Who was Cain's wife?

[Oreslag]

The literal possibilities for Cain are unattractive by our sensibilities, but they are:

• One or more of his sisters, from among the daughters of Eve and Adam.
  
  His Niece, the daughter of his brother (which would almost have to be Abel's daughter, unlikely though, as Cain almost certainly married and procreated prior to Abel, if Abel did at all, something all the texts suggest he didn't do).
  
  Another wife (or incestuous consort) of Adam, which would have to had been taken from Adam's own daughters or granddaughters. Extremely unlikely, but possible.
  
  His own daughter/sister and later wife, a result of a union between himself and his mother Eve. Again, possible, but very unlikely.

As detailed in the earlier posts in the thread, many believe these are not the only possibilities consistent with scripture. Thus, it is not that scripture is being thrown out as reliable, but that the interpretation thereof is being questioned. The Greek text stuff was mostly a tangent that formed over scriptural interpretation.

 

[FollowingHim]

Follow the link and you'll see a list of the Greek texts of Acts. Count the ones that include the word "blood"; you'll see that this is the most common variant. Look at the other variants; you'll see that none of them are rendered "and he made of one man every nation of mankind" in the Greek. Yet, this is how many English translations have chosen to render it (i.e. adding the emboldened "man" in their English translation).

Perhaps you are correct in that no one translates the word "blood" as the word "man", but I find this very unlikely because it is highly doubtful that the scholars on various translation committees are unaware that all these texts exist. Thus, whereas they include the word "man" in an English translation where the Greek renders it either "and from one" or "and from one blood", they must have assumed "one" meant "one man" or that "blood" meant "man". Either way, they are no longer translating at that point, but rather are interpreting; which is my point.

Most modern translations are made not on a majority text basis, but rather from a subset of texts that the compilers believed were most likely to be the "original". This logic is certainly questionable, but the Greek bible I was using that does not include the word blood is a compilation put together by the United Bible Societies specifically for the use of translators... It includes the word blood as an alternative reading in a footnote, because of its prevalence. Most translators will take the term "out of one", ignore the word "blood" as they don't think it's in the original (rightly or wrongly) and say "one what? Well, we know he made one man (Adam), so this must mean 'out of one man' ". And this is an interpretation, not a direct translation, and I actually agree with your criticism of it. I'm just as concerned about detail as you though, so we butt heads over tiny little things.

 

[FollowingHim]

Hugh, fully agree. Remember that Adam and Eve probably had a lot more sons than just Cain, Abel and Seth, just as they had daughters that are not named. So Cain probably had quite a few sisters to choose from, and potentially hundreds of nieces.

 

[FollowingHim]

Evolutionist do believe that death creates better generations, by excluding some from breeding through death.

Nonsense, evolution has no such stake, since the biological imperative is to breed, death is destructive unless one has reached that aim. Good genes can die just as easily as bad genes, therefore biological imperative means to live to breed. Early death hinders that so your post makes very little sense from an evolutionary viewpoint.

Bels, natural selection only works through the survival (and therefore breeding) of the fittest, and the death (and failure to breed) of the unfit. Death is an essential part of the process. Biological imperative is to live to breed, but not all are able to perform their biological imperative. (Note that I am not supporting evolutionary theory as a whole, just explaining how the real process of natural selection, which is a component of evolutionary theory, works.)

 

[Oreslag]

Most translators will take the term "out of one", ignore the word "blood" as they don't think it's in the original (rightly or wrongly) and say "one what? Well, we know he made one man (Adam), so this must mean 'out of one man' ". And this is an interpretation, not a direct translation, and I actually agree with your criticism of it. I'm just as concerned about detail as you, so we butt heads over tiny little things.

Indeed, we agree .

Actually, the texts that exclude "blood" also support Noah as the one man as well since all men on earth have both these in common as ancestors (i.e. tossing aside any consideration of blood/bloodshed whatsoever). Taken in context (i.e. Paul addressing the Areopagus), it is not unreasonable to conclude that "and he caused from out of one every nation of men to dwell upon all the face of the earth" (a legitimate reading) is Paul declaring for God to all his contemporaries that all men come from God through one (unnamed) man. Thus, whether "one" refers to Adam or Noah is speculative to some extent, but it is pretty clear from scripture that there are only two potential choices; Adam or Noah.

P.S. I don't consider this butting heads over tiny things, but rather clarifying understanding of the thing that matters most .

 

[FollowingHim]

It could just as easily be translated "out of one race he created all races", if you take "out of one" to mean "one of whatever we are discussing at the moment". The word translated "nation" is actually "ethnos", which refers to ethnicity.

I think debating this verse is a rather pointless distraction from the question of who was Cain's wife!

 

[Oreslag]

It could just as easily be translated "out of one race he created all races", if you take "out of one" to mean "one of whatever we are discussing at the moment". The word translated "nation" is actually "ethnos", which refers to ethnicity.

I think debating this verse is a rather pointless distraction from the question of who was Cain's wife!

Indeed on both accounts. However, God made me (or perhaps I damaged myself) with OCD so my threshold for 'quitting time' in debate is rather different from most others'. I've also recently learned that though my OCD is very beneficial in the particular work that I do, it can be more harmful in other aspects of my life than I had previously realized. Obviously, this is a distracting tangent as well...see what I mean!

 

[FollowingHim]

:lol: Well, I keep responding, so maybe I'm somewhere on the spectrum myself!

 

[Hugh McBryde]

As detailed in the earlier posts in the thread, many believe these are not the only possibilities consistent with scripture. Thus, it is not that scripture is being thrown out as reliable, but that the interpretation thereof is being questioned. The Greek text stuff was mostly a tangent that formed over scriptural interpretation."

So are we to believe that Christ "Progressively revealed/interpreted" Genesis 2:24 by "deliberately quoting" the LXX Septuagint in Matthew 19? For this is what "traditional marriage" Christians often resort to in an effort to get us to believe in a monogamy only doctrine.

There is no Greek argument about what is said in Genesis. Genesis is written in Hebrew by the prophet of whose like there is no other, except Christ. Nuances of the Greek do not create another race and have the dangerous side effect of washing away "original sin," a doctrine foundational to the necessity of Christ. Must I remind you that Christ said "no man is good" In response to being called "Good Teacher?" That through Adam all men fell and through him sin entered the world?

These opinions are fine as an honest starting point for inquiry but they wash up on the rocks of the original language and first mention of the origins of mankind. They undermine the fundamental doctrines of Christianity and perhaps make us possible saviors of ourselves by keeping the whole law as Christ did. The Greek is subordinate in meaning to the Hebrew. It may reveal nuances that if supported elsewhere in scripture might be worth looking into. It's interesting to note that the ESV translates the Queen of Sheba's praise of Solomon in the following way because it's supported by the LXX Septuagint:

Happy are your wives! Happy are these your servants, who continually stand before you and hear your wisdom!"

It does so when no other translation into English does. I often use it as a counter to those who would promote the supposed usage of the LXX by Christ as some sort of argument against plural marriage.

 

[sola scriptura]

We have two basic choices to answer the original question, Who Was Cain's Wife:

Choice 1: Cain married one of his female relatives. This is entirely plausible and possible. Nothing in scripture speaks against it and it makes perfect sense. We don't have to add anything or take anything away from scripture to support this theory. The issue of incest is moot because it was not forbidden until thousands of years later.

Choice 2: Cain married a person (half-person, mud person, whatever) from some unknown source that might have been created on the 8th day, might have been on earth already, might not actually be a "real" person, might not have a soul, etc. As you can see, this choice is fraught with a ridiculous amount of speculation and extra-biblical information. This line of reasoning is used by certain groups to perpetuate hateful behavior towards those they deem "of Cain's race", freeing them up from having to treat these half-people as lesser than themselves. Using any of the above theories also drastically alters the plan of Salvation and how we interact with our Lord, as Hugh so eloquently pointed out.

The choice looks quite easy to me.

 

[Oreslag]

There is no Greek argument about what is said in Genesis. Genesis is written in Hebrew by the prophet of whose like there is no other, except Christ. Nuances of the Greek do not create another race and have the dangerous side effect of washing away "original sin," a doctrine foundational to the necessity of Christ. Must I remind you that Christ said "no man is good" In response to being called "Good Teacher?" That through Adam all men fell and through him sin entered the world?

Sorry, I didn't follow your point(s) on the rest of your post, so I'll only respond to the quoted paragraph.

The oldest Hebrew copy of the old testament (Masoretic Text) we have is a thousand years younger than the Greek counterpart (LXX). Any texts written by Moses (if that is to whom you are referring) were lost; likely quite long ago. Thus, the LXX is by far the oldest copy of the old testament we have available. In addition, comparison of the Masoretic Text to the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran reveals some significant differences. Thus, the oldest complete Hebrew copy we have available is not the same as the Hebrew copies available at the time the LXX was made.

How does the Greek wash away original sin?

 

[Oreslag]

We have two basic choices to answer the original question, Who Was Cain's Wife:

Choice 1: Cain married one of his female relatives. This is entirely plausible and possible. Nothing in scripture speaks against it and it makes perfect sense. We don't have to add anything or take anything away from scripture to support this theory. The issue of incest is moot because it was not forbidden until thousands of years later.

Choice 2: Cain married a person (half-person, mud person, whatever) from some unknown source that might have been created on the 8th day, might have been on earth already, might not actually be a "real" person, might not have a soul, etc. As you can see, this choice is fraught with a ridiculous amount of speculation and extra-biblical information. This line of reasoning is used by certain groups to perpetuate hateful behavior towards those they deem "of Cain's race", freeing them up from having to treat these half-people as lesser than themselves. Using any of the above theories also drastically alters the plan of Salvation and how we interact with our Lord, as Hugh so eloquently pointed out.

The choice looks quite easy to me.

Sure Choice 2 is speculative. However, so is Choice 1. While I agree that Choice 1 is entirely plausible and possible, so is Choice 2. So they both have in common that they are entirely plausible and possible. In addition, they both have in common that to conclude who Cain actually married you need to rely on extra-biblical information, because the bible does not say specifically who Cain married. Thus, to conclude that Cains wife belonged to Choice 1 or Choice 2 you must speculate; so the only answer to the topic of this thread that is consistent with scripture is "we don't know."

That being said, and regarding Choice 2 drastically altering the plan of salvation, how is that? God's plan of salvation applies to men originating with Adam. It does not apply to the "men of renown" who where the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men. Yet the bible clearly records that such beings were on the earth before the flood. Similarly it would not apply to any beings not descended from Adam.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

The point is the central doctrine in both the faith of the Hebrews (commonly called "Judiasm") and conservative orthodox Christianity. Sin comes from Adam, our father. You are born in sin as a result of your ultimate progenator falling into sin. All his children are created with a sin nature. No man can please God through works. Grace must suffice for us. Grace comes through the active intervention of Christ who performs and fulfills the law both in his performance of it and then his acceptance (unmerited) of it's penalty.

We achieve salvation through Christ. If there are other peoples, this doctrine is called into question. We do not have an understanding of "those people" and their origins.

Despite it's geological age, the very fact that the LXX is a translation is a nod to the fact that it is not the original. If you're going to call into question the bona fides of the Hebrew and subordinate it to the Greek, then you're at the doorway of preaching a different Gospel. I would remind you that the Jews of the time only accepted preaching in "their tongue" when in "their country."

As Paul was about to be brought into the barracks, he said to the tribune, 'May I say something to you?' And he said, 'Do you know Greek? Are you not the Egyptian, then, who recently stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand men of the Assassins out into the wilderness?' Paul replied, 'I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no obscure city. I beg you, permit me to speak to the people.' And when he had given him permission, Paul, standing on the steps, motioned with his hand to the people. And when there was a great hush, he addressed them in the Hebrew language, saying: 'Brothers and fathers, hear the defense that I now make before you.' And when they heard that he was addressing them in the Hebrew language, they became even more quiet."

Previously Paul had been vilified in this way:

Men of Israel, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against the people and the law and this place. Moreover, he even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place."

Had he preached in Greek in Jerusalem to the Jews, he likely would have caused a larger uncontrolled riot. Paul also states of the Israelites:

(T)he Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God."

He does not say the Greeks were.

 

[Oreslag]

Despite it's geological age, the very fact that the LXX is a translation is a nod to the fact that it is not the original. If you're going to call into question the bona fides of the Hebrew and subordinate it to the Greek, then you're at the doorway of preaching a different Gospel. I would remind you that the Jews of the time only accepted preaching in "their tongue" when in "their country."

As Paul was about to be brought into the barracks, he said to the tribune, 'May I say something to you?' And he said, 'Do you know Greek? Are you not the Egyptian, then, who recently stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand men of the Assassins out into the wilderness?' Paul replied, 'I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no obscure city. I beg you, permit me to speak to the people.' And when he had given him permission, Paul, standing on the steps, motioned with his hand to the people. And when there was a great hush, he addressed them in the Hebrew language, saying: 'Brothers and fathers, hear the defense that I now make before you.' And when they heard that he was addressing them in the Hebrew language, they became even more quiet."

Previously Paul had been vilified in this way:

Men of Israel, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against the people and the law and this place. Moreover, he even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place."

Had he preached in Greek in Jerusalem to the Jews, he likely would have caused a larger uncontrolled riot. Paul also states of the Israelites:

(T)he Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God."

He does not say the Greeks were.

Yes, I understand the central doctrines you speak of. I simply did not understand their pertinence to the ongoing discussion. Thus I was, and remain, confused regarding how those portions of your post relate to who Cain's wife was, or how it might relate to one of the other tangents we took along the way.

In any case, though Paul was a Jew, indeed a Pharisee, he routinely quoted the LXX as scripture. The early Christian church used the LXX. The Eastern Orthodox church clearly considers it divinely inspired and continues to use it as the primary source for translation. The LXX was translated by Jewish scholars who knew the Hebrew scriptures and the Koine Greek language. Thus, the Jews continued to be entrusted with the oracles of God even though they were writing them in Greek. The LXX was translated from the Hebrew about two centuries before Christ.

About two centuries after Christ, Irenaeus criticizes Jewish interpretations of the Hebrew text that deny the deity of Christ. In particular, Isaiah 7:14 in the LXX prophesies a "virgin" birth, but the Jews of his time declare that the Hebrew text does not indicate a virgin birth. Jews use the Hebrew text to claim that Joseph was Jesus' biological father. Irenaeus apparently believed that the Jews who originally translated the LXX two centuries before Christ got it right, and that Judaism had simply changed their interpretation of the Hebrew word "almah" to make it convenient to reject Jesus as the Messiah.

According to the Jews entrusted with the oracles of God and their present expertise with the Hebrew language, their text does not prophesy of Jesus' divine conception. Thus, it seems that the Hebrew text is preaching a different gospel than that of the Christ. But according to the LXX authored in Greek by Jews two centuries before Christ's birth, God was His father. If you believe in the virgin birth then it seems you believe the LXX translation/interpretation and not the Hebrew. Early Christians, including the apostles, clearly had confidence in the divine inspiration of the LXX.

All things considered, I think I have very good reason for confidence in the LXX too.

 

[FollowingHim]

Our Greek discussion earlier was around a New Testament verse, not sure how this got onto the LXX, way off topic! Worth discussing in another thread if you like.

Back to Cain's wife:

Sure Choice 2 is speculative. However, so is Choice 1. While I agree that Choice 1 is entirely plausible and possible, so is Choice 2. So they both have in common that they are entirely plausible and possible. In addition, they both have in common that to conclude who Cain actually married you need to rely on extra-biblical information, because the bible does not say specifically who Cain married. Thus, to conclude that Cains wife belonged to Choice 1 or Choice 2 you must speculate; so the only answer to the topic of this thread that is consistent with scripture is "we don't know."

Ocham's razor applies here: The simplest explanation that fits the available facts is most likely to be correct. In this case:
- Choice 1 is not stated directly, but works with the addition of no extra people than those mentioned in scripture, and fits all other doctrine very neatly as well.
- Choice 2 only works with the addition of a load of speculative ideas about other races etc.
So although technically neither is directly stated, one is a whole lot more likely.

With no outside influences, reading only the text and taking it at face value with "the faith of a little child", the vast majority of readers would simply presume choice 1. This is major evidence for it. The Bible is written not for scholars, but for laypeople.

Sir Francis Bacon said "A little philosophy inclineth man's heart to atheism, but depth in philosophy inclineth man's heart to God". The same goes for scriptural interpretation. Someone starts with a simple understanding of the story. Then they get a little knowledge about the text, original languages, alternative meanings of words - and suddenly see a pile of different possibilities that the Bible could mean that are different, often opposite, to the plain meaning of the language when they read it the first time. They can give up at this point. But if they go on to study the relevant passages in great depth, and come to understand what the text actually means when you work out what each word actually means in that particular context, the actual meaning generally comes back to what they first believed.

I see this most commonly in the creation account. A child reads Genesis 1 and thinks "God made the world in a week". An adult starts looking into the text and thinks "hang on, day could mean a long period of time, maybe this is just a weird way of describing evolution". A knowledgeable scholar looks deeply into the text and concludes "Actually, this says God made the world in a week" - they might not believe it, they might decide it's just a figurative story or whatever, but the reality is that in context the text means one thing only.

The same goes for Cain's wife. A child reads this and thinks "Cain must have married his sister". An adult looks into the text with the presuppositions they have accumulated through their schooling (ape-men etc) and finds apparent loopholes to fit in all sorts of wild theories. And you really can fit whatever you like into scripture if you want to, I mean people manage to justify even monogamy using scripture well enough to convince the majority of the church, and some justify homosexuality using it also... But a detailed study brings it back to "Cain must have married his sister, or maybe his niece etc".

 

[Hugh McBryde]

Our Greek discussion earlier was around a New Testament verse, not sure how this got onto the LXX, way off topic! Worth discussing in another thread if you like."

More or less my point was to cut to the chase, and that was Oreslag has been on that subject for quite a while.

I understand the central doctrines you speak of. I simply did not understand their pertinence to the ongoing discussion."

It is thus clear to me, that you do not understand the central doctrines.

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned, for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men."

Anyone coming from any other source other than Adam or Eve is not subject to this passage, nor can they be saved through Christ, who is a Son of Adam as well as a Son of God as well as the seed of the woman. Christ's line is traced right back to God through Adam. His paternal heritage is dual, being reckoned through Joseph and all the way back as John says here:

(T)he son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."

Consider yourself confused no longer. The origins of all men and women go back to Adam and Eve and sin originates with them. This is a theological necessity as told to us by the scriptures. Therefore if your inquiries lead to a different seed wedded to Cain, we have real problems.

At this point I wouldn't say that you are wrong in your tentative conclusions or investigations, but your inquiries run contrary to Christianity. Well and good too, as far as it goes, but we then have no salvation in Christ and must seek answers elsewhere. Scripture lies to us and is thus no scripture at all.

According to the Jews entrusted with the oracles of God and their present expertise with the Hebrew language, their text does not prophesy of Jesus' divine conception."

They were entrusted with keeping them, and according to Paul, did so.

That's all.

Not getting it right when it comes to what they mean regarding prophecy as yet unfulfilled or Messiah or prophecy fulfilled is unremarkable and again addressed by Paul:

For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools..."

I too have read the Hebrew and have pointed out within several hours of this posting, here in this forum, that the Hebrew concept of woman and girl are very different than ours. The Jews in your example were simply appealing to the foolishness of their audience, much as they tried to cast Jesus a Nazarene, knowing full well his genealogy made him a prince.

All things considered, I think I have very good reason for confidence in the LXX too."

But you venerate it inappropriately just as some "KJV Only-ists" venerate the King James. It was NOT inspired, it was TRANSLATED. Clearly it is regarded as a reliable translation based on who used it, among them being Luke, Paul and Matthew. If however, the LXX presents a shade of meaning that is possible based on word usage (for which there was no dictionary at that time) and that meaning is shot down in the Hebrew and by other doctrines presented clearly in scripture, you must loosen your grip on that meaning, or confess you are no believer. That's the long and short of it.

The same goes for Cain's wife. A child reads this and thinks 'Cain must have married his sister'. An adult looks into the text with the presuppositions they have accumulated through their schooling (ape-men etc) and finds apparent loopholes to fit in all sorts of wild theories. And you really can fit whatever you like into scripture if you want to, I mean people manage to justify even monogamy using scripture well enough to convince the majority of the church, and some justify homosexuality using it also... But a detailed study brings it back to 'Cain must have married his sister, or maybe his niece etc'.

I agree that it leaves us with someone marrying their sister, unless we want to go back to the cesspool of Adam having one of his own daughters, something the Law condemned as fundamental basic heart level corruption and Paul characterized as so evil that even the Gentiles without the law, knew it was wrong.

 

[Oreslag]

Ocham's razor applies here: The simplest explanation that fits the available facts is most likely to be correct. In this case:
- Choice 1 is not stated directly, but works with the addition of no extra people than those mentioned in scripture, and fits all other doctrine very neatly as well.
- Choice 2 only works with the addition of a load of speculative ideas about other races etc.
So although technically neither is directly stated, one is a whole lot more likely.

But even before Ocham's razor, Deuteronomy 4:2 applies: "You shall not add to the saying which I give charge to you, and you shall not remove from it."

Thus, we first need acknowledge that the bible does not identify who Cain took for a wife.

We second need to be sure we never make the false claim that "God says" Choice 1 or Choice 2, for He did not; if you believe Choice 1 or Choice 2, you did so through inference based upon assumptions God did not declare.

And last we need to accept that personal belief in Choice 1 or Choice 2 should have nothing to do with whether or not you believe a brother or sister is in Christ.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

Oreslag, it does identify her, by process of elimination. It was a member of Adam's line of descendants. Clinging to an insistence that Cain COULD have married some nebulous other person not of Adam's line is a denial of scripture and an undermining of the basic tenets of Judaism and it's successor, Christianity.

Choose this day whom you will serve, but you do not serve the LORD with this insistence of even the possibility of some other race.

It's not Eve whom he takes, his mother.

It's a descendant of Adam and Eve whom he takes, the only speculative part is the slim possibility that she was not his sister.

Top persist in this is to begin to preach "another Gospel."

 

[Oreslag]

It is thus clear to me, that you do not understand the central doctrines.

This is enormously presumptive on your part. I seriously doubt that you know whether or not I understand the central doctrines. Our God knows, perhaps I know (or perhaps not), but I sincerely doubt that you know.

Anyone coming from any other source other than Adam or Eve is not subject to this passage, nor can they be saved through Christ, who is a Son of Adam as well as a Son of God as well as the seed of the woman. Christ's line is traced right back to God through Adam. His paternal heritage is dual, being reckoned through Joseph and all the way back as John says here:

(T)he son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."

Consider yourself confused no longer. The origins of all men and women go back to Adam and Eve and sin originates with them. This is a theological necessity as told to us by the scriptures. Therefore if your inquiries lead to a different seed wedded to Cain, we have real problems.

I never considered myself confused about this in the first place, and I still do not believe that I'm confused. The only theological necessity is that all men whom God chose are saved through Christ. The remaining men reliably reject God and suffer the same end as the evil one, the fallen angels, the sons of God who procreated with the daughters of men, and all the progeny of all the aforementioned potential combinations. Scripture is pretty clear that men are not God's only enemy.

At this point I wouldn't say that you are wrong in your tentative conclusions or investigations, but your inquiries run contrary to Christianity.

No, my conclusions are as specified in a number of other places on this thread: (1) scripture does not reveal who Cain married, (2) to conclude otherwise is to claim you know what God meant regarding something He did not declare, (3) if you find yourself making such a claim to others and "selling" this opinion as God's truth, you're claiming the office of prophet, (4) if you claim the office of prophet, you better be certain that a "false-" prefix is not appropriate for the title you've claimed.

But you venerate it inappropriately just as some "KJV Only-ists" venerate the King James. It was NOT inspired, it was TRANSLATED. Clearly it is regarded as a reliable translation based on who used it, among them being Luke, Paul and Matthew. If however, the LXX presents a shade of meaning that is possible based on word usage (for which there was no dictionary at that time) and that meaning is shot down in the Hebrew and by other doctrines presented clearly in scripture, you must loosen your grip on that meaning, or confess you are no believer. That's the long and short of it.

As I said previously, the original Hebrew texts are not available and fragments of the oldest Hebrew texts available disagree with the commonly accepted Hebrew text of the Masoretes in use today. Thus, we don't have the original inspired Word.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

Paul declares the scriptures were preserved. Thus they were. If they were not, Paul lies or is deceived. In either of those two cases are the truth then his recommendation comes into play, that we "eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow, we die."