The Saul/Paul Controversy, Part 2

By Pastor Eli James

Friends in Yahshua Messiah (Jesus Christ): 

This is Part 2 of my ongoing series on the writings of Paul in the New Testament.  Sorry to say that Part 1 caused four anti-Paulists to ask to be removed from my email list, even though all I did was point out that the KJV language with regard to Paul is very poorly translated.  The Moffat translation handles Paul with much greater dexterity and makes nonsensical passages clear.  In addition, numerous scholars have pointed out that the KJV's archaic language is a detriment to understanding, not a help; so, those people who claim that the KJV is the "inerrant word of God" are claiming something that these translators never claimed for themselves.  My position is this:  The original writings are inspired, the translations are not.  That's why we have to study Scripture with Concordances (when lacking knowledge of Greek and Hebrew) and determine the exact meanings of the words.  Also, we have to be familiar with the vernacular and idioms of the time in order to avoid translating literally passages that were not meant literally. A good example of this is the passage where Lot's wife is turned into "a pillar of salt."  Today, in the Middle East where Aramaic is still spoken, that phrase is still used as an expression to mean "petrified with fear."  You should at least be aware of the idiomatic meaning before you assume that a literal interpretation is the only one.

My position with regard to the translations of Paul is this:  I refuse to judge Paul on the basis of other people's translations of his work!  How would you like it if someone took your poetry, translated it into another language and added a lot of obscenities without your knowledge?  The people who read your work in this other language will assume that you are an obscene person.  We have to reserve judgment until various translations are consulted.  Hence, we cannot judge Paul on the basis of the KJV.  If this is an outrageous suggestion on my part, then please ask to be removed from my email list.  On the other hand, if you want to follow along with my reconstruction of Scripture based on the best translations, then please give me some encouragement!

Here follows the comments of Pastor VS Herrell with regard to the KJV.  His comments prove that the Massoretic Text, upon which the KJV was based, is a corrupted revision of the OT.  Yahsua and His Apostles used the Septuagint, the original scrolls, and the Aramaic Targums for their references back to the OT.    The authenticity of the Septuagint was proven by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which almost invariably agree with the Septuagint against the Massoretic Text.

My purpose here is to demonstrate that you cannot rely on the KJV alone for critical analysis of Scripture.  It has been corrupted by two schools: the Massoretes who corrupted the OT and the Marcionites who corrputed the NT to make the language sound more universal in application rather than the exclusivist message that is contained in both the OT and NT.  

The question for believers is "How do we sort through all of this corruption to come to a proper understanding of Scripture?"  The answer is that the corruption was systematic.  Once we understand how these two groups went about their distortions and their purposes, it is easy to reconstruct Scripture to its proper meaning.  The Jews have redefined words to suit themselves and they have made up words, like "Gentile," to imply that "gentiles" are non-Jews, when, in reality, the Jews are not even the subject of the Bible.  The subject of the Bible is God's people, Israel, and the Jews are NOT Israel.  They are impostors and charlatans!   Of course, this awareness has involved 25 years of study on my part.  I don't expect everyone to agree with my analyses.  You should be aware that there have always been groups that have a vested interest in distorting Scripture for their own purposes.  It is also a fulfillment of the prophecy that the Father would send us "strong delusion" for our failure to respect His Law.

Pastor Eli

Here follow the comments of VS Herrell:

1. The KJV was constructed between 1607 and 1611 and it is filled not only with archaic speech but with the poetic narrative of the Elizabethan age. In other words it was not only hard to understand to the man of its day, but all the more difficult nearly four hundred years later, on a different continent, by an entirely different culture, etc. Entire catalogues of archaic words have been constructed for the reader of the KJV and still none do justice to the passe reading of the KJV.

2. Even disregarding the obsolete language of the KJV and the corrupted nature of its manuscript basis, still it is widely held by mainstream scholars that the KJV contains over 20,000 mistakes [as explained in the introductory pages of the Emphatic Diaglott]. Add to these mistakes those errors that mainstream scholars do not recognize, plus the manuscript problems and the difficulty of its archaic language, and then we see the error count for the KJV climb much higher" (V. S. Herrell, The Anointed Standard Translation of the Bible, p. 5-6, Herrell Bros. Publishing House). The common assumption is that all is well, that the Bible would not be in today's format if God did not approve of it. Hence, it would appear that we are not to see any error in it, or additions and deletions or human interjection. . . Well that is only partly true . . . because the Bible that we promote today, is NOT the Bible of Jesus' time. It has been changed and modified beginning in the early Centuries after Christ by, guess who? Of course, the Talmudists, always seeking avenues to distort and discourage Christianity. . . And here's how they did it! In the century or so before the first arrival of Jesus, a book was compiled from ancient Hebrew Scrolls and texts into a Greek language Bible called the Septuagint. . . the Old Testament. When Jesus came, he used the Septuagint as the basic Bible, and so did His disciples. . . Now, the text in Greek was international, as Greek, much like English today, was the international language. . . So, the Bible used and authenticated by Jesus and His disciples was the accepted and "approved" version of the Bible. Let me quote from someone who has researched this singular issue, Lloyd Palmer, who publishes the bi-monthly Christian Paper, called Straws in the Wind (P.O. Box.513, Albert Lea, MN. 56007, USA). In his May/June, 2000 issue here is what he extracted from a 12 page Document prepared by Russell Harris of The Gospel Broadcasting Association, titled, "Rightful Succession and Imposture: The Case of the Septuagint vs. the Masoretic Text".

The History of the Masoretic Text

"In the Sept-Oct. 99 edition of Straws in the Wind, I promised to expose the Masoretes who were Jews responsible for the Masoretic Manuscripts. These manuscripts were used by nearly all of the Translators of the Old Testament in compiling the English Bible. History, for the most part, portrayed the Masoretes as pious men of high integrity, having unfeigned and total devotion to accurate preservation of the Holy Writ, faithfully executing the duties of an office to which they were it's legitimate heir! In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. As previously mentioned, from its inception, the modern English Bible has been based on the Masoretic Text. That is, the Scriptures of the Old Covenant found in the modern English Bible have been translated directly from the Masoretic Text, with little or no consideration being given to the reading of the Septuagint or other manuscripts of Old Covenant Scripture. Although Christians frequently debate the faithfulness of the available English translations of Scripture, most are oblivious to a matter of far greater import, namely, the faithfulness of the Masoretic Text itself. The situation is due to the fact that Christians generally are ignorant of the history of the Masoretic Text.

1. Abandonment & Death.

Historians report that the Ancient Hebrew language had largely fallen into disuse by the time of the Incarnation. The Israelites carried off captive by Assyria circa 721BC were subsequently dispersed throughout the region later dominated by Greece and Rome. Consequently, those of the dispersion -- the Lost Sheep to whom Jesus states that He was sent (Matthew 15:24) generally spoke "koine." (An amalgam of Greek dialects that replaced classical Greek in the Greek and Roman periods of empire)". Brother Branham said, "The Bible is written in the regular street language. That's the reason the translators get mixed up on it so much. One says the Greek Word says this and the Hebrew Word says this. And they disagree on it, because they are trying to apply a different meaning. It was taught right in regular language like you and I use here, just a regular language" (Life Story, #54-0314). "The remnant of Judah left in Jerusalem after most of Judah, like Israel, was also taken by the Assyrians (II Kings 18:13) and who were later carried off captive to Babylon circa 586BC, also underwent a change in language. During the seventy years of captivity, the Babylonian empire was conquered by the Persian empire, and Aramaic became the common language of this remnant of Judah. Following the return of this remnant to Jerusalem and the re-building of the temple, the land once populated by the thirteen tribes of Israel repeatedly passed from one dominion to another until, nearly five centuries later, Judea became a Province of Rome. Although Latin was the official language of Rome, those of the remnant came to speak "koine," in addition to Aramaic. With the destruction of Jerusalem, again, in AD70, Ancient Hebrew became a dead language. The Levitical priesthood -- which, prior to the Crucifixion, had custodianship of the canon of Scripture -- had been invalidated more than forty years previously, upon the death of Christ Jesus. For the most part, the scribes and pharisees who might have kept the language alive, perished in the fall of Jerusalem. The early church had the Septuagint, recognizing it as the authoritative canon of Old Covenant Scripture. Consequently, those of the remnant of Judah, Benjamin and Levi who embraced Christianity no longer had a need for Hebrew.

2. Exhumation & Reanimation.

More than 500 years after the Crucifixion, unregenerate Jews, claiming to be successors of the scribes, began working to revive the defunct Ancient Hebrew language, and to breathe new life into the abandoned Ancient Hebrew manuscripts of Scripture. These Jews were known by the name, Masorete, also spelled Massorete. The name is derived from the Masoretic Hebrew verb "masar". which means to "transmit, to deliver something into the hand of another in the sense of committing the object into the other's trust". The activity of the Masoretes was originally centered at Babylonia and Tiberias. The activity continued until the 9th or 10th century A.D. and perhaps beyond. The eventual product of this activity was a manuscript of Old Covenant Scripture known today as the Masoretic Text.

3. Linguistic Transmogrification.

As is the case with any spoken language, Ancient Hebrew had both vowels and consonants. However, Ancient Hebrew vowels apparently had no written representation. It appears that the Ancient Hebrew alphabet consisted of 22 letters, all of which generally are regarded as consonants. Although not recorded in documents, vowels were well understood on the basis of context and tradition, being mentally inserted by the reader. This situation persisted throughout the active life of the Ancient Hebrew language -- a period of well over a thousand years. It is commonly supposed that the work of the Masoretes was limited to development of a system of annotation -- called "pointing" -- for indicating vowels, and annotation of the Ancient Hebrew manuscripts. The purpose of annotation, ostensibly, was to establish for posterity the correct pronunciation of each Ancient Hebrew word. Thus, it is generally believed that the Masoretic text is nothing more than the Ancient Hebrew text which has been "pointed", i.e., an Ancient Hebrew manuscript to which vowels have been added. However, it turns out that the undertaking involved alterations of a much more fundamental nature. Indeed, upon the rubble of Ancient Hebrew, the Masorete erected a significantly different language of much greater complexity -- a language which appears to have been created for the express purpose of facilitating wholesale alteration of the manuscripts of Old Covenant Scripture. The Masorete then translated the Ancient Hebrew manuscripts of Scripture into the new language, in the process, taking great liberties!

Adam Clarke, an 18th Century Anglican Scholar, makes it clear that the work of the Masoretes is, in reality, a commentary which has been integrated into the body of Scripture. However, Clarke points out that the Hebrew of the Masoretic Text (Masoretic Hebrew) is quite different from the Hebrew of the Patriarchs, (Ancient Hebrew) in which Old Covenant Scripture was originally written. In the General Preface of his commentary on the Scripture, published in 1810, Clarke write: "The Masorets were the most extensive Jewish commentators which that nation could ever boast. The system of punctuation, probably invented by them, is a continual gloss on the Law and the Prophets; their vowel points, and prosaic and metrical accents, &c., give every word to which they are affixed a peculiar kind of meaning, which in their simple state, multitudes of them can by no means bear. The vowel points alone add whole conjugations to the language. This system is one of the most artificial, particular, and extensive comments ever written on the Word of God; for there is not one word in the Bible that is not the subject of a particular gloss through its influence. This school is supposed to have commenced about 450 years before our Lord, and to have extended down to AD1030. Some think it did not commence before the 5th century A.D." Even without adding to, deleting from, or changing a single letter of the Ancient Hebrew manuscripts of Scripture, pointing gave the Masorete power to dramatically change the meaning of almost any given passage of Scripture, for the prerogative of selecting vowels, is, to a large extent, the prerogative of selecting words! As a crude example, consider how the meaning of an English sentence might be changed by substitution of the word "poor" for the word "pure" -- a substitution which may be effected by a simple change of vowels. Clarke appears to be one of the few commentators who have seen fully the significance of the Masoretic Text -- namely, that it is a new "version" of the Scripture, written in a new language. Obviously, Hebrew Scholars have been aware of this fact. They should have called attention to the difference between Ancient Hebrew and the language of the Masoretes, and should have differentiated the two, by use of names such as Ancient Hebrew and Masoretic Hebrew. However, the majority of Hebrew scholars are "Jewish", and thus cannot be expected to be objective and candid regarding such a matter.

4. Editorial Bias.

Textual critics long ago, established that there are numerous and significant differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text, one of them being that the text of the Septuagint is significantly longer than that of the Masoretic Text. Inasmuch as the Septuagint was translated directly from the Ancient Hebrew and subsequently was authenticated by Jesus and the apostles, and in view of the nature of the discrepancies, it appears that the Masoretes made substantial alterations in the Ancient Hebrew text, as well as omitting material which legitimately is part of the canon of Scripture. One of the first scholars to investigate the matter was Louis Cappel, a French Huguenot divine and scholar who lived from 1585 to 1658. Consider the following excerpt from the article, "CAPPEL, LOUIS," found in the 1948 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica

"As a Hebrew scholar, he concluded that the vowel points and accents were not an original part of Hebrew, but were inserted by the Masorete Jews of Tiberias, not earlier then the 5th Century A.D., and that the primitive Hebrew characters are Aramaic and were substituted for the more ancient at the time of the captivity. . . The various readings in the Old Testament Text and the differences between the ancient versions and the Massoretic Text convinced him that the integrity of the Hebrew text as held by Protestants, was untenable. This amounted to an attack upon the verbal inspiration of Scripture. Bitter, however, as was the opposition, it was not long before his results were accepted by scholars."

The Masoretic Text appears not merely to have been corrupted, but to have been purposely corrupted, as an attack upon the Christian Faith! Regarding this matter, consider the testimony of Adam Clarke. Clarke is commenting upon Hebrews 1:6: "And again, when He bringeth in the first-begotten into the world, He saith, And let all the angels of God worship Him." There has been some difficulty in ascertaining the place from which the apostle quotes these words; some suppose Psalm 97:7: "Worship him, all ye gods:" which the Septuagint translates thus: "proskunesate auto, pantes aggeloi auton," or in English, "Worship him, all ye His angels:" but it is not clear that the Messiah is intended in this Psalm, nor are the words precisely those used here by the apostle. Our marginal references send us with great propriety to the Septuagint version of Deuteronomy 32:43, where the passage is found verbatim et literatim; but there is nothing answering to the words in the present Hebrew text. The apostle undoubtedly quoted the Septuagint, which had then been for more than 300 years a version of the highest repute among the Jews [sic, Judahites, not Jews.  The Jews and Judahites are not the same people, nor did they have the same religion -- Eli]; and it is very probable that the copy from which the Seventy translated had the corresponding words. However, this may be, they are now sanctioned by Divine authority: and as the verse contains some singular additions, I will set it down in a parallel column with that of our own version, which was taken immediately from the Hebrew text, premising simply this: that it is the last verse of the famous prophetic song of Moses, which seems to point out the advent of the Messiah to discomfit his enemies, purify the land and redeem Israel [this is a reference to the people of Israel, not the Jews, who are impostors who assumed the identity of True Israel in order to thwart God's plan of national salvation for the REAL Chosen People, that Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Caucasian people-- eli] from all his iniquities.

Deuteronomy 32:43 -- from the Hebrew: ". . . Rejoice, O ye nations, with His people; . . . for He will avenge the blood of His servants: . . . and . . . will be merciful to His land and to His people."

Deuteronomy 32:43 -- from the Septuagint: "Rejoice, ye heaven, together with Him; and let all the angels of God worship him. Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with His people; and let the children of God be strengthened in Him; for He will avenge the blood of His children; He will avenge, and will repay judgment to His adversaries; and those who hate Him will he recompense: and the Lord will purge the land of His people." This is a very important verse, and to it, as it stands in the Septuagint, St. Paul has referred once before: (Romans 15:10).

This very verse, as it stands now in the Septuagint, thus referred to by an inspired writer, shows the great importance of this ancient version; and proves the necessity of its being studied and well understood by every minister of Christ.

In Romans 3, there is a large quotation form Psalm 14, where there are six whole verses in the apostle's quotation which are not found in the present Hebrew Text, but are preserved in the Septuagint! How strange it is that this venerable and important version, so often quoted by our Lord and all his apostles, should be so generally neglected, and so little known!" (This is the end of quoting from a 12 Page article by the Russell Harris, Gospel Broadcasting Association). Adam Clarke rightly pointed out that six verses in Psalm 14, found in the Septuagint, were omitted by the Masoretes. Clarke chose not to speculate why, but I will . . . The following are the six omitted verses. See if you can figure out why Masorete Jews would want to omit them:

"Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood: destruction and misery are in their ways: there is no fear of God before their eyes" (Psalm 14, Septuagint Bible, Brenton edition. pp. 704-705).

These verses should jog your memory, but if not, read Jesus' stunning accusations of the Pharisee Jews in Matthew 23. You'll discover why fifth century Jews who claimed descent from the Pharisees, would omit these verses in their Masoretic Text. These blatant examples should move the serious Christian to ask how many additional instances of deceitful editing are to be found within the Masoretic Text. . . " In his Introduction to the Anointed Standard Translation V. S. Herrell concurs:

3. Perhaps one of the most significant problems with the KJV lies in the manuscripts from which it was translated. The Old Testament (mentioned here for the sake of completeness) was translated from the Masoretic Text, a thoroughly corrupted and Talmudic Jewish produced and inspired text of the Hebrew Testament. The fact that the Masoretic Text was used for the Old Testament of the KJV also has a clear impact upon the New Testament, for the translators of both Testaments had direct and indirect contact with leading Hebraists of the day for purposes of textual and etymological consultation, and it must be understood that all of these leading Hebraists were Talmudic Jews. As for the New Testament source-text, the primary manuscript was Erasmus's Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus was a very noble attempt at textual restoration for the Greek of the New Testament, but it cannot be trusted for two reasons. First, it was based literally upon only a handful of Greek witnesses, with most critical decisions being based upon the Latin. Secondly, under pressure, Erasmus several times succumbed to pressure from the Catholic Church regarding what he included and omitted from his text. (For instance, scholars are unanimous that John 7:53-8:11 does not appear in the original text and must have been inserted in the late third or early fourth century and included by Jerome in his Vulgate. Jerome (347-420), whose corruptions go on seemingly forever, was also the first to insert I John 5:7-8 in reference to the "Trinity" into the New Testament). Thus, it can be concluded that the KJV was based upon only eight Greek texts, all of which dated later than the 10th century. In contrast, the Anointed Standard Translation has as a basis some 5,400 witnesses, some dating back to AD125. Therefore, the KJV translators were at an enormous disadvantage, especially when we consider that it is an indisputable, scientific fact that most all of the best and oldest manuscripts of the New Testament were not discovered until the KJV had been published.

4. Yet another problem with the KJV are the guidelines under which it was translated. These guidelines were set forth by the appointees of King James (who was a notorious homosexual) and they specifically provided that the translation not depart from previous English translations of the Bible. The mistake here was that those previous translations were based upon even poorer source-texts than those of the KJV and they too preserved even more archaic language. Additionally, the translators of the KJV must have felt pressure not to offend the King in any way, a fact made clear in that they refused to translate the two occurrences of homosexual as homosexual, but rather veiled the word in euphemistic language. There are many other reasons besides those given above why the KJV lacks credence as a responsible translation of the New Testament. As for translations made since the KJV, the overwhelming majority of those translations were also made using the Textus Receptus (and the Masoretic Text for the OT). Additionally, the theological terms ingrained into Protestantism by the KJV have been retained by modern translations (e.g. adultery, faith, grace, holy, etc.). Also, the translation teams of modern translations invariably are composed of trans-denominational translators, and this includes Jews, blacks, Catholics, Masons, and every other brand of Judaeo. As a result of this, a conscious effort has been established to conform translations to the current brand of political, religious, and theological correctness. Thus, every translation made for mainstream Judaism, with the intent of being sold in mainstream bookstores, has been stamped with the stamp of Jewish Approval. An excellent example of this conformity is found in the recently released New Revised Standard Version. The chairman of the translation team was Bruce Metzger, who was picked no doubt because he was also very influential in the construction of the Fourth Revised Edition of the UBS's The Greek New Testament, the supposed text-source for the NRSV. The Fourth Revised Edition of The Greek New Testament is very close in form to the text decided upon for the AST, and is, like the source-text of the AST, an eclectic text, using all the latest textual evidence. However, when one consults the NRSV, he finds that many of the spurious interpolations, omitted from the AST and even omitted from the text of the UBS's The Greek New Testament, are still present in the NRSV. Another tradition that has persisted is the order of the books. The traditional order is based upon their order in the manuscripts. However the order of the manuscripts was derived for cataloging purposes with types of books grouped together. (i.e. the Gospels, Acts, the Pauline epistles, the general epistles, and the Revelation rather than their chronological order. Since the translation was made in light of the evidence that this source-text provides and since the director of the translation team was a participant in that source-text's construction, the only reason that can provided for the NRSV still containing those interpolations is a desire by the translators to receive the stamp of Jewish Approval. This is true not only of the NRSV, finished in 1989, but also of the New International Version, finished in 1978, of the Revised Standard Version, the American Revised Standard Version, and every other popular, mainstream translation of the Bible ever made. There is, of course, no honest excuse for these translation policies. What one should learn from this, however, is that if the translators will continue to be dishonest regarding what is to be included and omitted from the text of the New Testament (and the entire Bible), is it any wonder that they would also knowingly mistranslate certain words? Is this any harder to accept than the KJV translators who knowingly mistranslated the word homosexual so as not to offend the homosexual King who provided them their paycheck? The points illustrated thus far but scratch the surface of the need for a new translation. The problems with existing translations are so numerous that even a cursory examination of those problems is a work unto itself" (V. S. Herrell, The Anointed Standard Translation of the Bible, p. 7-9, Herrell Bros. Publishing House).

Criticism and Commentary on "The Saul/Paul Controversy, Part 2"

This Saul/Paul series is something I have undertaken at the urging of people on both sides of the fence, so it will be impossible for me not to offend people on one side or the other.  Nevertheless, in the spirit of Charity, I trust that through the process of give and take, this issue will be resolved.  At stake is the integrity of the Bible itself.  If Paul is indeed contradicting the words of Yahshua as stated in the Gospels, then we must abandon Paul in favor of Yahshua.  I don't believe that any CI adherent will disagree with that statement.  "If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out."  If Paul is really a universalist, then the message of the OT has been contradicted by him.  Those people crying for the removal of Paul's writings from the NT would be justified.  While dealing with difficult issues, this exercise promises to illuminate Scripture in unexpected ways. 

If, as I contend, that the offensive passages of Paul are not reflective of Paul's original intent, but rather a conscious attempt by the early Catholic universalists and their modern counterparts to distort Scripture, then we stand to gain a lot by establishing how these false interpretations came about.  The exclusivist message of the Old Testament, in my opinion, is not contradicted by Paul's writings.  The KJV appears to contradict it, but, once the complementarity of the Two Testaments is appreciated, then it becomes impossible for the apparently universalistic language to be original.  As Wolfy said to me, since we don't have the original documents, it is a matter of great difficulty.  Yes, we will have to piece this thing together, but I believe it can be done.

In this email, I will respond briefly to Kiyamah's arguments, and I will incorporate his thoughts into a future episode, because if Kiyamah has these objections, so do other people.  All the laundry is going to be hung out to dry, stains and all!  Kiyamah is commenting on "The Saul/Paul Controversy, Part 2."  First he quotes my statement:

On the other hand, if you want to follow along with
my reconstruction of Scripture based on the best translations, then
please give me some encouragement!

His text follows, with my comments in red and in brackets.

I look forward to some specific reconstruction/translations of Pastor Eli James'.  So far, he has pointed out that the KJV English text is not to be trusted as 'inerrant.'  That much is certain.

I would not be so quick, however, to say every one of these scriptural inconsistencies between the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament and the Hebrew Massoretic Text means that they were actually quotations from the Septuagint.  [Actually, I said that Jesus and Paul had three sources of OT text: the Septuagint, the Aramaic Targums, and the original synagogue scrolls.  It is important to understand that these three sources are NOT OF JEWISH ORIGIN.  The Jewish Pharisees had nothing to do with the writing of the Old Testament, Hebrew or Greek.  Very few non-Identity people understand this, and not all Identity people understand this.  The Jews have APPROPRIATED these Scriptures and claimed, deceptively and falsely, to be the authors of OT writings.  These writings were done by Israelites and Judahites, not by Jews.  The Jews invented the Talmud and the Masoretic Text, which is a distortion of the OT.]   Perhaps someone could prove that those extra 6 verses at the end of Psalm 14 in the Septuagint, were not in fact added by early Christians to coincide with Paul's stringing together of various verses in Romans chapter 3.  [It is interesting that the Dead Sea Scrolls fragments of the Septuagint differ from the Masoretic text in many instances.  If the cited verses can be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, then this would lend credence to their being original, not later additions.  Since the DSS manuscripts are dated no later than the time of the Essenes, they mostly precede the "Christian" era.  Some documents may be contemporary with Yahshua (Jesus).] 

As for the word nations (ethne, in the Greek), the Kenite Jews would have used such a word) to refer to non-Jews (white people abroad).  Of course today people have a skewed idea of what a Jew/Israelite is, but this does not change what the word ethne means.  It means the nations (as opposed to Israel (or Jew, depending on who's uttering the word)).  It can mean Israelites living abroad, but it does not have to mean Israelites living abroad.  Paul referred to himself as a "Jew of Tarsus."  So, even the word "Jew" does not specifically denote location (AKA: Judean).  [The word, 'ethnos' means "race." (Strong's #1484.)  The Jews have played fast and loose with words such as 'Gentile', 'Jew', 'bastard,' etc.  We cannot accept Jewish definitions of words.  Since we all understand the word 'Jew' to mean that mixed-race ethnic group which bases its traditions on Pharisaic Judaism, we cannot apply that word to Judahites and Benjamites who strove to remain ethnically pure and who practiced the Mosaic Law (the "Law and the prophets," as Jesus puts it).  To do so is to use the same word to apply to two different groups that were, in fact, bitter enemies.  This is what the jews are trying to hide from us!  We will take up Paul's ethnicity later.  That discussion should be lots of fun!  Suffice it to say that Paul says he is a Benjamite.  (Rom. 11:1 and Phil. 3:5.)  Without refutation, that statement means that he is of the Two-Tribed House of Judah, thus a Judahite, not a Jew.  It is unfortunate that WG Findlay, the deceased publisher and editor of South Africa's "The Covenant Message," failed to understand that the word 'Jew' cannot be applied to pure-blooded Judahites who practiced the Mosaic Law.  The Jews would have us believe that THEIR TRADITION follows that of Moses and that THEIR PEOPLE are the Covenant People.  Even Paul knew better than that.  He was a former Pharisee who understood the deceptive nature of that religion.  Since Mr. Findlay unfortunately bought into the Jewish definition and usage of that deceptive word, 'Jew,' he was himself deceived.  I contend that Paul neither practiced Judaism after he gave up Pharisaism (many of us today were once "Judeo-Christians" who have given it up in favor of CI), nor was he of Edomite (Jewish) descent.  The fact that Saul was born in Tarsus does not prove that he was a racial Edomite.  Tarsus was, in fact, a stronghold of Dispersed Israelites, although certainly there were Jews there too.  We will have to do an episode on the ethnic composition of Tarsus, with its strong Greek (Israelite) history.]