I am looking forward to the New Orthodox Study Bible that is due for delivery early 2008. Its Old Testament is primarily based upon the Greek Old Testament LXX for reasons the Orthodox have always understood: the extant Greek Old Testament manuscripts date to 200BC, that is, about 1,000 years older than the Hebrew Masoretic Old Testament texts, brought forth 2 centuries before anybody had a motive to alter the Bible to counter teachings of Jesus, the Apostles, & the New Testament. The link to th is here: http://www.lxx.org/##
But if you want a complete, printed, Greek-English INTERLINEAR Bible based entirely upon the Greek Texts, Old and New, there is only one place to go:
FREE Download: http://apostolicbible.com/downbook.htm
Printed Edition, First (a sure Collectors' item):
http://store.septuagint-interlinear-greek-bible.com/apbipo.html
http://store.septuagint-interlinear-greek-bible.com/apbipo.html
This is the closest thing we have to the Bible that Paul carried on his missionary journeys. This is a great Septuagint LXX Interlinear (Greek-English) with Strong's numbers. Its actually a whole Bible and helps make the connections between Old and New Testaments by their common Greek vocabulary. FREE downloads!
Why Septuagint LXX? Look at this:
Well, below here is the contact info for the interlinear Bible I'm talking about. It is comprised of the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint LXX) mated to the New Testament with the English words below each of the Greek all in a traditional printed Bible format, suitable for taking to church, reading, etc. This is important for me because so much more of the New Testament's citations of the Old are from the Greek Old Testament than any other. And the Hebrew texts of today date back to the 800's AD after having been handled by Christ-spurning Masoretic Rabbinical scholars for the first 800 years of Christ's Gospel era. Even the Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) manuscripts of Hebrew Old Testament texts actually date to the time of Simon Bar Cochba, circa 132AD, granting certainly enough time for the Christ-spurning scholarly community within Judaism to alter Texts in response to Christian preaching. The oldest Greek Old Testament manuscripts date back 1,000 years older to circa 200BC, before anyone had a motive to alter Texts to undercut Jesus & His Gospel message. I say this because the Hebrew Scriptures as we have received them do not support key positions of the Apostles' message. When one looks to today's Hebrew Scriptures to see how the Apostles quoted from them, we find a tortured discrepancy, discrepancy at key points that gut the New Testament's message & credibility. This discrepancy is often cited by followers of Judaism for their rejecting the New Testament as altogether unfaithful to the Bible of the Hebrews. Here is a link and a quote:
The Septuagint in the New Testament
http://www.geocities.com/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/spexecsum.htm
An excerpt: "And even if the Septuagint is thick with mistranslation, its errors are frequently sanctioned by the New Testament. For instance, if the word “virgin (parthenos in Greek)” in Isaiah 7.14 is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word almah, Matthew has given his assent to this error. In fact, those of us who believe the New Testament to be inspired by God are required to believe that many “errors” of the Septuagint are inspired also, because they are incorporated into the New Testament directly. If the errors that are quoted have Divine sanction, on what basis can we reject the errors that are not quoted? Or, consider what we imply if we say that the Masoretic text alone can lay claim to being the genuine Old Testament. The clear implication is that the authors of the New Testament were benighted and, ignorant of the truth, used an inferior text. The theological implications they drew when they quoted from “mistranslations” in the Septuagint should be rejected. Thus, the logical corollaries to the proposition that the Masoretic text alone is worthy to be considered the Old Testament include: Christ was not born of a virgin, the angels do not worship the Son, Christ did not come to restore sight to the blind, the behavior of the Jews was not cause for God’s name to be blasphemed among the Gentiles, etc. In short, we are forced to conclude that the New Testament is not inspired."