Divine Music Project

Saint Romanos the Melodist 

Normally, the public prayers of the Church are chanted. The "Typika" (prayers of the Divine Liturgy prayed by laymen when a priest is not available) is also to be chanted if one is able to do so.

Here is a source for Byzantine Chant in English with western notation!

Saint Anthony's Monastery (schismatic)

Divine Music Project
https://stanthonysmonastery.org/pages/the-divine-music-project

There are free sheet music downloads for:

• Doxologies and other prayers
• Divine Liturgies (including Elizabethan and modern English)
• Vespers
• Orthros (Matins)
• Sacraments
• Feast Days
• Triodion - Pentecostarion 

"Byzantine vs Western Notation"

https://stanthonysmonastery.org/pages/byzantine-vs-western-notation

The Schism of 1054

---translated from the magazine Orthodoxie, Sept. 1978
http://orthodoxievco.net/bul/001.pdf  

[My comments are bracketed, in green.  T. Davis]

"Let us begin by explaining what a schism is. The word comes from Greek and means split, separation. A schism in the Church is therefore a split among Christians, meaning that a portion of the faithful leaves the communion of love, gathers separately, and thus tears apart the unity of believers. A schism is not yet a heresy (false belief), but since the communion of love is broken, the first step toward heresy is taken. There have been schisms throughout the history of the Church, and there will be until the end of time. This is the battle of the Church against the forces of darkness; and closing our eyes to this reality would endanger the very life of the Church.

What we will say about the schism between Orthodoxy and the papacy is, of course, the orthodox point of view, that goes without saying. In matters of faith, we always speak within a very specific context:  that of a truth in which we believe and which we must confess as we believe it.

The schism of 1054 between the West and the East was not a one-year affair, and its causes were multiple.  The symptoms can be traced back several centuries before the date of the fatal rupture, and the divide has continued to widen to this day.

The main causes were the Pope's claim to absolute authority over the entire Church and the dogma of the Filioque.  Secondary causes, both theological and cultural, were also present and were exacerbated by politics.

Let's examine this summary in more detail:

From the earliest times, the Bishop of Rome enjoyed a primacy of honor in the Church; in Rome, the ancient capital of the empire, the princes of the apostles, Peter and Paul, were martyred.  This title of honor was never contested by the Eastern Church.  The tension between East and West arose when, for the first time in the 4th century, the Pope's claim to change this title of honor into a title of authority was felt.  [A distorted claim to authority was based on the Pseudo-Clementine Epistles.]  Initially hidden, "this latent tension would come to light in the 9th century and transform into open opposition" (J. Meyendorff). 

With the emergence of the Carolingian Empire and a new type of Christianity formed by the northern peoples, recently still considered "barbarians," the conflict intensified, not without some responsibility on the part of the Eastern Christians who prided themselves on their antiquity.  The interests of the Frankish Empire aligned with the Pope's claims to oppose the East. [Popes began to base their authority on a handful of forged documents: the Pseudo-Symmachian Forgeries, the early parts of the Liber Pontificalis, the Constitutum and Donatio Constantini, and the Pseudo-Isidore Decretals.  See: "Papal Forgeries: A Road to Schism", by Ubi Petrus:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBPdjkY_RX4 ]

Language and cultural problems arose, as well as questions of custom and Church discipline:  clerical marriage, fasting rules, the Eucharistic bread, etc.

The first schism erupted in the second half of the 9th century, between Pope Nicholas I and the Patriarch of Constantinople, Photius.  [Pope Nicholas, relying on the Pseudo-Isidore Decretals, inserted himself into the affairs of the Constantinopolitan patriarchate; also, he had adopted the heretical error of St. Augustine that conflated the eternal and temporal procession of the Holy Spirit, and attempted to promulgate the heresy through missionaries to Bulgaria.]

The mission among the Slavs was also a stumbling block between Byzantium and the West.

Charlemagne had already used the "Filioque" for his political ends (without, however, the support of Rome).  The same dogma was once again a source of conflict between Greek and Germanic missionaries in Slavic lands.  This time, the papacy "gave its full support to the Germans and was henceforth no longer neutral" (T. Ware).  The Filioque controversy persisted until the Council of Constantinople in 867, where Pope Nicholas was excommunicated.  Photius, in turn, was deposed by the emperor that same year, and, by a council intended to be the Eighth Ecumenical Council, he was anathematized and condemned.  In 879, Photius was reinstated to the throne by a council, and its decisions were accepted by Rome.  [The 869 Council was annulled by Rome, under Pope John VIII, and this 879 Council was honored as the true 8th Ecumenical for 200 years, until the Gregorian Reforms.]  Peace seemed to have been restored. 

The Filioque subsequently caused further tensions in 1009, and again at the coronation of Emperor Henry II in 1014, when it was interpolated into the Roman Creed.  The mention of Pope Sergius was removed from the diptychs in 1009 [for adding 'filioque' to the Creed], and from then on, the pope's name no longer appeared on the diptychs of Constantinople.  From that moment, communion between Rome and Constantinople ceased.

A serious quarrel broke out between the Normans and the Greeks of Italy; it resulted in the closure of the Latin churches of Constantinople in 1052.  The patriarch, however, strove to restore peace the following year.  For his part, in 1054, the pope sent three legates, headed by Cardinal Humbert.  The contact between the two parties was far from amicable, and from then on the patriarch refused any further contact with the legates.  Humbert lost patience and placed a bull of excommunication on the altar of Hagia Sophia.  Thus began the schism, though it was neither clear nor definitive.  “It was the Crusades that made the schism definitive:  they introduced a spirit of hatred and bitterness, and brought the conflict to the very level of the people.” (T. Ware)

The sack of Constantinople in 1204 and the sacrileges committed by the Crusaders shattered the last vestiges of communion of love between East and West.

An attempt at union, driven by political ends, at the Council of Lyon in 1274, failed.

Another council (in Ferrara and Florence, 1438–1449), where Saint Mark of Ephesus defended Orthodoxy, was no more successful in uniting what was no longer, in substance, the same faith.

From a human perspective, both sides failed time and again.  But in matters of faith, the Orthodox Church did not waver.  The same cannot be said of the Roman Catholic Church (which has entered a new phase of degeneration in our time) [Vatican II]. 

Reunion is not impossible; not through confusion, but through a return to communion in love and truth."

Hm. Cassian

Not in the American News

This article, written by Miles Matthis, answers the question, "Come on, why would our government just make up stories?"  All emphasis is from the original article.

State of the Disunion, by Miles Matthis*

February 25, 2026

Both the Republicans and Democrats embarrassed themselves at the State of the Union address, showing the real state of the union. All these people on both sides of the aisle are mentally ill and should immediately be institutionalized before they cause more harm. Yes, they are actors, so some of them are feigning illness, but that doesn't excuse anything. The script is for maximum chaos, remember, so none of this was organic. The heckling was scripted, Trump's taunts were scripted (he is reading from a script, remember, you can seeing him reading straight from the Teleprompter), and all the commentary on both sides was scripted to melt your mind. They want you focusing on these manufactured stories instead of focusing on the real problems. It is all the usual Phoenician vaudeville and conjob, pulling your eyes to their circuses.

And that includes the Epstein saga, which is, at its core, just the greatest Men-are-Pigs project ever written.

I remind you all those people Trump dragged out to give medals to and have moments of silence for are fake. The Coast Guard dude from the Camp Mystic flood is an actor, since that never happened. The pretty chick from Ukraine killed by the black pimp is an actress and she isn't dead. That was faked. Same for the little girl hit by an illegal alien trucker: fake. All scripted emotionalism and MysteryScienceTheater2026 BS.

Presidential Medal of Freedom for a Hockey Goalie?

While giving Bayer/Monsanto immunity against Round-up lawsuits? That's one of the things they were keeping your eyes off with this noisy spectacle. What else?

Well, Trump and RFK and Musk were supposed to be shutting down the experiments on dogs and cats at NIH, but turns out that was just the usual lip-flapitude. Despite RFK being the head of HHS, which oversees NIH, these horrible experiments continue. Why hasn't Trump or Kennedy fired Nicole Kleinstreuer? If you or I had been appointed head of HHS or elected President, that is the very first thing we would have done, day one. How hard is it? You rescue the animals, home them or send them to shelters or vets, and lock the doors of the labs. You fire all those ghouls and prosecute them for animal cruelty.

What happened to prosecuting Fauci? That's old news and they have to keep you inundated with new news.

What happened to all the prosecutions for LIBOR and many other huge banking scandals, where all the biggest banks in the world were involved up to their necks, stealing trillions from stock markets, retired people, municipalities, and everyone else? Somehow that also just evaporated while you were watching Game of Thrones and MSNBC and Fox News and CNN and the Olympics, didn't it?

What else? How about the largest “defense” budget in history by far? Defense against what, exactly? That budget is ten times larger than Russia or China. No one is attacking China, are they, so we could get by on a budget of about 50 billion, rather than one trillion. Saving you $950 billion in one year, off the top. But you are an American: you like paying ten times more for everything, it just makes you feel important. You make fun of those people who shop at Whole Foods and pay five dollars for a pear, but you don't mind paying huge taxes to buy $2 billion bomber jets. No, Trump isn't much worse than Democratic presidents in that regard, but they all promise to get us out of wars and lower the defense budget, then do the exact opposite. They then run these daily circuses to keep your mind off it . . . and you let them.

How about Artemis, the big fake Moon project you are paying billions for? That's just what you asked for, right, another fake trip to the Moon? But this time they have CGI, so they can almost make it look real, if you are bombed on enough pharmaceuticals. If you're not . . . ask your doctor!

What about auditing the Fed? How did that turn out?

How about the gold in Fort Knox? How did that turn out?

How about the declassified Kennedy documents? What did you learn there? Same thing you are about to learn from the declassified alien documents. We will learn again what gobemouches we always were (look it up—it's a great word—every cat should know what cat means).

How about your income taxes going to zero, paid for with Trump's tariffs? It is tax season: is that what you are entering on your forms?

How about house rental prices coming down? Is that your experience? How about meat and egg prices coming down? Is that your experience? How about chocolate and coffee prices coming down? Is that your experience? No, it and won't be your experience ever again, since due to hyperinflation things will only rise ever faster. That is a guarantee due to the quadrillion-dollar debt you “owe” to bankers and other rich people, since you can't pay them any other way. You have zip in the bank, so the only way you can pay them this manufactured “debt” is through food and housing prices and so on. But forget about that and concentrate on AOC's dress or Pelosi's dentures or Don Lemon's Gucci boots.

What about the vaccine genocide? When is Pfizer going to pay back all the money it stole there? When is the company going to be put into receivership and cashed out to pay all the lawsuits for death and injury with malice? When are all those people going to be locked up as mass murderers? Not any time soon, since Trump is still calling their CEO Bourla a “great great man”. Sort of like calling Goebbels or Mengele a great great man.

Funny Trump didn't have anything to say in his 108 minute speech about all the tens of billions of your taxes he is sending to Israel, and all the weapons he is selling them. But wait, money is going in both directions in that sentence isn't it? So is Israel buying weapons from us with your money we just gave them? How does that work? I'm no accountant, but it looks to me like you are footing the bill for Israel's entire military, which they can then use against unarmed Palestinian children, clearing the Middle East of non-Jews to make room for Trump's New Riviera. All of Palestine turned into a Mar-a-Lago of private golf courses and upscale hotels and overpriced bistros and planted palm trees.

What middle-class American wouldn't want to be taxed to subsidize that? Like larger and larger swaths of the US: you paid for it but you aren't welcome there. You can't afford it, so stay in your tiny house and enjoy your lab-grown “beef” slurry and your plastic cheese and your sponge bread and your GMO beet-sugar diabetic-coma doggie treats. While you are gagging on that, the TV or computer will tell you the latest government reports, where you learn all companies are worth trillions and all other people are earning more and more, so it must just be you. You didn't invest right so you deserve all the “bad luck” that comes your way. How could little ole you, who can't even manage his or her pathetic little life, think to question anything your elders are up to? How could you even think of doubting the great people on the screens, the Kakus and Sagans and deGrasse Tysons and Hawkings and Buffetts and Springsteens and Shapiros and Faucis and Cohens and Carlsons and Altmans and Musks? As a financial entity you are so insignificant you are lucky to be allowed the same allotment of air as those magnificent people. 

*Miles Matthis, besides being a secular commentator, is a professional portrait artist, whose work includes nude portraits.  Therefore, I don't recommend his website in general, even though many of his analyses of photographic evidence and art exposes a myriad of "events" for the shams they are.

What Bible are You Using? Part II: The Ten Commandments

Summary:  

There are differences in the Ten Commandment verses between the Septuagint, Latin Vulgate, and Masoretic translations, in their wording, sequence and division. Comparisons are made between Jewish, Orthodox Christian, Roman Catholic, and Protestant interpretations.  The Roman Catholic claim that Protestants have changed the Ten Commandments is refuted.

Contents:

1. The Ten Commandments
2. Wording
3. Sequence
4. Division
5. Conclusion

1. The Ten Commandments

We know that there are Ten Commandments, written on two tablets, since it is stated in Exodus 34:27-29:

Thompson Septuagint, Exodus 34
27 Then the Lord said to Moses, Write for thyself these words; for on these terms I have made a covenant with thee and Israel.
28 And Moses was there before the Lord forty days and forty nights. He did not eat bread nor drink water. And he wrote on the tables the words of the covenant - the ten commandments.
29 And when Moses came down from the mount with the two tables in his hands...

These Commandments summarize the Natural Law, written on men’s hearts.  Even without them, men know right from wrong.  The Church distinguishes between the laws of nature - the Ten Commandments, and the secondary, Levitical Law, imposed after the Israelites fell into idolatry:

Apostolic Constitutions Book 1, Section 2. Ch. VI. That We Ought to Abstain from All the Books of Those that are Out of the Church.
...Propose to yourself to distinguish what rules were from the law of nature, and what were added afterwards, or were such additional rules as were introduced and given in the wilderness to the Israelites after the making of the calf; for the law contains those precepts which were spoken by the Lord God before the people fell into idolatry, and made a calf like the Egyptian Apis — that is, the ten commandments. But as to those bonds which were further laid upon them after they had sinned, do not draw them upon yourself...

The Ten Commandments are recorded in the Old Testament in Exodus 20:2-17, and in Deuteronomy 5:6-21.  The wording varies among these passages, as Shurpin explains:

Why Two Versions of the Ten Commandments? Shurpin
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/4455092/jewish/Why-Two-Versions-of-the-Ten-Commandments.htm 
Why Is Deuteronomy 5 Different From Exodus 20? 
Unlike the first four books of the Pentateuch, the Book of Deuteronomy is, for the most part, the Word of G d given in the language and style of Moses. Five weeks before his death, Moses assembled the people of Israel in Moab and gave them a parting speech, which formed the core of this book. One of the first things Moses did was reiterate the Ten Commandments, along with other tenets of Judaism...
G d’s Words and Moses’ Words
...Deuteronomy is Moses' own narrative of what had occurred. Thus, the Exodus version is how G d himself said it, while Deuteronomy tells how Moses recounted it. This explains why the second version has additions like this one in the Sixth Commandment: “as the L rd your G d commanded you.” Obviously, G d didn’t say those words when he spoke at Sinai, but when Moses retold the story, such insertions were natural.
Of course, like the rest of the Torah, Moses communicated Deuteronomy as a prophet of G d. It contains not his own ideas, but the faithful, prophetic transmission of G d's message. But in this case, the message is expressed through the mind and words of Moses, making it more readily understood to our minds as well.

We should keep in mind, then, that variations between Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 are not necessarily errors. Like the passages we looked at in Part 1, the Ten Commandment texts have variations between the Septuagint and Masoretic.  There are not only differences in the wording and sequence of the text, but also in the division of the Commandments themselves.  Let’s compare translations of the Septuagint and Masoretic texts, and then examine later Latin and English variations.  

2. Wording

The main difference in wording between the Septuagint and Masoretic if found in Exodus 20:17:

Septuagint

Exodus 20:17. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife; thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house...

Deuteronomy 5:21. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife; thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house...

Masoretic

Exodus 20:17  Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife...

Deuteronomy 5:21  Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbor's house...

Notice that:

• The Septuagint has the same wording in Exodus and Deuteronomy.
• The Masoretic lists house before wife in Exodus; the order is reversed in Deuteronomy, and regarding wife, covet is changed to desire.

The ancient Latin is translated from the Septuagint:

Versio Antiqua

Exodus 20:17 You shall not covet your neighbor's wife. You shall not covet your neighbor's house...

Deuteronomy 5:21  Missing text  

But the 5th century Latin Vulgate (and Douay-Rheims) follows a variation of the Masoretic, placing "house" before "wife" in Exodus, and moving “desire” to Exodus, rather than Deuteronomy:

Douay-Rheims 

Exodus 20:17  Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house: neither shalt thou desire his wife...

Deuteronomy 5:21  Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife: nor his house...

The King James Bible follows the Masoretic text exactly, removing the Vulgate’s variation:

King James Bible

Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife...

Deuteronomy 5:21 Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbor's house...

The Apostolic Constitutions, recorded in the first centuries of Christianity, support the Septuagint translation of Exodus 20:17.  Unlike the Masoretic, and Latin Vulgate, “wife” is placed first on the list regarding covetousness:

Apostolic Constitutions, Book 1
Section 1. General Commandments 
Concerning Covetousness.
I. Abstain, therefore, from all unlawful desires and injustice. For it is written in the law, You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his field, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is your neighbor’s (Exodus 20:17); for all coveting of these things is from the evil one...

In the early 5th century, Latin monastic theologian, St. John Cassian, teaches according to the Septuagint, also placing “wife” first:

St. John Cassian, Conferences, Part I: Conference VIII: The Second Conference of Abbot Serenus Ch. XXIII.  
...Which of the Saints...did not observe this:  Honor thy father and thy mother, or what follows in the decalogue:  Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness; Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, and many other things besides, in which they anticipated the commands not only of the law but even of the gospel?

3. Sequence 

In the Septuagint, the order of the Commandments differs between Exodus and Deuteronomy.  In Exodus, Adultery is listed before Murder:

Thompson Septuagint
Exodus 20
13. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
14. Thou shalt not steal.
15. Thou shalt not commit murder.
Deuteronomy 5
17. Thou shalt not commit murder.
18. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
19. Thou shalt not steal.

In the Masoretic text, the verses in Exodus were admittedly changed by the Masoretes, who concluded it was an error: 

Exodus 20 
13. Thou shalt not murder.
14. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Deuteronomy 5 
17. Thou shalt not murder.
18. Neither shalt thou commit adultery.

Unsurprisingly, the Latin Vulgate and the Douay-Rheims, as well as the King James, Bibles all follow the Masoretic text, placing "Murder" before "Adultery" in Exodus:

Douay-Rheims + Latin Vulgate
Exodus 20
13. Thou shalt not kill.
      Non occides.
14. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
      Non moechaberis.
Deuteronomy 5
17. Thou shalt not kill.
      Non occides.
18. Neither shalt thou commit adultery.
      Neque moechaberis.

Is the Septuagint's placing Adultery before Murder simply an error?  We have evidence that it is not.  Not being a convert to Christianity, the Jewish Historian Philo (10 B.C. - 50 A.D.) lists the order of the Ten Commandments, placing Adultery before Murder.  [I have numbered them in red.]  Additionally, he specifies that the ancient Jews divided the Commandments into two equal parts, certain that Moses placed five Commandments on each Tablet.   Philo explains this division, which we will look at further in the next section:

Philo, The Decalogue, 1st century B.C.
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book26.html 
XII. ...Now God divided them, being ten, as they are, into two tables of five each, which he engraved on two pillars. And the first five have the precedence and pre-eminence in honour; but the second five have an inferior place assigned to them. But both the tables are beautiful and advantageous to life... Now the most excellent five were of this character, they related to [1] the monarchial principle on which the world is governed; to [2] images and statues, and in short to all erections of any kind made by hand; to the duty of [3] not taking the name of God in vain; to that of [4] keeping the holy seventh day in a manner worthy of its holiness; to [5] paying honour to parents both separately to each, and commonly to both. So that of the one table the beginning is the God and Father and Creator of the universe; and the end are one's parents, who imitate his nature, and so generate the particular individuals. And the other table of five contains all the prohibitions against [6] adulteries, and [7] murder, and [8] theft, and [9] false witness, and [10] covetousness. 
XXVIII. Last of all, the divine legislator prohibits covetousness, knowing that desire is a thing fond of revolution and of plotting against others; for all the passions of the soul are formidable, exciting and agitating it contrary to nature, and not permitting it to remain in a healthy state, but of all such passions the worst is desire. On which account each of the other passions, coming in from without and attacking the soul from external points, appears to be involuntary; but this desire alone derives its origin from ourselves, and is wholly voluntary.

In the New Testament, the order of these Commandments alternates, reflecting the variation within the Septuagint.  In St. Mark’s gospel, the Savior Himself places adultery before murder:

Matthew 19:18-19  And Jesus said: Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness.   Honor thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 

Mark 10:19  Thou knowest the commandments: Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, bear not false witness, do no fraud, honour thy father and mother.

Luke 18:20  Thou knowest the commandments: Thou shalt not kill: Thou shalt not commit adultery: Thou shalt not steal: Thou shalt not bear false witness: Honor thy father and mother.

Romans 13:9  For Thou shalt not commit adultery: Thou shalt not kill: Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness: Thou shalt not covet...

James 2:11  For he that said, Thou shalt not commit adultery, said also, Thou shalt not kill...

St. Irenaeus of Lyons also confirms this order:

St. Irenaeus (130-202 AD), Against Heresies, Book IV
“Now, that the law did beforehand teach mankind the necessity of following Christ, He does Himself make manifest, when He replied as follows to him who asked Him what he should do that he might inherit eternal life: “If you will enter into life, keep the commandments.” But upon the other asking “Which?” again the Lord replies: “Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, honor father and mother, and you shall love your neighbor as yourself,” setting as an ascending series (velut gradus) before those who wished to follow Him, the precepts of the law, as the entrance into life; and what He then said to one He said to all. But when the former said, “All these have I done” (and most likely he had not kept them, for in that case the Lord would not have said to him, “Keep the commandments”), the Lord, exposing his covetousness, said to him, “If you will be perfect, go, sell all that you have, and distribute to the poor; and come, follow me;” [Mark 10:17-19]...

The placement of Adultery before Murder is found elsewhere within the writings of the Church Fathers, as well. The Latin theologian Tertullian (though he died in heresy, his early writings are accepted as legitimate) gives a lengthy explanation of why Adultery comes before Murder in Exodus 20:

Tertullian (160-240 AD), On Modesty – Elucidations, Ch. V. Of the Prohibition of Adultery in the Decalogue.
Of how deep guilt, then, adultery - which is likewise a matter of fornication, in accordance with its criminal function - is to be accounted, the Law of God first comes to hand to show us; if it is true, (as it is), that after interdicting the superstitious service of alien gods, and the making of idols themselves, after commending (to religious observance) the veneration of the Sabbath, after commanding a religious regard toward parents second (only to that) toward God, (that Law) laid, as the next substratum in strengthening and fortifying such counts, no other precept than "Thou shall not commit adultery." For after spiritual chastity and sanctity followed corporeal integrity. And this (the Law) accordingly fortified, by immediately prohibiting its foe, adultery. Understand, consequently, what kind of sin (that must be), the repression of which (the Law) ordained next to (that of) idolatry. Nothing that is a second is remote from the first; nothing is so close to the first as the second. That which results from the first is (in a sense) another first. And so adultery is bordering on idolatry. For idolatry withal, often cast as a reproach upon the People under the name of adultery and fornication, will be alike conjoined therewith in fate as in following-will be alike co-heir therewith in condemnation as in co-ordination. Yet further: premising "Thou shalt not commit adultery," (the Law) adjoins, "Thou shalt not kill." It honored adultery, of course, to which it gives the precedence over murder, in the very fore-front of the most holy law, among the primary counts of the celestial edict, marking it with the inscription of the very principal sins... 

So, we have evidence that the ancient Jews, the Apostles, the Fathers and Jesus Himself, placed adultery before murder, as it is recorded in the book of Exodus,  according to the Septuagint.  

.  

4. Division

But what about the individual Commandments themselves?  Is the Roman Catholic claim that the Protestants had changed the grouping of the Commandments true?

Here are the Ten Commandments, according to Roman Catholicism, ratified at the Council of Trent:

1. I am the Lord your God: You shall not have strange Gods before me.
2. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
3. Remember to keep holy the Lord’s Day.
4. Honor your father and mother.
5. You shall not kill.
6. You shall not commit adultery.
7. You shall not steal.
8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
9. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods.

And here are the Ten Commandments according to Protestantism:

1. I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy.
5. Honor thy father and thy mother.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness.
10. Thou shalt not covet.

Here is the Roman Catholic accusation:

“The Ten Commandments in the Bible:  The Truth that Protestants Changed and the Church Preserves”, 2025
https://catholicus.eu/en/the-ten-commandments-in-the-bible-the-truth-that-protestants-changed-and-the-church-preserves/
The Origin and History of Their Numbering
From the earliest centuries, the Church understood the importance of the Ten Commandments as a summary of the moral law. However, different traditions emerged regarding their numbering...
The Protestant Error in Numbering
When Martin Luther broke away from the Church in the 16th century, he decided to change the numbering of the Commandments.  His version follows a later Jewish and Calvinist tradition, separating the first Commandment into two and merging the ninth and tenth into one.
...the prohibition of idolatry is entirely part of the First Commandment.  Furthermore, by merging the two Commandments on coveting into one, they lose the moral distinction between impure desires toward one’s neighbor and coveting material goods.
The Protestant change is not trivial. By making an artificial distinction between the prohibition of images and the worship of God, many evangelical groups have developed a mistaken view of religious imagery...  This Protestant confusion is an example of how misinterpretation of Scripture can lead to doctrinal errors.

That Protectants have divided the First Commandment into two, and joined the last Two into one, is not a new claim; it echoes the original Douay Old Testament:

Douay Old Testament, 1582, Exodus 20:17
https://archive.org/details/1582DouaiRheimsDouayRheimsFirstEdition1Of31609OldTestament/page/n239/mode/2up
Annotations Chap XX
‘Protestants deny any honor to be due to Saints’
“Calvin and all Protestants...would have no honor at all given to Saints.  Objecting as old heretics did, that Catholics do all the same external acts, as standing bare head, bowing, kneeling, praying , and the like to Saints, as to God Himself.  We answer, that the distinction of honor consisteth not always in the external action, but in the intention of the mind.  For when we do such external acts of honor to God..it is divine honor... Again we answer, that we do not all the external actions of honor to Saints, which we do to God. For sacrifice is done only to God, and to no Saint, and because altars pertain to Sacrifice, they are erected to God only, though often times in memory of Saints. Both which answers S. Augustine gave long since, to Faustus the Manachiean...
‘Protestants have corrupted the text in all their English Bibles.’  [me: by changing “graven 
4. [A graven thing]  Here the same falsifiers of Christian doctrine, do not only pervert the sense of the holy Scripture, wresting that against Images, which is spoken against Idols, but also shamefully corrupt the text, by translating graven image, neither following the Hebrew, Greek or Latin.  For the Hebrew word is the very same as sculptile in Latin, that is a graven or carved thing.  The Greek hath “idol”.  So all Protestants’ English bibles are false...
Another controversy Calvin here maketh, that from these words, “Thou shalt not make”, beginneth the second precept, so counting four precepts in the first table, and six in the second.  But being no matter of faith, how they are divided, so all the words, and the number of ten commandments be acknowledged (for holy Scripture calleth them ten: Exodus 34:18; Deuteronomy 4:13 and 10:4) we will not contend; but only as more reasonable we follow the common manner of dividing the first table into three precepts, directing us to God, the second into seven, belonging to our neighbor, approved for the better by S. Augustine (q 71 in Exodum) and generally received of all Catholics; grounded upon this reason, among others, because to make or have picture, or similitude of any creature, to the end to adore it as God, were in deed to have a strange God, which is forbidden in the first words, and so all that followeth to the comination and promise, forbiddeth false gods, and appeareth to be but one  precept in substance.  But the desire and internal consent to adultery, and to theft, differ altogether as much, as the external acts of the same sins; and therefore seeing adultery and theft are forbidden to be committed, by two distinct precepts, the prohibition of the internal desire, with marital consent to the same, doth also require two precepts.  

While the accusation that Protestants are iconoclasts is true, the claim that the they changed the division of the Commandments is false.  Rather, Protestants abandoned the Roman Catholic change that was first proposed by St. Augustine.  The Douay admits this above:  “as more reasonable we follow the common manner of dividing the first table into three precepts, directing us to God, the second into seven, belonging to our neighbor, approved for the better by S. Augustine (q 71 in Exodum)."  This “common manner” of dividing the Commandments did not become so in the Latin west until about the 9th century, with Pope Nicholas (858-867) who preferred Augustine’s writings.  It was never  the Tradition in the eastern part of the Church, which never abandoned the Septuagint or the original teaching of the Apostolic Fathers.  St. Augustine was greatly criticized by his contemporaries, including western saints, such as St. Vincent of Lerins (+445), who refuted Augustine's novel teaching and belief that he had a better understanding of the Ten Commandments than the Apostolic Fathers.  Here is the entire passage in which St. Augustine presented his new division of the Commandments, translated from the Latin:

Saint Augustine (354-430), Exegetical Works, Book VII of the Locutions, Questions on Exodus, Book II, Question LXXI
https://archive.org/details/operaomniaaccura06auguuoft/page/250/mode/2up 

I. It is asked, how are the ten commandments of the Law to be divided: whether there are four up to the commandment about the Sabbath, which pertain to God Himself; and the remaining six, the first of which is, “Honor your father and mother,” which pertain to man: or rather, those three, and those seven. For those who say that there are four, separate what is said, “You shall have no other gods before” me: “so that there is another commandment, “You shall not make for yourself an idol”, where the worship of images is forbidden. But they want it to be one, “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife: You shall not covet your neighbor’s house,” and all to the end. But those who say that there are three, and those seven, want it to be one, whatever is commanded about worshipping one God, so that nothing else besides Him is worshipped as God: but these last they divide into two, so that one is, “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife,” and another, “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house.” Yet neither of them doubts that there are ten commandments, since Scripture testifies to this.

II. However, it seems to me more fitting to accept those three, and those seven, because those things which are related to God seem to suggest a Trinity to those who look more carefully. And truly what was said, “You shall have no other gods before me,” is explained more perfectly when the worship of images is forbidden. Furthermore, the lust for another’s wife and the lust for another’s house differ only in the sin, as to what is said, “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house,” another scripture is added, “Neither his field, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his yoke, nor any of his cattle, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.” But the lust for another’s wife seems to have differed from the lust for any other thing, when both begin thus: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, You shall not covet your neighbor’s house,” and to this begin the rest. But when he had said, “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife,” he connected other things with this, saying, “Neither his house, nor his field, nor his servant, and so on.” Rather, these seem to be altogether conjoined, which seem to be contained in one commandment, and distinct from that where wife is mentioned. But that where it is said, “You shall have no other gods before me,” appears to be a more careful execution of this thing in those things which are subject to it. For what does “You shall not make for yourself an idol, nor any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth, you shall not worship them, nor serve them” pertain, except to that which is said, “You shall have no other gods before me”?

III. But again it is asked how the saying, “Thou shalt not steal”, differs from what is commanded a little later about not coveting one’s neighbor’s things. Not indeed, everyone who covets his neighbor’s thing steals: but if everyone who steals covets his neighbor’s thing, could that generality, where it is commanded not to covet one’s neighbor’s thing, also include that which pertains to theft. Similarly it is asked how the saying, “Thou shalt not commit adultery”, differs from what is said a little later, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife”?  Indeed, in what is said, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” that could also be understood. Unless perhaps in those two commandments, not to commit adultery and not to steal, the works themselves are noted; but in these extremes, the concupiscence itself: which differ so much, that sometimes he who does not covet his neighbor’s wife commits adultery, for some other reason, has intercourse with her; but sometimes he covets and does not have intercourse with her, fearing punishment, and this perhaps the Law wished to show, that both are sins.

IV. It is also often asked whether fornication is also included under the name of adultery. For this is a Greek word, which Scripture now uses for the Latin. However, the Greeks call adulterers (μοιχος [adulterer]). But of course this Law was given not only to men among the people, but also to women. For because it is said: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife,” a woman should not think that there is anything here commanded for her, and that it is lawful to covet her neighbor’s husband. If, therefore, from what is said to the man, it is understood here, although it is not said, that it also pertains to the woman, how much more so from what is said: “You shall not commit adultery,” both sexes are bound, since the commandment itself can be referred to both, as, “You shall not kill: You shall not steal,” and which others likewise, without expressing one sex, seem to sound commonly to both. Nevertheless, where one is expressed, the more honorable is expressed, that is, the masculine, so that from this the woman also may understand what the commandment is for her. And by this means, if a woman is an adulteress who has a husband, by having intercourse with him who is not her husband, even if he has no wife; certainly a man who has a wife is also an adulteress, by having intercourse with her who is not his wife, even if she has no husband. But whether if he who does not have a wife does it, when a woman who does not have a husband, both are bound by the transgression of this commandment, is rightly asked. For if they are not held, fornication is not forbidden in the Decalogue, but only adultery, that is, adultery: although every Adultery is also understood to be fornication, as the Scriptures say. For the Lord says in the Gospel: “Whoever divorces his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery.” Here, of course, he called fornication if she sins with another man, which is adultery [moechia], that is, adultery [adulterium].  Therefore, all adultery is also called fornication in the Scriptures. But whether all fornication can also be called adultery, I do not find an example of the expression in the same Scriptures.  But if not all fornication can also be called adultery, where in the Decalogue is that fornication forbidden, which men who have no wives commit with women who have no husbands, I do not know whether it can be found. But if by the name of theft every illicit usurpation of another's property is properly understood (for he who forbade theft did not permit robbery, but certainly wished to understand the whole as a part, whatever is unlawfully taken from a neighbor's property), then certainly by the name of adultery every illicit intercourse, and the unlawful use of those members, should be understood as forbidden.

V. And what is said, "Thou shalt not kill," is not to be thought to be done contrary to this precept, when the law kills, or God commands someone to be killed. For he who commands does that, when it is not permissible to refuse service. 

VI. In what is said, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor,” it is often asked whether all lying is forbidden: lest perhaps this precept be not against those who say that one should lie when that lie benefits someone and does no harm to the one to whom one lies. For it is not such against one’s neighbor that Scripture seems to have added this, which could briefly say: “You shall not bear false witness,” just as it said: “You shall not kill: You shall not commit adultery: You shall not steal.” But from this arises a great question, and it cannot be conveniently explained by those who are in a hurry, how to understand: “You shall destroy all who speak a lie”: and, “Do not wish to lie every lie”: and the rest of the like.

So, St. Augustine thought is was a more fitting representation of the Trinity to collect the Commandments pertaining to God into three, and the remaining into seven, making it necessary to divide the last Commandment into two.  Out of modesty, he introduces his novel insight by saying, “those who say that there are three, and those seven”.  But he alone invented this opinion, believing God had inspired him!  What the Douay Annotations above do not divulge is that neither the ancient Jews nor the early Church Fathers, east or west, ever divided the Commandments in this way.  It was not the invention of later Jews or Calvinists. It was Rome that adopted a change in the division of the Ten Commandments, contrary to the teaching of the Apostles, I might add.

As stated above, western Father St. Vincent of Lerins, a contemporary of St. Augustine, was critical of St. Augustine’s approach to theology which encouraged the development of dogma.  It is said that St. Vincent’s famous Commonitorium was written in order to refute St. Augustine’s novel approach.

The Commonitorium of Vincentius of Lerins, Moxon, 1915
https://archive.org/details/commonitoriumofv00vinc/page/n27/mode/2up 
Introduction Ch 2:  Vincentius and Augustinianism, p. xxv:  Another work besides the Commonitorium which bears the name of V. is a collection of sixteen objections to the teaching of St. Augustine. These Objectiones Vincentianae which criticized adversely Augustine's doctrine of Predestination...  To these Objectiones Prosper replied one by one and supported his refutation by letters from Celestine of Rome in Augustine's favour.  Accordingly V. is thought to have again taken up his pen and under a pseudonym to have answered Prosper's Responsiones with great caution in the Commonitorium. The experience which he had had with his Objectiones had taught him prudence, and the reflexion that the Apostolic See had in the meantime spoken caused him to observe greater reserve in his second work.
     At the same time there are strong reasons...for maintaining that opposition to the doctrine of Predestination was not the main object of the writer. That object was the formulation of a general canon that should apply equally to all heresies. He wished to leave behind him at his death a guiding rule to be a benefit to the world at large. The Commonitorium, therefore, was not primarily intended by V. to be a polemical treatise. That it became such was due to the nature of his subject, and because he found that, according to his canon, the views of Augustine conflicted with the consensus of the ancient Church. As a matter of fact Augustine himself referred for correction [De Dono Perseverantiae, 68] to the doctors of the Church. V. merely takes up this appeal and indirectly protested against the extravagances of Augustinianism by hinting that they could not find support in the consent 'omnium... sacerdotum pariter et magistrorum,' that is, of bishops and doctors who had a right by virtue of their office or their learning to be heard.

St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, 434 A.D.
Ch. 2  A General Rule for distinguishing the Truth of the Catholic Faith from the Falsehood of Heretical Pravity.
[6.] Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.

The Douay Old Testament Annotations also claim it is “no matter of faith, how [the Commandments] are divided, so all the words, and the number of ten commandments be acknowledged”.  But this is contrary to what was proposed by the Council of Trent, which says:  “no one may dare to interpret the scripture in a way contrary to the unanimous consensus of the Fathers” (Council of Trent, Session 4, Decree concerning the Edition and the Use of the Sacred Books).  It is also contrary to the teaching of St. Basil:

The Asketikon of St Basil the Great https://malankaralibrary.com/ImageUpload/4296c85419016bb9faec628801463a0b.pdf
(p. 161) On the order and sequence of the Lord's commandments.
Q: Since the word has given us authority to ask questions, we want first of all to learn if there is any order and sequence in the commandments of God, such that one would be first, another second, and so on (for the others in their order); or whether they (the commandments) are all interdependent and all of equal value as far as the question of a beginning goes, so that anyone who wanted to is safe in making a beginning anywhere he pleases on the (circumference of) a circle (or crown), as it were. 
R: Your question is an old one. It was proposed long ago in the Gospels, when the lawyer came up to the Lord and said, Master, what is the first commandment in the law? And the Lord answered, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind. This is the first and the great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbour as your very self (Matt. 22: 36-9; Mark 12:28-31). So the Lord himself has imposed an order among his own commandments, having defined that the first and indeed the greatest commandment is to love God with the whole heart and with the whole mind, while the second in order (and sequence) and like it (in character)—but rather as fulfilling and depending on the first—is to love your neighbor (as your very self). Thus, from these sayings and from others in the God-inspired Scriptures, a (certain) order and sequence (of precepts) can be discovered as I myself discern, among all the commandments of the Lord.

Let’s take a look at how the Commandments are divided among all those who claim to adhere to them:

Ancient Jews (5 / 5)  The first five pertain to God’s Authority; the second five pertain to personal morality:

Philo, The Decalogue, 1st century 
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book26.html 
XII. ...Now God divided them, being ten, as they are, into two tables of five each, which he engraved on two pillars...
1. the monarchial principle...
2. images and statues...
3. not taking the name of God in vain...
4. keeping the holy seventh day... 
5. paying honor to parents ...
So that of the one table the beginning is the God and Father and Creator of the universe; and the end are one's parents, who imitate his nature...
And the other table of five contains all the prohibitions against:
6. adulteries... 
7. murder... 
8. theft...
9. false witness, 
10. Last of all...covetousness.

Modern Jews (5 / 5)  The same ancient understanding is retained:

"Decalogue", Jewish Encyclopedia
https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5032-decalogue 
Contents.  The Decalogue opens with the solemn affirmation, put in the first person, that the speaker is Yhwh, Israel's ("thy") God, who hath led Israel ("thee") out of Egypt. Therefore there shall be for Israel ("thee") [1] no other gods before Yhwh’s ("my") face. [2] Prohibition of idolatry follows as a logical amplification of this impressive announcement, and then a caution [3] against taking Yhwh's name in vain. The duty of [4] remembering the Sabbath and that of [5] honoring father and mother are emphasized. [6] Murder, [7] adultery, [8] theft, and [9] false testimony are forbidden, and the Decalogue concludes with an expanded declaration [10] against, covetousness.

Orthodox Christians (4 / 6) The grouping is based on the fulfillment of the Law, according to Charity:

Today, the order in Deuteronomy, rather than Exodus (Murder then Adultery), is followed when enumerating the Commandments:

The Longer Catechism of St. Philaret of Moscow, 1834
https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Filaret_Moskovskij/the-longer-catechism-of-the-orthodox-catholic-eastern-church/#0_63
489. Which are the chief and general commandments of this law?
The following ten, which were written on two tables of stone:
1. I am the Lord thy God: thou shalt have none other gods beside me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thyself any graven image...
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy...
5. Honor thy father and thy mother...
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house...

492. What means the division of the Ten Commandments into two tables?
This: that they contain two kinds of love--love to God, and love to our neighbor; and prescribe two corresponding kinds of duties.

However, the Beatitudes have a greater emphasis in Orthodoxy Christianity.  A correlation is made between the Beatitudes of the New Testament and the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament.  In doing so, the order found in Exodus 20, with Adultery placed before Murder, is used:

The Beatitudes and the Ten Commandments: An Orthodox Christian Parallel
https://ecosemiotics.com/the-beatitudes-and-the-ten-commandments-an-orthodox-christian-view/ 
Jesus Christ gave us His Beatitudes, most fully expressed in Matthew 5. They offer a post-Incarnation fulfillment to the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20, which according to Orthodox Christian Tradition He had voiced to the Prophet Moses in a theophany before His Incarnation. The Ten Commandments offer a “Thou shalt not” list of primary aspects of God’s law. The Beatitudes in effect offer a “Thou shalt” in full realization of Orthodox Christian natural law, which following St. Basil the Great in effect is the spark of God’s love in each human heart...

The Sixth Commandment:  “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” corresponds with the sixth Beatitude: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God”.

Roman Catholics (3 / 7)  A novel grouping is adopted in an effort to defend the doctrine of the Trinity against heretics; promotion of “development of dogma”:

St. Augustine, Questions on Exodus, Q. LXXI, II. However, it seems to me more fitting to accept those three, and those seven, because those things which are related to God seem to suggest a Trinity to those who look more carefully.

Douay Old Testament, 1582, Exodus 20, Annotations, #4  ...being no matter of faith, how they are divided, so all the words, and the number of ten commandments be acknowledged...but only as more reasonable we follow the common manner of dividing the first table into three precepts, directing us to God, the second into seven, belonging to our neighbor, approved for the better by S. Augustine (q 71 in Exodum)...

Protestants (4 - 6)  The Latin division is abandoned, not returning to Tradition, but in promotion of iconoclasm, as well as anti-clerical, anti-hierarchical, Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura heresies.

Though St. Augustine amended his original writing on predestination and grace in his Retractions, his first, erroneous teaching forms the foundation Calvinism, with the unsubstantiated claim that Augustine’s later works were tampered with.  Nevertheless, Calvin points out (along with expounding upon his Protestants heresies) that the 4-6 division of the Commandments is supported by the words of Christ (Matt 19), commonly held by the Church Fathers, and even previously held by Augustine before he developed his novel teaching:

Calvin’s Institutes, Ch. 8. Exposition of the Moral Law
https://ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iv.ix.html 
12. Division of the Law into Ten Commandments: Various distinctions made with regard to them, but the best distinction that which divides them into Two Tables. Four commandments belong to the First, and six to the Second Table.
...Nor is it an unprofitable study to consider the division of the commandments, provided we remember that it is one of those matters in which every man should have full freedom of judgment [!], and on account of which, difference of opinion should not lead to contention. We are, indeed, under the necessity of making this observation, lest the division which we are to adopt should excite the surprise or derision of the reader, as novel or of recent invention.
...Those who adopt a division which gives three commandments to the First Table, and throws the remaining seven into the Second Table, expunge the commandment concerning images [idols, not all images!] from the list, or at least conceal it under the first, though there cannot be a doubt that it was distinctly set down by the Lord as a separate commandment; whereas the tenth, which prohibits the coveting of what belongs to our neighbor, they absurdly break down into two. Moreover, it will soon appear, that this method of dividing was unknown in a purer [!] age. Others count four commandments in the First Table as we do...This division Origin adopts without discussion, as if it had been every where received in his day.

Origen, Homily 8 on Exodus:
(2) ...“The first commandment, therefore is: “You shall not have other gods besides me.”  The second is:  “You shall not make for yourself an idol nor any likeness” etc.

(3) Let us see next what the second commandment also appears to contain:  “You shall not make for yourself an idol nor any likeness of those things which are in heaven or which are in the earth or which are in the waters under th earth.”  There is a great difference between idols and gods as the Apostle [St. Paul] himself no less teaches us. For he said of gods, “Just as there are many gods and many lords”; but regarding idols he says, “An idol is nothing in the world.”  Whence it seems to me that what the Law says has not been said in passing.  For it makes a distinction between gods and idols and again between idols and likenesses...

It [the 4 / 6 division] is also adopted by Augustine, in his book addressed to Boniface, where, in enumerating the commandments, he follows this order:  Let one God be religiously obeyed, let no idol be worshipped, let the name of God be not used in vain; while previously he had made separate mention of the typical commandment of the Sabbath. Elsewhere, indeed, he expresses approbation of the first division, but on too slight grounds, because, by the number three (making the First Table consist of three commandments), the mystery of the Trinity would be better manifested. Even here, however, he does not disguise his opinion, that in other respects, our division is more to his mind... Josephus, no doubt with the general consent of his age, assigns five commandments to each table.

The Works of Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Ch. 6 Concerning the Tabernacle which Moses Built in the Wilderness
5.  ...In this ark he put the two tables whereon the ten commandments were written, five upon each table, and two and a half upon each side of them; and this ark he placed in the most holy place.

This, while repugnant to reason, inasmuch as it confounds the distinction between piety and charity, is also refuted by the authority of our Saviour, who in Matthew places the command to honour parents in the list of those belonging to the Second Table.

Matt 19:17 ...But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He said to him: Which? And Jesus said: Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness. 19 Honor thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 

In summary, here are the various divisions and regroupings:

Jewish = 5/5

Orthodox = 4/6 

Catholic = 3/7 

Protestant = 4/6 

Only the Roman Catholics have altered the Commandments themselves, joining the first two, and dividing the last one.  To his credit, St. Augustine preferred the Septuagint scriptures, rather than St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate, as explained in Part I.  Because the Septuagint places "wife" first on the list against covetousness, both in Exodus and Deuteronomy, Augustine felt justified in separating the last commandment into two.  Ironically, the Latin Vulgate uses the Masoretic text in Exodus 20:17, which places “house” before “wife”:  

Douay-Rheims Bible
Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house: neither shalt thou desire his wife, nor his servant, nor his handmaid, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his.

If this version is accepted as authentic, how then, can “wife” be pulled out of the middle of the Commandment, in order to form a new one?  

5. Conclusion

Should Jerome and Augustine even be held up as Saints?   They have always been honored as such, in the east and the west, in spite of having made grave errors, since they were willing to adhere to the decisions of the Church, as was the case with many other Saints.   Jerome's Latin translation was not universally accepted, and only imposed in the west long after the Great Schism of 1054.  St. Augustine retracted some of his errors, and also contributed many excellent theological works for the benefit of the Church.  It's significant that both Jerome's Vulgate and Augustine's novel teachings on grace and the Trinity were simultaneously adopted in Rome, with Pope Nicholas' (858-867) letters to Bulgaria, which departed from both the Doctrine and Tradition of the Fathers, leading to a four-year Rome-Constantinople Schism (863–867).  So. the fruit of implementing the errors of St. Jerome and St. Augustine was division.  Nevertheless, it is the promulgation of such error and heresy that is the real cause of division.

The comparisons made between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Old Testaments, in Parts I and II should made it clear to readers that it is the Septuagint that is inspired of God.  Regarding the Ten Commandments, it should also be evident that the Septuagint had preserved the accurate translation.   It should also be understood that, while Christianity brought a fulfillment of the Law, and the Commandments are now viewed according to charity, Protestants cannot be charged with reinventing the Ten Commandments.  Rather, the novel rendition belongs to Roman Catholicism alone.  Indeed, these scriptural and doctrinal changes epitomize the difference between Roman Catholicism, in which doctrines develop according to the decree of the pope, and Orthodox Christianity that cleaves to the antiquity of the Apostolic Fathers and the universality of Councils. 

Which Bible are You Using? Part I: Septuagint vs. Masoretic

Summary: 

The Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament is inspired, was used by the Apostles and the early Church, and continues to be used by Orthodox Christians.  The Latin Vulgate is not Rome’s original Latin translation; it is based on the Jewish Masoretic text, not the Septuagint.  The Masoretic was altered, beginning at least in the 2nd century A.D., in order to deny Jesus Christ; its corruptions cannot fit with history.  The Douay-Rheims, King James, and NIV bibles, with their derivatives, are all based on the Latin Vulgate (Masoretic) Old Testament.

Contents:

1. Introduction
2. The Septuagint
3. The Latin Vulgate
4. The Genealogy of Shem
5. Bondage in Egypt
6. Archaeology and History
7. Minor Changes in the Masoretic
8. Conclusion

1. Introduction

Before the coming of Christ, as Jews became more cosmopolitan, traveling throughout the Mediterranean and beyond, Greek, rather than Hebrew, became their predominant language. What is now known as the Greek Septuagint Old Testament translation is the result of a miraculous intervention at Alexandria, in the 3rd century before Christ.  

Though there were chapter numbers, the ancient Hebrew texts were originally recorded without verse numbers, or even vowels or punctuation.  The Greek Septuagint had vowels, but not punctuation, and the scriptures in general had no verse numbers until the sixteenth century.  

In the early days of Christianity, some copies of the Septuagint became adulterated by Jews and heretics, while others had missing verses and sections.  Then, there were problems associated with translating the Greek texts into other languages, such as Latin which, though precise, has a less extensive vocabulary.  Meanwhile, the Jews amended their own texts between the 2nd and 11th centuries A.D., which is known as the Masoretic Text.  They also altered certain passages, in order to disprove Jesus Christ as being the Messiah.  We'll look at many of these changes, including those made in “The Genealogy of Shem” section below.  The Ten Commandments have also gone through some changes which we will examine in Part II.  But first, let’s read more about the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate.

2. The Septuagint

The scriptures of the Church during the first millennium, including the entire Latin west, consisted of the Greek New Testament, and the Greek Septuagint Old Testament.  These were simply translated into Latin and other languages.  We know the Savior and the Apostles used the Septuagint text, as well, since it is referred to several times in the New Testament. 

Like the Greek New Testament, the Orthodox Church has always considered the Greek Septuagint Old Testament to be inspired by the Holy Spirit:

“The Septuagint”
http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/septuag.htm
In his book The Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia very simply and clearly sets out the position of the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint: ‘The Orthodox Church has the same New Testament as the rest of Christendom. As its authoritative text for the Old Testament it uses the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint. Where this differs from the Hebrew text (which happens quite often), Orthodox believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation.’

Both ancient historians and the the Holy Fathers themselves explain the miraculous history of the Septuagint, and confirm it: 

Proofs of the authenticity of the Septuagint, Makrakēs
https://archive.org/details/proofsofauthenti00makr/page/18/mode/2up 

Ch II:  Proofs that the Translation of the Septuagint was Done by Will of God and Inspriation of the Holy Spirit, and Not by INvention and Fabrication of Human Fictions, as Some Think and Teach

The infinite wisdom of God and His providence for the salvation of man took care that the sacred and divine books written by the All Holy Spirit through the agency of Moses the beholder of God and the other holy prophets should be translated into the Greek tongue with the cooperation of King Ptolemy Philadelphus for the purpose of preparing all nations to accept the future Savior who was to appear upon the earth, and that God Himself who supplied the prophecy might also make the translation as though it were a Greek prophecy.  

For truth’s sake we quote a few testimonies from various Holy Fathers, Greek as well as Latin, and even from some of the more authoritative Jews.

St. Justin the Martyr, in his 13th letter of admonition to the Greeks says: “Ptolemy, the King of Egypt who built a library in Alexandria and collected books from all over the world, and filled it, having later learned that ancient records written in Hebrew letters happened to be still in existence and accurately preserved, and being desirous of learning what was written therein, ordered seventy learned men acquainted with the languages of both the Greeks and the Hebrews to stranslate the books for the Greeks; and he sent for them to Jerusalem. In order that the translation might be expedited by their being free from all bother, he ordered that an equal number of small dwelling houses be built for them, not in the city itself, but at a distance of seven stadia, where the Pharos lighthouse stood, so that each one of them might execute the translation by himself. He ordered that the attending servants afford them every convenience, but prevent them from talking with one another, in order that the accuracy of the translation might be judged from the accordance of the results. And when he learned that the seventy men not only had expressed the same thoughts but also used the same words in doing so, and had not varied from one another in even so much as a single word, but had all written the same versions concerning the same matters, he was astonished, and believing that the translation had been made by divine power, he acknowledged the translators to be worthy of all honor as being men beloved of God. After giving them many gifts, he told them to return to their native country. He then deposited the books, which he naturally admired and exalted to the skies, there in the library.”

Justin then continues: ““These things are facts, and not fairy tales, I assure you, O Greeks. Nor do I recite made-up stories; but, on the contrary, having been in Alexandria and having seen the remains of the houses at Pharos still standing, and having heard from others living there, as from father to son, I can vouch for what I narrate.’ Here, then, is unmistakable testimony of a Church Father who lived in the first part of the second century after Christ and who, as he himself testifies, saw the remains of the houses with his own eyes while the tradition was still fresh in the minds of the Alexandrians concerning the work of the seventy translators of the Septuagint.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, [Against Heresies, Book III, Ch. 21], His [complete] testimony, however, is to be found in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, Book V, Chapter 8, from which we quote the following: ‘For even before the Romans had completed the establishment of their empire, and while the Macedonians were still in possession of Asia, Ptolemy of Lagus, being desirous of enriching the library he had built in Alexandria with the works of all writers, so far at least as they were of any particular importance, requested of the Jerusalem authorities to have their Scriptures translated into the Greek tongue. The Jerusalem authorities (who were still subject to the Macedonians) sent to Ptolemy seventy of their elders who were best versed in the Scriptures and in both languages, God having done as He had planned. Ptolemy, wishing to assure himself personally regarding them, because he suspected that they might have concerted to withhold from the translation the truth contained in the Scriptures, separated them from each other and ordered all of them to make the same translation. And he made them do so in the case of every one of the other books. When they assembled together with Ptolemy and collated their translations one with another, not only was God glorified but the Scriptures were also shown to be really divine, for all the translators had declared the same things with the same words and the same names from beginning to end. As a result the heathen present knew that the Scriptures had been translated with the inspiration of God.”

St. Augustine (De Civitate Deus) says: “The Spirit which enlightened the prophets when they preached is the self same Spirit which enlightened the seventy when they made their translation. The Spirit may have omitted or added something lest it should be suspected that human art had a hand in making the version, causing the text to be translated word for word, and so as to enable men to understand that it was the divine power that enlightened and guided the minds of the translators.”

St. John Chrysostom, 17th address to the Judaizing, says: “The Scriptures as translated during the reign of Ptolemy have been in use down to the present day.”

...St. Cyprian, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria call the translation of the 70 as God-inspired.  St. Basil the Great calls it the most famous in the Church...

Together with the New Testament the Septuagint with its content satiated the entire following life of the Church: Its order of Divine Services, Its edifications to Its children, the laws and rules of the church and the creations of the holy fathers.  

The ancient Greek Septuagint manuscripts categorized according to place:  Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Theodosianus...   The first to translate the Greek Septuagint into English was Charles Thomson in 1808.

"Charles Thomson", Wikipedia
(1729 – 1824) ...an Irish-born Founding Father of the United States and secretary of the Continental Congress (1774–1789) throughout its existence. As secretary, Thomson prepared the Journals of the Continental Congress, and his and John Hancock's names were the only two to appear on the first printing of the United States Declaration of Independence. Thomson is also known for co-designing the Great Seal of the United States and adding its Latin mottoes Annuit cœptis and Novus ordo seculorum, and for his translation of the Bible's Old Testament.

Then, the British nobleman Sir Lancelot Brenton, provided a Greek - English Septuagint bible in 1844.

Today, one can divide translations of the Old Testament into two main categories:  Septuagint and Masoretic.  As already mentioned, after Christ’s Incarnation, Hebrew teachers (Masoretes) also made corrections to their texts:

“The Importance of the Septuagint”, Orthodox Church in America (OCA) 
https://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/bible2/septuagint.shtml

...in the second century A.D. Judaism makes new translations of the Old-Testament books into Greek. These are the translations of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, made in the second century. In these translations the anti-Christian tendency — the attempt to change the Messianic places in the Old Testament, make them less evidently relating to Christ the Savior, is clearly seen.

In the same time the Judaism started its grandiose work on the reformation of the original of the Holy Scripture — its ancient Hebrew text — to establish its stability. This reformation, which took place since the 2nd till the 8th centuries, consisted of the fact that the Jewish Scribes, the so-called Massorites, i.e. the keepers of tradition...rewrote all the books of the Holy Scripture, meant to be read in the synagogues, checked them letter by letter, entering the new system of vowels and punctuation marks...With that, in their work on the Hebrew text the Massorites as well, in all ways, tried to put more shade to the clarity of the Messianic extracts, which predicted Christ the Savior.

Unfortunately, many of the Masoretic errors (which deny Christ!) are included in all Old Testament translations that utilize the Masoretic texts, rather than staying with the Septuagint.  These include: 

• Latin Vulgate Bible
• Douay-Rheims Bible
• King James Bible
• most modern Protestant bibles

This is confirmed by comparing the scriptures.  First, let’s look at some minor errors pointed out in Makrakēs book:

Proofs of the authenticity of the Septuagint, Makrakēs
https://archive.org/details/proofsofauthenti00makr/page/18/mode/2up 

Ch II:  ...As examples of the differences existing between the Septuagint and other versions, we shall confine our attention to the following two cases, among many...

Acts 7:43 says: ‘And ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to pay them homage.’   The same words appear in [Septuagint] Amos 5:26.  Instead of this, in Amos 5:26:

The Jewish Version...says: “But ye have borne Siccuth your king and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves.” 

The Douay (Roman Catholic Version) says: “But you carried a tabernacle for your Moloch, and the image of your idols, the star of your god, which you made to yourselves.”

The King James Version says: ‘‘But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves.”

The Revised (Anglo-American) Edition says: “Yea, ye have borne the tabernacle of your king and the shrine of your images, the star of your god, which ye have made to yourselves.” 

Heb. 11.21 says: “...upon the top of his staff.”  The same words appear in [Septuagint] Gen. 47.31.

But the Jewish Version renders Gen. 47.31: “...upon the bed’s head.” Likewise the King James Version and the Anglo-American Revised.  

The Douay Version, however, says in Heb. 11:21: “...the top of his rod”, omitting “upon”, and in Gen. 47:31: “...turning to the bed’s head”.

All versions except the Greek Septuagint differ in this passage from the New Testament. This fact is acknowledged by the Roman Catholic Bible in a footnote saying that St. Paul followed the Greek translation contained in the Septuagint, and not the Vulgate or any other version.

It’s also notable that in this Footnote within the Douay-Rheims Bible, a further Protestant deviation is pointed out:

Douay-Rheims Bible, Hebrews 11:21
https://drbo.org/chapter/65011.htm 

Footnote: [21] "Adored the top of his rod": The apostle here follows the ancient Greek Bible of the seventy interpreters, (which translates in this manner, Gen. 47. 31.,) and alleges this fact of Jacob, in paying a relative honour and veneration to the top of the rod or sceptre of Joseph, as to a figure of Christ's sceptre and kingdom, as an instance and argument of his faith. But some translators, who are no friends to this relative honour, have corrupted the text, by translating it, he worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff; as if this circumstance of leaning upon his staff were any argument of Jacob's faith, or worthy the being thus particularly taken notice of by the Holy Ghost.

3. The Latin Vulgate

Originally, the Latin scriptures were translated from the Codex Vaticanus, a Greek copy of the Septuagint.  This was not the Latin Vulgate.  This came to be called the Versio Antiqua (Ancient Latin Version).  These two versions, the Ancient Latin and the Latin Vulgate, were compiled into a book, and presented to Pope Benedict XIV in 1743: 

Bibliorum Sacrorum, Latinae Versiones Antiquae seu Vetus Italica [The Holy Bible, Latin Versions of the Ancient or Old Italic Bibles], Fr. Sabatier, 1743
https://archive.org/details/bibliorumsacroru01saba/page/38/mode/2up 

Celisissimo Aurelianensium Duci 

[To the Most High Prince]

We offer you your gifts, Most High Prince. Surely your delights are the Holy Scriptures, of which we bring to light this new Edition, dedicated to your Highness. Although you drink these heavenly waters more sweetly from the very springs, by turning over Hebrew and Greek copies; yet we are not afraid to offer you a Latin interpretation of the Scriptures, and we hope that it will be pleasing and acceptable to you. But I speak of that Latin, which, to speak with Jerome, strengthened the foundation of the nascent Church; which was once in use by the ancient teachers of our faith, which begot us in Christ; which the Fathers and Writers of the Latin Church, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, and others, down to the times of Gregory the Great, used, whether to confirm the dogmas of faith, or to transmit the precepts of morals. These are the words of life; these are the victorious weapons, by which the Catholic cause has stood for so many years, by which it has so often triumphed over the monsters of errors and vices.  With these Tertullian successfully fought against Marcion, Valentinus, Praxea, and other plagues of truth. With these the great Augustine vindicated the victorious grace of Christ from the weapons of the Pelagians; with these he waged war against the Manichaeans, Donatists, Arians, and countless other adversaries of sounder doctrine. With these weapons, I say, the Fathers and Doctors of the Latin Church, each in his own age, confirmed the dogmas of the faith; with these words they handed down the precepts of morals and taught Christians the duties of piety.

The Latin praised so highly in this dedication, as having overcome all the early heretics, is the Latin Septuagint. The Ancient Latin text, translated from the Greek Codex Vaticanus, had missing verses, however.  But instead of translating those missing scriptures from other Septuagint translations, St. Jerome (345-420) was commissioned by Pope St. Damasus in 382 A.D., to go to Palestine to study the Hebrew and Aramiac languages and idioms in order to secure a correct translation of the scriptures. This commission was probably due to a fear that the scriptures may have been tampered with by Arian or other heretics.  So, rather than comparing Greek texts, St. Jerome clandestinely consulted with “trusted” Jews for his new translation. He kept portions of the Septuagint, such as the Psalms and large portions of Isaiah, but relied largely on Hebrew (Masoretic) texts.  He didn’t realize the Jews were willing to adulterate their own scriptures in order to disprove Christ!  This came to be known as the new Latin Vulgate.

St. Jerome was heavily criticized by St. Augustine and others for his new translation, and so Rome and the Latin west only gradually came to utilize the Vulgate, which became more prominent after the 8th century.

St. Augustine wrote a letter to St. Jerome in 394,  upon learning that he was using Hebrew texts instead of the Greek for his translation:

“Correspondence of Augustine and Jerome concerning the Latin Translation of the Bible”, from: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ‘Letters of Augustine’, Schaff
https://www.bible-researcher.com/vulgate2.html

“I beseech you not to devote your labour to the work of translating into Latin the sacred canonical books, unless you follow the method in which you have translated Job, viz. with the addition of notes, to let it be seen plainly what differences there are between this version of yours and that of the Septuagint, whose authority is worthy of highest esteem. For my own part, I cannot sufficiently express my wonder that anything should at this date be found in the Hebrew manuscripts which escaped so many translators perfectly acquainted with the language.”

St. Augustine, Letter 403: 

“I have since heard that you have translated Job out of the original Hebrew, although in your own translation of the same prophet from the Greek tongue we had already a version of that book. In that earlier version you marked with asterisks the words found in the Hebrew but wanting in the Greek, and with obelisks the words found in the Greek but wanting in the Hebrew; and this was done with such astonishing exactness, that in some places we have every word distinguished by a separate asterisk, as a sign that these words are in the Hebrew, but not in the Greek. Now, however, in this more recent version from the Hebrew, there is not the same scrupulous fidelity as to the words; and it perplexes any thoughtful reader to understand either what was the reason for marking the asterisks in the former version with so much care that they indicate the absence from the Greek version of even the smallest grammatical particles which have not been rendered from the Hebrew, or what is the reason for so much less care having been taken in this recent version from the Hebrew to secure that these same particles be found in their own places...

For my part, I would much rather that you would furnish us with a translation of the Greek version ... For if your translation begins to be more generally read in many churches, it will be a grievous thing that, in the reading of Scripture, differences must arise between the Latin Churches and the Greek Churches, especially seeing that the discrepancy is easily condemned in a Latin version by the production of the original in Greek, which is a language very widely known; whereas, if any one has been disturbed by the occurrence of something to which he was not accustomed in the translation taken from the Hebrew, and alleges that the new translation is wrong, it will be found difficult, if not impossible, to get at the Hebrew documents by which the version to which exception is taken may be defended.”

St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Ch.15:  Now among translations themselves the Italian (Itala) is to be preferred to the others, for it keeps closer to the words without prejudice to clearness of expression. And to correct the Latin we must use the Greek versions, among which the authority of the Septuagint is pre-eminent as far as the Old Testament is concerned; for it is reported through all the more learned churches that the seventy translators enjoyed so much of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in their work of translation, that among that number of men there was but one voice. And if, as is reported, and as many not unworthy of confidence assert, they were separated during the work of translation, each man being in a cell by himself, and yet nothing was found in the manuscript of any one of them that was not found in the same words and in the same order of words in all the rest, who dares put anything in comparison with an authority like this, not to speak of preferring anything to it?  ...Wherefore, even if anything is found in the original Hebrew in a different form from that in which these men have expressed it, I think we must give way to the dispensation of Providence which used these men to bring it about, that books which the Jewish race were unwilling, either from religious scruple or from jealousy, to make known to other nations, were, with the assistance of the power of King Ptolemy, made known so long beforehand to the nations which in the future were to believe in the Lord. And thus it is possible that they translated in such a way as the Holy Spirit, who worked in them and had given them all one voice, thought most suitable for the Gentiles.

Now, let’s look at some larger, more significant differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic texts:  the genealogy of Shem in Genesis 11, the time of Israel’s Egyptian captivity, and the witnesses of archaeology and history.

4. The Genealogy of Shem

Unfortunately, St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, composed largely the Jewish Masoretic texts, unwittingly included their fabrications invented to deny Jesus Christ.  For example, Nathan Hoffman points out that Masoretes altered the genealogy of Shem to make it appear that he lived to the time of Abraham:  

"Were the Pyramids Built before the Flood?" (Masoretic Text vs. Original Hebrew)"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI1yRTC6kGE 

“Rabbi Asher Meza:  ‘Unlike Christianity, our tradition tells us who was Melchizedeck. He wasn't an angel, or God, Himself, like the Christians teach.  But, was actually Sem the son of Noe, who transferred the title of priest over to Abraham.  And then on through Isaac, Jacob, Levi, and ultimately Aaron.’”

By altering these dates, the Messiah is now looked for to be a priest after the order of Aaron, rather than “after the order of Melchizedeck”.  According to rabbinic teaching, Jesus would need to be of the Aaronic Tribe of Levi: 

"Priest Messiah (of Levi) and King Messiah (of Judah)", Godfrey (Jewish)
https://vridar.org/2017/04/16/the-priestly-messiah-and-the-royal-messiah/

...I quote a summary of the various references by K.G. Kuhn:  So we see, side by side in Test. Rub. 67-12 the Anointed High Priest of Levi 19 and the Eternal King of Judah. Levi has the highest rank, while Judah is subordinated to him. Especially interesting is the fact that it is the high priest title, already familiar to us from Lev. 4 which appears here in the same Greek translation as the Septuagint used in Lev. 45,16, 615, cf. 43. In Test. Levi 172, 3 the high priest of Levi is called the Anointed One (ho chriomenos = ha-mashiah). 20  According to Test. Sim. 72, God will cause a high priest to arise from Levi and a King from Judah. 21 It is from these that the salvation of God will come upon Israel (Test. Sim. 71; likewise Test. Levi 211; Dan 510; Gad 81; Jos. 1911).

But the Apostles and Church Fathers teach that Jesus is of the Tribe of Judah, and of the order of Mechizedeck, not Aaron, as will be shown. First, let’s compare the Masoretic and Septuagint texts of the Geanealogy of Shem:

Hebrew Bible, Masoretic text 
https://www.originalbibles.com/the-hebrew-bible-in-english-jps-1917/
Genesis 11:10-26 (page 13)
10 These are the generations of Shem. Shem was a hundred years old, and begot Arpachshad two years after the flood.
11 And Shem lived after he begot Arpachshad five hundred years, and begot sons and daughters.
12 And Arpachsad lived five and thirty years, and begot Shelah.
13 And Arpachsad lived after he begot Shelah four hundred and three years, and begot sons and daughters.
14 And Shelah lived thirty years, and begot Eber.
15 And Shelah lived after he begot Eber four hundred and three years, and begot sons and daughters.
16 And Eber lived four and thirty years and begot Peleg. 
17 And Eber lived after he begot Peleg four hundred and thirty years, and begot sons and daughters.
18 And Peleg lived thirty years, and begot Reu.
19 And Peleg lived after he begot Reu two hundred and nine years, and begot sons and daughters.
20 And Reu lived two and thirty years and begot Serug.
21 And Reu lived after he begot Serug two hundred and seven years, and begot sons and daughters.
22 And Serug lived thirty years, and begot Nahor.
23 And Serug lived after he begot Nahor two hundred years, and begot sons and daughters.
24 And Nahor lived nine and twenty years and begot Terah. 
25 And Nahor lived after he begot Terah a hundred and nineteen years, and begot sons and daughters.

26 And Terah lived seventy years and begot Abram, and Nahor, and Haran. 

The Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible, Brenton, 1851

https://archive.org/details/septuagintversio00bren/page/10/mode/2up 
Genesis 11:10-26
10 And these are the generations of Sem, and Sem was a hundred years old when he begot Arphaxad, the second year after the flood. 
11 And Sem lived, after he had begotten Arphaxad, five hundred years, and begot sons and daughters, and died.
12 And Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirty-five years, and begot Cainan.
13 And Arphaxad lived after he had begotten Cainan, four hundred years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. 
14 And Sala lived an hundred and thirty years, and begot Heber.
15 And Sala lived after he had begotten Heber, three hundred and thirty years, and begot sons and daughters, and died.
16 And Heber lived an hundred and thirty-four years, and begot Phaleg.
17 And Heber lived after he had begotten Phaleg two hundred and seventy years, and begot sons and daughters, and died.
18 And Phaleg lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot Ragau.
19 And Phaleg lived after he had begotten Ragau, two hundred and nine years, and begot sons and daughters, and died.
20 And Ragau lived a hundred thirty and two years, and begot Seruch.
21 And Raau lived after he had begotten Seruch, two hundred and seven years, and begot sons and daughters, and died.
22 And Seruch lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot Nachor.
23 And Seruch lived after he had begotten Nachor, two hundred years, and begot sons and daughters, and died.
24 And Nachor lived a hundred and seventy-nine years, and begot Tharrha.
25 And Nachor lived after he had begotten Tharrha, an hundred and twenty-five years, and begot sons and daughters, and he died.
26 And Tharrha lived seventy years, and begot Abram, and Nachor, and Arrhan.

When we add the ages of the generations from Shem to Abraham, we see a great discrepancy:

Masoretic Text

+102 +35 +30 +34 + 30 +32 +30 +29 +70 = 392

Shem lived 602 years, with 502 being after the flood. He was about 392 years old when Abraham was born.

Septuagint Text

+102 +135 +130 +134 +130 +132 +130 +179 +70 = 1,142

Shem lived 602 years, with 502 being after the flood. He died about 640 years before Abraham was born.

There is a chronological difference of 740 years between the two varying texts!  According to the invention of the Masoretes, Melchizedek was actually Noe’s son Shem, who lived to the time of Abraham, passing on the high-priesthood to him.  But the New Testament holds the true teaching of both the ancient Jews and Christians, confirming the Septuagint.  St. Paul, a former Pharisee well-versed in the law and prophets, teaches us that Jesus Christ’s priesthood is not of Aaron (passed down from Shem to Abraham), but according to Melchizedek:

Douay-Rheims Bible 
Hebrews 7:7-17
7 And without all contradiction, that which is less, is blessed by the better.
8 And here indeed, men that die, receive thithes: but there he hath witness, that he liveth.
9 And (as it may be said) even Levi who received tithes, paid tithes in Abraham:
10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedech met him.
11 If then perfection was by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchisedech, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation also be made of the law.
13 For he, of whom these things are spoken, is of another tribe, of which no one attended on the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Lord sprung out of Juda: in which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.
15 And it is yet far more evident: if according to the similitude of Melchisedech there ariseth another priest,
16 Who is made not according to the law of a carnal commandment, but according to the power of an indissoluble life:
17 For he testifieth: Thou art a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech.

Looking at the genealogy dates in Genesis 11 shows which Old Testament text a particular bible is using.  When we examine the Ancient Latin, we see that it is a translation of the Greek Septuagint. even though verses are missing:

Versio Antiqua (Ancient Latin Version), translated from the Codex Vaticanus
https://archive.org/details/bibliorumsacroru01saba/page/38/mode/2up 
Genesis 11:10-26
10. And these are the generations of Shem: Shem was a hundred years old when he begat Arphaxad, the second year after the flood.
12. And Arphaxad was an hundred and thirty-five years old when he begat Cainan.
[Verses 14 – 25 are missing.]
26. When Terah was seventy years old, he begat Abraham, and Nahor, and Arran.   

St. Jerome’s original Latin Vulgate, found in the same text, clearly adopts the  Masoretic text, rather than the Septuagint:

Vulgata Nova (New Vulgate)
Genesis 11:10-26
10. These are the generations of Shem: Shem was a hundred years old when he begat Arphaxad, two years after the flood.
12. And Arphaxad lived thirty-five years, and begat Shelah.
14. And Shelah lived thirty years, and begat Eber.
16. And Eber lived thirty-four years, and begat Peleg.
18. And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu.
20. And Reu lived thirty-two years, and begat Serug.
22. And Serug lived thirty years, and begat Nahor.
24. And Nahor lived nine and twenty years, and begat Terah.
26. And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, and Nahor, and Haran.

And when we compare the Douay-Rheims Bible, the King James Bible, and many other Protestant Bibles, we find that they are all translations of the Latin Vulgate, containing the same Masoretic dates:

Douay-Rheims Bible 
https://drbo.org/drl/chapter/01011.htm 
Genesis 11:10-26
10. These are the generations of Sem: Sem was a hundred years old when he begot Arphaxad, two years after the flood.
12. And Arphaxad lived thirty-five years, and begot Sale.
14. Sale also lived thirty years, and begot Heber.
16. And Heber lived thirty-four years, and begot Phaleg.
18. Phaleg also lived thirty years, and begot Reu.
20. And Reu lived thirty-two years, and begot Sarug.
22. And Sarug lived thirty years, and begot Nachor.
24. And Nachor lived nine and twenty years, and begot Thare.
26. And Thare lived seventy years, and begot Abram, and Nachor, and Aran.

The ages in the Douay translation add up to 392 years, like the Masoretic, rather than the 1,142 years of the Septuagint.  Unfortunately, Roman Catholics are faced with the dilemma of having to accept the falsified Masoretic texts, found within the Latin Vulgate, as authentic:

Council of Trent, Session IV, April 8, 1546 
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/trent/fourth-session.htm 
“Decree Concerning the Edition, and the Use, of the Sacred Books”
Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,–considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,–ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.

The Council of Trent, being intent on quenching the new Protestant wave of bible renditions, was indifferent to the fact that the Latin Vulgate differs from the Greek Septuagint.  Ironically, as shown above, the Vulgate’s Masoretic rendering of Genesis 11:10-26 is not only refuted by its own New Testament in Hebrews 7:7-17 (see above), but also by Pope St. Leo the Great who, utilizing the Septuagint himself, also teaches Jesus is of the order of Melchizedeck: 

Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461), Sermon 3, #I. The honor of being raised to the episcopate must be referred solely to the Divine Head of the Church [Jesus Christ]:  ...For it is He [Christ] of whom it is prophetically written, You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedeck, that is, not after the order of Aaron, whose priesthood descending along his own line of offspring was a temporal ministry, and ceased with the law of the Old Testament, but after the order of Melchizedeck, in whom was prefigured the eternal High Priest.  And no reference is made to his parentage because in him it is understood that He was portrayed, whose generation cannot be declared.  And finally, now that the mystery of this Divine priesthood has descended to human agency, it runs not by the line of birth, nor is that which flesh and blood created, chosen, but without regard to the privilege of paternity and succession by inheritance, those men are received by the Church as its rulers whom the Holy Ghost prepares: so that in the people of God's adoption, the whole body of which is priestly and royal, it is not the prerogative of earthly origin which obtains the unction, but the condescension of Divine grace which creates the bishop.

        

5. Bondage in Egypt 

The Masoretic text also alters the timeline in another place, lengthening the time the Israelites spent in bondage in Egypt.  Why would the Masoretes claim to be enslaved for 430 years, rather than the 215 years in Egypt, with roughly 120 years of slavery, as previously believed by ancient Jews? 

Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 2.13.2
“They left Egypt...four hundred and thirty years after our forefather Abraham came into Canaan, but two hundred and fifteen years only after Jacob removed into Egypt.”

But why were the Israelites said to be in Egyptian bondage for 400 years?  Let’s let Google AI provide the common opinion:  “The 400-year enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt served to transform a small family into a large nation, while acting as a period of divine discipline and preparation. It was, as foretold to Abraham, designed to foster a distinct, collective identity, teach dependence on God, and allow time for the iniquity of the Amorites to be complete.”  

Was this change of text an effort to deny the true meaning of the Abrahamic prophecy taught by Christianity?  Let’s compare the wording in Genesis 12:

Thompson Septuagint
Genesis 12:1 Now the Lord said to Abram, Depart from thy land and from thy kindred and from the house of thy father and come to the land which I will shew thee, 2 and I will make thee a great nation; and I will bless thee and make thy name great, and thou shalt be blessed; 3 and I will bless them, who bless thee; and those who curse thee I will curse: and by thee all the tribes of the earth shalt be blessed.

Jewish Masoretic
Genesis 12:1 Now the LORD said unto Abram: 'Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto the land that I will show thee. 2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and be thou a blessing. 3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse; and in thee shall all the families [מִשְׁפָּחָה] of the earth be blessed.

Douay-Rheims + Latin Vulgate
Genesis 12:1 And the Lord said to Abram: Go forth out of thy country, and from thy kindred [cognatione] and out of thy father's house, and come into the land which I shall shew thee.  2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and magnify thy name, and thou shalt be blessed.  3 I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee, and in thee shall all the kindred [cognationes] of the earth be blessed.

The Hebrew word “mispaha” [מִשְׁפָּחָה] can mean kind, kindred, family, clan, tribe...  In Genesis 12:3 is translated as “kindred” and “families” by the Masoretic texts.  But it is “tribes” [φυλαὶ = Greek “phule” = offshoot, race, clan] according to the Septuagint.  Which is it?  “Kindred” implies those of a related family throughout the world.  “Families” has more than one meaning throughout the scriptures.  “Tribes” refers to differing clans, or various nations.  The phrase “tribes of the earth” is referenced by our Savior Himself:

Matthew 24:30  And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all tribes [φυλαὶ] of the earth mourn: and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with much power and majesty.

Did the anti-Christian Masoretes want to maintain the idea of the Jews alone being “the Chosen People” who receive Abrahams’ blessing, rather than all the gentile nations?   Did greatly magnifying the size of the Israelites during the Exodus make it more feasible that the Jews themselves could form a great world-wide family? 

Before Genesis 12:3, the word “mispaha”, translated as “families”, is used in Genesis 10, where it describes all the descendants of Noah, and how the all the nations of the earth were divided:

Douay-Rheims, Genesis 10
1 These are the generations of the sons of Noe: Sem, Cham, and Japheth: and unto them sons were born after the flood.
5 By these [the descendants of Japheth] were the islands of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.
18 And the Arvadite, and the Aemarite, and the Hamathite: and afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad.
20 These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations.
31 These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations.
32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.”

The prophecy concerning Abraham in Genesis 12 is alluding to the section, two chapters earlier in Genesis 10.  All "the nations divided in the earth after the flood" are "all the tribes of the earth".  Abraham's blessing is not only for the Jews.  In this case, the Septuagint's translation of the Hebrew as “tribes” is accurate.  Genesis 18:18 says:

Genesis 18:18 Seeing he shall become a great and mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth shall be blessed.

Ultimately, all the nations of the earth are not blessed by the Jews because of their charity or their presence, but because the Savior of the world comes through Abraham.  This is the common teaching of Christianity:

Luke 2:29-32 (Prophecy of Simeon, the High Priest)
29 Now thou dost dismiss thy servant, O Lord, according to thy word in peace; 30 Because my eyes have seen thy salvation, 31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples: 32 A light to the revelation of the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.

According to Hoffman’s other video, the Masorete's removal of the clause “and the land of Canaan” from Exodus 12:40 is what has changed the historical timeline:

How Long Were The Israelites In Egypt?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF0F8YjT1og
The movie “The Ten Commandments”, as well as most modern bibles, is wrong:  It’s not mathematicallypossible that the Israelites were in bondage for 430 years...They were in Egypt for 215 years, and in slavery for about 112 years...This is confirmed by the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentaeuch, the historian Flavius Josephus, St. Paul, and even the Masoretic genealogy itself...It is also supported by Egyptian history and archaeology, as well...The cause of the discrepancy is the removal of the phrase “and the land of Canaan” from the Masoretic text in Exodus 12:40.

Septuagint (Thompson)
Exodus 12:40 And the residence of the Israelites, while they dwelt in the land of Egypt and the land of Chanaan, was four hundred and thirty years.

Samaritan Pentaeuch (ancient Hebrew Torah used liturgically among the Samaritans)
Exodus 12:40 Now the sojourning of the children of Israel and of their fathers which they had dwelt in the land of Canaan and in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years.

The phrase was removed:

Masoretic
Exodus 12:40 And the abode of the children of Israel that they made in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.

And, of course, the Latin Vulgate follows the Masoretic:

Douay-Rheims (Latin Vulgate) Bible
Exodus 12:40 And the abode of the children of Israel that they made in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.

6. Archaeology and History

Archaeology and History also favor the Septuagint.  First of all, the Dead Sea Scrolls agree with it, more than any other text:

“Septuagint”, OrthodoxWiki
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Septuagint#Differences_with_other_Christian_Canons 
Dead Sea Scrolls
With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the mid twentieth century many examples have been recovered of the Old Testament in Hebrew from the time of Christ and the Holy Apostles and earlier. Scholarship during the past half century based upon these Dead Sea discoveries has revealed a close agreement between the LXX and pre-Masoretic Hebrew texts. In a review of some of this scholarship, Hershal Shanks[2] notes that ”…many Hebrew texts [are available] that were the base text for Septuagintal translations…”. Further he notes that what ”…texts like 4QSama show is that the Septuagintal translations are really quite reliable” and ”…gives new authority to the Greek translations against the Masoretic text”. Quoting Frank Moore Cross (a co-author of the book under review), Hershal continues ”We could scarcely hope to find closer agreement between the Old Greek [Septuagintal] tradition and 4QSama than actually is found in our fragments”.

Secondly, as Orthodox Bishops have pointed out, the Old Testament historical account itself contains a correlation to the writing of the Septuagint:  just as 70 elders were called to translate the Septuagint scriptures, it is recorded in the book of Exodus that 70 elders were also called as witnesses, with Moses, at the foot of Mt. Sinai:

Exodus 24:1;9-10 
1 And he said to Moses: Come up to the Lord, thou, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abiu, and seventy of the ancients of Israel, and you shall adore afar off.
9 Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abiu, and seventy of the ancients of Israel went up:  10  And they saw the God of Israel: and under his feet as it were a work of sapphire stone, and as the heaven, when clear.

Thirdly, in his video, Hoffman also points out that the false Masoretic dating places the building of the Pyramids before the Deluge, which is impossible:

"Were the Pyramids Built before the Flood?" (Masoretic Text vs. Original Hebrew)" 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI1yRTC6kGE
“According to Egyptologists, the Great Pyramids were built about 2550 BC, about two hundred years before the Flood [according to the Masoretic dating]  But how could the Egyptians have built the Pyramids two hundred years before the Flood, when the nation of Egypt didn’t even exist until after the Tower of Babel [which was built after the Deluge]?  That doesn’t make any sense.  The Great Pyramids do not have any signs of water damage.  ...However, the Pyramids are built upon sedimentary layers which contain fossils [that give evidence of a world wide Flood] ...which means the Pyramids were built after the Flood, not before it.   Also, the name “Egypt” means “Mizraim, who was the son of Cham, and grandson of Noah...But Noah didn’t even begin to have grandsons until after they stepped off the Ark.  So, clearly, Egyptian history could not have begun until after the Flood.  ...Even when you correct the Egyptian historical timeline [as historians have done today], the first pyramid, at Saqqara, still pre-dates the Flood by one hundred years [according to the Masoretic]...”

Finally, biblical archaeologists compare the New Testament record, which confirms the Septuagint, to the extant manuscripts of Plato and Aristotle:

“The Origin of the Bible”, Comfort, 1992, p.181:  “...there are well over 24,000 early copies and fragments of the New Testament pointing to the Greek. Plus the Greek version was exclusively quoted by the early Church.

Some of the fragments date only twenty years from the original autographs. By comparison to other ancient manuscripts such as the works of Plato or Aristotle, there are only a handful of copies that were written 1,200–1,400 years after the original autographs. According to a former director of the British Museum,

The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.”

7. Minor Changes in the Masoretic

St. Jerome did continue to use parts of the Septuagint in his new Latin Vulgate. Either some of the more blatant falsifications within the Masoretic text had not yet been written, or he simply rejected them.  For example, the St. Jerome continued to follow the Septuagint regarding the famous prophetic text in Isaiah 7:14: 

LXX: “behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son” 

Masoretic:  “the young woman will become pregnant, bear a son”

Latin Vulgate:  “Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son”

However, other Vulgate texts do follow the Masoretic, unwittingly denying Christ, as shown in the compilation from the Protestant website Uncomplicated Christianity:

“The Fallibility of the Hebrew Masoretic Text”
https://www.uncomplicatedchristianity.com/christian-history/the-fallibility-of-the-hebrew-masoretic-text/

[Isaiah 61:1]  

LXX: Isaiah 61:1  The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind.

Masoretic: Isaiah 61:1  The Spirit of Adonai ELOHIM is upon me, because ADONAI has anointed me to announce good news to the poor. He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted; to proclaim freedom to the captives, to let out into light those bound in the dark.

Douay-Rheims: Isaiah 61:1 The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord hath anointed me: he hath sent me to preach to the meek, to heal the contrite of heart, and to preach a release to the captives, and deliverance to them that are shut up.

King James: Isaiah 61:1  The Spirit of the Lord GOD [is] upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to [them that are] bound.

Clearly, he New Testament follows the Septuagint LXX:

Luke 4:18  The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed...

[Isaiah 42:4] 

LXX: Isaiah 42:4 He shall shine out, and shall not be discouraged, until he have set judgement on the earth: and in his name shall the Gentiles trust.

Masoretic: Isaiah 42:4 He will not weaken or be crushed until he has established justice on the earth, and the coastlands wait for his Torah.

Douay-Rheims/Latin Vulgate: Isaiah 42:4 He shall not be sad, nor troublesome, till he set judgment in the earth: and the islands shall wait for his law. 

King James: Isaiah 42:4 He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.

Again, the New Testament follows the Septuagint LXX:

Matthew 12:21  And in His name Gentiles will trust.

[Deuteronomy 32:43]

LXX: Deuteronomy 32:43  Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him; rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will render vengeance, and recompense justice to his enemies, and will reward them that hate him; and the Lord shall purge the land of his people.

Masoretic: Deuteronomy 32:43  Rejoice, O ye nations, [with] his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, [and] to his people.

Latin Vulgate:  Deuteronomy 32:43  Praise his people, ye nations, for he will revenge the blood of his servants: and will render vengeance to their enemies, and he will be merciful to the land of his people.

King James:  Deuteronomy 32:43  Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.

Here, the Vulgate omits that the Angels will worship Him, but St. Paul quotes the Septuagint:

Hebrews 1:6:  But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all the angels of God worship Him.”

[This prophecy was fulfilled at the Nativity when the whole host of heaven glorified God praising Him for the birth of the Son.]

[Psalm 40:6]  

LXX: Psalm 40:6  Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me: whole-burnt-offering and [sacrifice] for sin thou didst not require.

Masoretic: Psalm 40:6  Sacrifices and grain offerings you don’t want; burnt offerings and sin offerings you don’t demand. Instead, you have given me open ears.

Latin Vulgate [corresponding] Psalm 39:7  Sacrifice and oblation thou didst not desire; but thou hast pierced ears for me. Burnt offering and sin offering thou didst not require. 

King James: Psalm 40:6  Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

In the New Testament the Septuagint prevails again:

Hebrews 10:5  Therefore, when he comes into the world, he says: Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but you have prepared a body for me.

8. Conclusion 

We have more than sufficient evidence that the scriptures were corrupted by the Masoretes, that the Latin Vulgate follows the Masoretic text rather than the Septuagint Old Testament, and that most English bibles follow the Masoretic, including the Douay-Rheims and the King James Bible.  In Part II, we will take a look at the Ten Commandments.  I will close Part I with the impassioned admonition of the theologian Tyrannius Rufinus:

Rufinus of Aquileia (340-410), Apology against Jerome, Book 2:
32. Jerome's translation of the Scriptures impugned:  Perhaps it was a greater piece of audacity to alter the books of the divine Scriptures which had been delivered to the Churches of Christ by the Apostles to be a complete record of their faith by making a new translation under the influence of the Jews. Which of these two things appears to you to be the less legitimate? As to the sayings of Origen, if we agree with them, we agree with them as the sayings of a man; if we disagree, we can easily disregard them as those of a mere man. But how are we to regard those translations of yours which you are now sending about everywhere, through our churches and monasteries, through all our cities and walled towns? Are they to be treated as human or divine? And what are we to do when we are told that the books which bear the names of the Hebrew Prophets and lawgivers are to be had from you in a truer form than that which was approved by the Apostles? How, I ask, is this mistake to be set right, or rather, how is this crime to be expiated? We hold it a thing worthy of condemnation that a man should have put forth some strange opinions in the interpretation of the law of God; but to pervert the law itself and make it different from that which the Apostles handed down to us,—how many times over must this be pronounced worthy of condemnation? To the daring temerity of this act we may much more justly apply your words: Which of all the wise and holy men who have gone before you has dared to put his hand to that work? Which of them would have presumed thus to profane the book of God, and the sacred words of the Holy Spirit? Who but you would have laid hands upon the divine gift and the inheritance of the Apostles?
33. Authority of the LXX:  There has been from the first in the churches of God, and especially in that of Jerusalem, a plentiful supply of men who being born Jews have become Christians; and their perfect acquaintance with both languages and their sufficient knowledge of the law is shown by their administration of the pontifical office [bishop]. In all this abundance of learned men, has there been one who has dared to make havoc of the divine record handed down to the Churches by the Apostles and the deposit of the Holy Spirit? For what can we call it but havoc, when some parts of it are transformed, and this is called the correction of an error?  ...The seventy translators, each in their separate cells, produced a version couched in consonant and identical words, under the inspiration, as we cannot doubt, of the Holy Spirit; and this version must certainly be of more authority with us than a translation made by a single man under the inspiration of Barabbas. But, putting this aside, I beg you to listen, for example, to this as an instance of what we mean. Peter was for twenty-four years Bishop of the Church of Rome. We cannot doubt that, amongst other things necessary for the instruction of the church, he himself delivered to them the treasury of the sacred books, which, no doubt, had even then begun to be read under his presidency and teaching. What are we to say then? Did Peter the Apostle of Christ deceive the church and deliver to them books which were false and contained nothing of truth? Are we to believe that he knew that the Jews possessed what was true, and yet determined that the Christians should have what was false? But perhaps the answer will be made that Peter was illiterate, and that, though he knew that the books of the Jews were truer than those which existed in the church, yet he could not translate them into Latin because of his linguistic incapacity. What then! Was the tongue of fire given by the Holy Spirit from heaven of no avail to him? Did not the Apostles speak in all languages? 
34. Has the Church had spurious Scriptures?:  But let us grant that the Apostle Peter was unable to do what our friend has lately done. Was Paul illiterate? We ask; He who was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, touching the law a Pharisee, brought up at the feet of Gamaliel? Could not he, when he was at Rome, have supplied any deficiencies of Peter? Is it conceivable that they, who prescribed to their disciples that they should give attention to reading, did not give them correct and true reading? These men who bid us not attend to Jewish fables and genealogies, which minister questioning rather than edification; and who, again, bid us beware of, and specially watch, those of the circumcision; is it conceivable that they could not foresee through the Spirit that a time would come, after nearly four hundred years, when the church would find out that the Apostles had not delivered to them the truth of the old Testament, and would send an embassy to those whom the apostles spoke of as the circumcision, begging and beseeching them to dole out to them some small portion of the truth which was in their possession: and that the Church would through this embassy confess that she had been for all those four hundred years in error; that she had indeed been called by the Apostles from among the Gentiles to be the bride of Christ, but that they had not decked her with a necklace of genuine jewels; that she had fondly thought that they were precious stones, but now had found out that those were not true gems which the Apostles had put upon her, so that she felt ashamed to go forth in public decked in false instead of true jewels, and that she therefore begged that they would send her Barabbas, even him whom she had once rejected to be married to Christ, so that in conjunction with one man chosen from among her own people, he might restore to her the true ornaments with which the Apostles had failed to furnish her.
35. Danger of altering the Versions of Scripture:  What wonder is there then that he should tear me to pieces, being as I am of no account; or that he should wound Ambrose, or find fault with Hilary, Lactantius and Didymus? I must not greatly grieve over any injury of my own in the fact that he has attempted to do my work of translating over again, when he is only treating me with the same contempt with which he has treated the Seventy translators. But this emendation of the Seventy, what are we to think of it? Is it not evident, how greatly the grounds for the heathens' unbelief have been increased by this proceeding? For they take notice of what is going on amongst us. They know that our law has been amended, or at least changed; and do you suppose they do not say among themselves, These people are wandering at random, they have no fixed truth among them, for you see how they make amendments and corrections in their laws whenever they please, and indeed it is evident that there must have been previous error where amendment has supervened, and that things which undergo change at the hand of man cannot possibly be divine. This has been the present which you have made us with your excess of wisdom, that we are all judged even by the heathen as lacking in wisdom. I reject the wisdom which Peter and Paul did not teach. I will have nothing to do with a truth which the Apostles have not approved. These are your own words: The ears of simple men among the Latins ought not after four hundred years to be molested by the sound of new doctrines...  Now therefore after four hundred years the truth of the law comes forth for us, it has been bought with money from the Synagogue... 

Next:

Which Bible are You Using?  Part II:  The Ten Commandments