian destruction of Solomon's Temple, and that we don't know, therefore, whether Nebuchadnezzar carried it away, or whether the priests hid it under the Temple Mount, or whether the refugees carried it to Egypt whence it eventually ended up in Axum, Ethiopia, or whether Pharaoh had already captured it a few years before, when King Josiah went out to fight him against the warning of God, and then hidden it in Tanis.

What I can't fathom is that none of these scholars or seekers ever seemed to have done something so simple as to read the Orthodox Bible, or the Septuagint. Because it's right there, plain and simple, in black and white:

"They took all the large and small holy vessels of the Lord, the ark of the Lord, and the king's possessions, and carried them off to Babylon." -- 1 Ezra 1:51

This was at the final sack of Jerusalem, after they had rebelled several times against Nebuchadnezzar.

So the Ark was carried off to Babylon and then lost to history, right? Wrong. After Babylon had fallen to the Persians, first Cyrus, then Darius sent the Jewish exiles back to Judea, along with the things from the Babylonian treasury which had been taken from Jerusalem. First, under Cyrus, there is a shipment of sacred vessels, with an inventory, handed over to Sheshbazzar and the initial group of returning exiles. but the Ark is not among them (1 Ezra 2:7-11). Then, under Darius, there is another, given to Zerubbabel, but whose specific contents are not given. But:

"Then he sent forth from Babylon all the vessels Cyrus had removed; and everything Cyrus said to do, he also commanded to be done [that is, rebuild the temple --ed.], and he sent them forth to Jerusalem." -- 1 Ezra 4:57 (emphasis mine)

Now that's very intriguing, but not conclusive. This, however, is:

"One finds in the records, as it is noted, that Jeremiah the prophet ordered those migrating to take some of the fire. . . . It was also written that the prophet received an oracle and ordered that the tabernacle and the ark should accompany him when he went to the mountain where Moses had gone up and had seen the inheritance of God. So when Jeremiah went there and found a cave, he brought the tabernacle, the ark, and the altar of incense, and then sealed up the entrance. Some who followed him came to mark the way, but they were unable to find it. Now when Jeremiah learned of this, he rebuked them and said, 'The place shall be unknown until God gathers His people again and shows His mercy. Then the Lord will disclose these things, and the Glory of the Lord and the cloud will be seen, as they were shown to Moses, and as Solomon deemed it worthy that the place should be specially consecrated.'" -- 2 Maccabees 2:1, 4-8

So, at some point, whether it was at the time mentioned in 1 Ezra 4, under Darius (and Jeremiah lived to be a very old man), or at some previous time, the Ark was returned to Judea. And Jeremiah hid it in a cave on Mount Nebo. That's not a theory: that's scripture, and therefore, true.

Now, I've never been sure that when end-times prophecies mention the Temple, that they mean the literal, physical Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, in the spot where the Al-Aqsa mosque now stands. Most Evangelicals would say definitely yes, most Catholics and Orthodox would say definitely no, and most liberal and modernist biblical scholars would simply scoff. But my mind is open and not made up on the matter.

Recent discoveries I've made, however, have me presently leaning toward the literal interpretation. The above is one. Especially when considered in light of the other: that is, that among the Dead Sea Scrolls, the largest and most complete one found was called the Temple Scroll. This is a detailed set of instructions, written as a direct revelation from God to Moses, on how to build the Temple. Why does that make me lean toward the literal rebuilding? Because this scroll, along with the others, lay hidden and forgotten for two thousand years. Think about that. That's a phrase we hear a lot, but think for a moment about how long that really is. Think about some place from your childhood, that you revisited twenty years later, and how much it changed, and how much was lost. Then think about two thousand. So this scroll is completely unique: there are no copies or transcripts of it anywhere else in the world--its contents were completely unknown to the world until--1947--the same year Israel became a nation for the first time since A.D. 70. Coincidence?

Now, think of all that in light of the passage from 2 Maccabees quoted above: "The place shall be unknown until God gathers His people again and shows His mercy." Sound familiar? Yes, it's true that the Ark hasn't been found yet (that we know of). But that's because it isn't God's time yet. When will it be found? My guess is when the scroll that He provided has been put to use, and the Temple has been rebuilt. Then its location will be revealed, along with the Tabernacle (the original tent made under Moses' direction in the wilderness), and probably some of the other essential vessels and things, like the sacred anointing oil for the priests, which cannot be made any more because no one is sure of the correct interpretation (or current availability) of one of its ingredients.

Also interesting on this topic is the Copper Scroll, whose origin no one knows, but which is written in ancient (not 1st century) Hebrew. Did Jeremiah make it, and entrust it to his disciples? Did he hide other temple treasures in other locations? So far none of the treasures listed has been found. But maybe it's just not God's time for that either.

**Update**

I came across this in my further reading:

"'And because of all this, we make a sure covenant and write it; and all our rulers, our Levites, and our priests seal it.' Those who sealed it were: Nehemiah the son of Hacaliah, and Zedekiah, Seraiah, Azariah, Jeremiah, Pashur, Amariah, Malchijah, Hattush, Shebaniah, Malluch, Harim, Meremoth, Obadiah, Daniel, Gennethon, Baruch, Meshullam, Abijah, Mijamin, Maaziah, Bilgai, and Shemaiah. These were the priests." --Nehemiah 9:38-10:27

When I saw this, I asked myself, "Wait; are those the same men who wrote the books of those names? Was Jeremiah a priest? And Daniel?" So I did some research, and indeed Jeremiah was, and Daniel probably was too. As for Obadiah and Baruch, there is nothing in the scripture either way, but that means they could have been, and that it is very possible that these are those prophets. Credence is lent to this by the fact that both Jeremiah and Baruch are listed, Baruch being Jeremiah's scribe and loyal disciple. Scholarly opinion allows that the Daniel listed may well be the great Daniel of the exile (http://biblehub.com/daniel/1-6.htm). So this, considered along with the evidence I wrote about above, seems to lead to the conclusion that both Daniel and Jeremiah were present at the restoration of Judah. I consulted some biblical timelines, and even if Jeremiah was 21 when he received his call (the scripture doesn't give his age, but he refers to himself as "a youth"), he would have been 113 when Artaxerxes returned the exiles--very old, but very possible: many people have lived that long, and Jeremiah was, after all, highly favored by God. He could conceivably been as old as 30 and still called himself a "youth", which would put the outside of his age at 122. But he could have been much younger too, and 'only' in his nineties at the return. Either way, it makes possible the hiding of the Ark by him, as told in Maccabees, plausible, either sometime during, or at the end of the exile, when all the articles of the other Temple furnishings were returned.

St. Patrick

St. Patrick's Armor

I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through belief in the Threeness,
Through confession of the Oneness
of the Creator of creation.

I arise today
Through the strength of Christ's birth with His baptism,
Through the strength of His crucifixion with His burial,
Through the strength of His resurrection with His ascension,
Through the strength of His descent for the judgment of doom.

I arise today
Through the strength of the love of cherubim,
In the obedience of angels,
In the service of archangels,
In the hope of resurrection to meet with reward,
In the prayers of patriarchs,
In the predictions of prophets,
In the preaching of apostles,
In the faith of confessors,
In the innocence of holy virgins,
In the deeds of righteous men.

I arise today, through
The strength of heaven,
The light of the sun,
The radiance of the moon,
The splendor of fire,
The speed of lightning,
The swiftness of wind,
The depth of the sea,
The stability of the earth,
The firmness of rock.

I arise today, through
God's strength to pilot me,
God's might to uphold me,
God's wisdom to guide me,
God's eye to look before me,
God's ear to hear me,
God's word to speak for me,
God's hand to guard me,
God's shield to protect me,
God's host to save me
From snares of devils,
From temptation of vices,
From everyone who shall wish me ill,
afar and near.

I summon today
All these powers between me and those evils,
Against every cruel and merciless power
that may oppose my body and soul,
Against incantations of false prophets,
Against black laws of pagandom,
Against false laws of heretics,
Against craft of idolatry,
Against spells of witches and smiths and wizards,
Against every knowledge that corrupts man's body and soul;
Christ to shield me today
Against poison, against burning,
Against drowning, against wounding,
So that there may come to me an abundance of reward.

Christ with me,
Christ before me,
Christ behind me,
Christ in me,
Christ beneath me,
Christ above me,
Christ on my right,
Christ on my left,
Christ when I lie down,
Christ when I sit down,
Christ when I arise,
Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks of me,
Christ in every eye that sees me,
Christ in every ear that hears me.

I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through belief in the Threeness,
Through confession of the Oneness
of the Creator of creation.

Clement on Giving

"Do not you judge who is worthy or who is unworthy. For it is possible you may be mistaken in your opinion. As in the uncertainty of ignorance it is better to do good to the undeserving for the sake of the deserving, than by guarding against those that are less good to fail to meet in with the good. For though sparing, and aiming at testing, who will receive meritoriously or not, it is possible for you to neglect some that are loved by God; the penalty for which is the punishment of eternal fire. [Matt. 25:41-46] But by offering to all in turn that need, you must of necessity by all means find some one of those who have power with God to save. 'Judge not, then, that ye be not judged. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again; good measure, pressed and shaken, and running over, shall be given to you.' [Matt. 7:1-3, Luke 6:38] Open thy compassion to all who are enrolled the disciples of God; not looking contemptuously to personal appearance, nor carelessly disposed to any period of life. Nor if one appears penniless, or ragged, or ugly, or feeble, do thou fret in soul at this and turn away. This form is cast around us from without, the occasion of our entrance into this world, that we may be able to enter into this common school. But within dwells the hidden Father, and His Son, who died for us and rose with us." -- Clement of Alexandria, Who is the Rich Man that Shall be Saved?

This is the first time I've seen someone else enumerate the philosophy by which I live. I've said it many times before; in fact, I think I've written on here about it: I'd rather give to someone who doesn't deserve it than not give to someone who does. You hear the excuse all the time from people that they won't give to beggars because "they're just going to use it on drugs" or whatever. Well, they might. But that's not my job to judge. And I've received smirking, patronizing criticism for certain acts of charity. "You know, they're just scamming you, right?" Well, they may be. But then again, maybe they're not. I'd rather let myself be scammed than leave someone who really is in need destitute and hopeless. The Bible says "Give to everyone who asks of you." (Matt. 5:42, Luke 6:30). If they would rather use it on drugs or alcohol than food, then that's their choice. If they're lying to me and ripping me off, then that's on them, not me. I give the money in good conscience, and once it leaves my hand, it's no longer my responsibility. Besides, it's only money. Now, I won't give if I know for certain or firmly believe that it's going to be misused, or that the person is trying to hustle me. And I can't give always, to every single person--my resources are limited, and the Bible also says to be responsible with what God gives you. But I believe that we Christians should do as much as we can, whenever the opportunity presents itself, without raising questions of conscience that are most often just excuses for being selfish.

How to get me to not watch a movie...

...in no particular order

1. Use the word "heist" anywhere in the title or description.
2. Put a picture of a half-nude, tanned, pumped, and oiled woman on the cover or poster.
3. er...Put a picture of a half-nude, tanned, pumped, and oiled man on the cover or poster.
4. Make it yet another heartwarming sports movie about underdogs overcoming the odds.
5. Make it yet another revisionist period piece about how everybody in the past was either an ignorant, superstitious idiot or a narrow-minded religious bigot.
6. Make it about gangsters, mobsters, or racketeers as the heroes.
7. Make it about how free-spirited young people liberate a community from close-mindedness and prudish oppression through dancing.
8. Make it yet another movie about a princess who doesn't need rescuing because she's a strong, capable, confident woman. <gag>
9. Make it any type of slasher, torture, or sado-masochist movie.
10. Make it a sequel to a movie I've watched and liked, and re-cast one of the major characters.
11. Make it an adaptation of a book I like, and try to "improve" it...especially by adapting it to modern politically correct sensibilities.
12. Make it about something from the Bible, and be anything but absolutely faithful to the text.
13. Adapt it from a Shakespeare play and set it in modern times, or update the language.
14. Make it yet another vampire or zombie movie.
15. Make it in pixar-style CG animation. Or Anime.
16. Put a rape in it.
17. Make it about a together New York girl who works at a magazine, but who can't find love.
18. Make it about a suave New York guy who works at an advertising agency and won't settle down.
19. Make it about politics in any way, shape, or form. Or Wall Street, corporate business, or lawyers and courtrooms. Especially, use a phrase like "high-powered attorney" or "high-flying stock broker".
20. Make it yet another movie about a cop who's always in trouble because he does things his own way.
21. Be Woody Allen.
22. Make it about adultery; especially about "romantic" adultery.
23. Put in a stereotypical overweight, wise-cracking, finger shaking, eyebrow-raising black woman character, probably played by Queen Latifah.
24. Make it about the South or Southern characters, based on how the South and Southerners are viewed by New Yorkers.
25. Make it yet another heartwarming movie about how a kid finds an unusual, legendary, mythical, or otherworldly creature and takes care of it, then has to let it go in the end.
26. Cast Vin Diesel or The Rock. In any role.
27. Put a scene in the movie, trailer, or advertisement, where the "crew" walks side-by side in slow motion, looking cool.
28. Make it yet another movie about teenage boys trying to have sex.
29. Cast stupid, pretty models (male and female) instead of actors.
30. Say, "But he's (or she's) about to learn..." in the trailer.

"Fight to the death for the truth, and the Lord God will fight for you."

-- Wisdom of Sirach, 4:28

Vincent (Starry Starry Night) -- Don McLean

A Better Bible

I've recently switched to this, the Orthodox Bible, as my preferred study Bible. I still love the King James and prefer its wording in most places, especially for liturgical and devotional purposes. But I have come across some very interesting (to me, at least) knowledge which convinced me that this, the canon of the Scriptures which has been continuously in use since the time of the Fathers, is the authoritative version. Or, to be more precise, the texts which underlie it are the authoritative version.

When the Church of England under King James I set about to translate the Scriptures into English so that they would be accessible to everyone, they decided not to use the Roman Catholic Vulgate, partially because of their anti-Catholic sentiments and partially for valid questions of textual reliability. For the New Testament, they went to the Eastern Orthodox and used the textus receptus, or received text in Greek, meaning that version which had been passed down directly from generation to generation of the church, in the language in which it was originally written. Among other reasons, this was seen as the preferred text because they believed that God had preserved it, providentially and through the agency of the Orthodox Churches, intact without error.

But for the Old Testament, rather than using the Orthodox (also called the Byzantine) text, following the same logic as they had with the New, they thought it would be a better idea to go to the Hebrew version still in use by the Jews. On the surface, this seems valid. But there is a problem.

Very early in the Christian period, that is, in the early part of the 100s AD, the Church Father Justin Martyr set about collecting as many manuscripts as he could find of the Scriptures, and comparing them. He collected both the Greek translation of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint, and the Hebrew version then in use in non-Christian Jewish synagogues. And what he found was that, during the years between the Resurrection of Christ and his own time, about a century later, there had been a widespread and systematic alteration of both the canon and the text of the Old Testament by the Jewish rabbis, all very clearly focused on eliminating or obscuring anything that could be pointed to as Messianic prophecy which had been fulfilled in Jesus. He reports stories and rumors that all copies of any older versions, either Greek or Hebrew, in possession of the Jews had been intentionally burned.

It is very important to note that the Septuagint was NOT a Christian translation of the Old Testament: it was 100% Jewish, made about two centuries before Christ by seventy learned Jewish Rabbis. The history of its origin is that Ptolemy, king of Egypt, wanted the Hebrew Scriptures for his library at Alexandria, but they only existed in Hebrew, which only the Jews could read. So he commissioned these seventy orthodox Jewish scholars who knew both Hebrew and Greek, to come to Alexandria, isolated each of them in a hut or cell in the desert with a copy of the Torah, without any contact with the other sixty-nine, and told them to translate. When they were done, all seventy translations matched each other exactly, word for word.

This Greek translation, the Septuagint (meaning "seventy," for the scholars) was the one from which Jesus and the Apostles quoted in the New Testament, and was the one in common use among all Jewish synagogues throughout the Greek-speaking world, roughly the entire former empire of Alexander the Great, at the time of Jesus. It was also the canonical version of the Old Testament for the early church, and the one from which all the Church Fathers quoted. But, as previously stated, it had been rapidly supplanted in the decades after Christ in Jewish communities throughout the world. And it was on that second and later version of the Jewish canon that the Hebrew Old Testament (known as the Masoretic text) which the Reformers reverted to in the 15th and 16th centuries was based. The oldest copy in existence of that Masoretic text is from about the 10th century AD. Whereas the oldest complete manuscript of the Septuagint dates to the 4th century AD, and there are partial manuscripts as old as the 1st century BC. 

Now, all that said, there has been an ongoing debate for centuries about which is actually the correct and more reliable version of the Old Testament and, to be fair, valid arguments can be made on both sides. Most scholars between the Reformation and the 20th century held a general assumption that the Septuagint was textually inferior, and had been corrupted through the ages, despite its greater antiquity, whereas the Masoretic had been very carefully preserved by the very reverent Jewish rabbis: as evidence of this they cited that all the copies of the Masoretic version were virtually identical, across time and space. That was, however, before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Because when the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were hidden in that cave around the time of Christ, were compared to the two competing versions of the Old Testament, it was found that they matched the Septuagint and not the Masoretic, in places where they differed. Furthermore, they confirmed that the Septuagint had been based on an older (presumably the original) Hebrew version, just as the tradition had reported--portions of that version were found intact among the scrolls.

What that means, to me at least, is that Justin and the other Fathers were probably correct: the Hebrew text in use among Jewish communities probably was intentionally changed to try and refute the claims of Jesus's followers that he was the Messiah. And that, therefore, the original, correct, and authoritative version of the Old Testament is the Septuagint, as the Orthodox have said all along, just as the original, correct, and authoritative version of the New Testament is the Byzantine, or Received Text. 

For instance: where Isaiah reads "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel," the Masoretic text changes it to "Behold, a young woman shall conceive." Which really doesn't even make any sense: how is that a sign from the Lord himself? There's nothing miraculous in a young woman conceiving through the usual means.

But that leads to another important point, and one which bears directly on what I believe about the authority of Scripture. Perhaps you're saying to yourself, "Wait...doesn't the King James say virgin?" Yes, it does. That's because the translators, as have every group of translators since, took the various texts, Septuagint included, and selected the reading which they thought best at the time of translation. Do you see the problem there? Or problems, actually. The first being, that whoever is doing the selecting and translating is going to be informed by his own theological assumptions and prejudices. In fact, this actually was an issue during the Reformation: this is one of the main reasons the Reformers decided to leave the Apocrypha out of the Bible. And Martin Luther wanted to go further: there were certain books even of the New Testament that he wanted to eliminate, because they weakened his arguments for his new theology. You can still see this in traditional German Bibles today (the Martin Luther Ubersetzung is the German equivalent of the English King James) those books Luther wanted left out are grouped at the back of the New Testament, rather than in their traditional place.

Secondly is this: Either the Scriptures are divinely-inspired and authoritative, or they are not. If they are not, then they are no more reliable and important than any other ancient book of wisdom, say The Theogeny, The Avestas, or the I Ching. And as such, they are and should be subject to rational critical examination and analysis. But if they are divinely inspired and authoritative, then they are above all human criticism. In other words, if they are the Words of God, then we must judge ourselves right or wrong by them, and not them by our own judgment. And one would assume, that if God took all the care to give us the Scriptures, that he would take equal care to preserve them, and not let them be corrupted. Men, of course, have free will, and obviously corrupted versions do exist. But a loving, involved God would make sure that somewhere, there is always the true version available for those who wish to find it. And that is exactly what he has apparently done.

No Man Knows the Day or the Hour

I keep seeing things like "World End 100% April 13 2016!" I wonder that people have even yet not learned their lesson from all the previous date-setters who have failed and turned out to be false prophets.

And I wonder even more, that since all these people claim to be not only Christians, but to believe in the authority and inerrancy of the Bible (it is on this that they base their faith in the biblical prophecies which predict The End), that they continue to ignore what Jesus himself said about it:

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." -- Matt. 24:36

"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." -- Mark 13:32

"Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not." -- Luke 12:40

I believe in Bible prophecy. I believe in the literal end of the age, the literal, physical return of Christ, his kingdom on earth, and all of it. And I suspect that we probably are living in or very near the end of days. But let me go on record, absolutely and unequivocally, that anyone who claims to know the date is wrong. 100%. No matter how you calculate it, how you justify it, what arguments and evidences you use from scripture or otherwise, you are wrong. Not only materially wrong, in that you are in error, but morally wrong, in that you are attempting to discover by human reason what God has hidden by divine wisdom. I've been saying it since the very first time I heard one of these theories, back in 1988, and I say it again now: NO MAN KNOWS THE DAY OR THE HOUR. Period.

Oh, My...

"Unfortunately, for most Evangelicals today, their Trinity is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Bible." -- R.T. Kendall

I would add that, for most Catholics, (including Anglicans and Orthodox), their Trinity is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Church.

Christians are divided more or less into three general groups: 1) those who are catholic, liturgical, and sacramental, and who believe that the most important thing is The Church, and that salvation, truth, and blessing in this life comes through it; and they are right. 2) those who are evangelical and biblical, who believe that the most important thing is to read and know the Bible, to believe correctly, and to be born again, trusting in Jesus as Lord and Saviour; and they, too, are right. 3) those who are charismatic, and Spirit-filled, and who believe that the most important thing is to have an active, dynamic relationship with the Holy Spirit, and to be filled with his power. They, also, are exactly right.

The problem is that the three groups are enemies of each other, and spend most of their time attacking one another from their entrenched positions. You hear it all the time, in all three types of churches. Evangelicals bashing Catholics. Catholics scorning Evangelicals. Both groups sneering derisively at Charismatics. Charismatics acting like the others aren't even really Christians. "Oh, that's just emotionalism." "That's just dead religion." "Those people go to church, but they're not really saved." It goes on and on.

What I want is all three. What I say is, what would happen if all of us took seriously some of the most very basic lessons of what we say we believe, and began to practice love and humility instead of pride and judgement? What if we actually learned from each other, and shared with the others what we've got? What if we started to walk in the power and truth of all three?