LXX (Hebrews 11:21)(SteveCR/F.Till)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

>MATT BELL

>Why? Because the intial claim made by Helen Willis was:

>

>'Second, the KJV that was authorized included the Apocryphal book, so do

>you feel it should be part of the modern Bible? All version of the

>Septuagint contained these books. The New Testament quotes the

>Septuagint, exclusively and refers to it as the scriptures. The church

>father quote these books and the Septuagint and call both scripture. How

>do you justify using the Hebrew texts as source for the Old Testament

>and not treating the Apocryphal texts as scripture? Why do you think

>that the Church of England which caused the KJV translation and the

>authorized it has never claimed anything closed to inerrancy for this

>translation?'

>

>If a BC LXX, complete with Apocrypha cannot be established, and I believe

>that it will be a far more difficult task to establish a BC Apocryphal LXX

>than it is being to establish just a BC LXX, then Helen's  assertions above

>are shown to be erroneous.


CARR
Helen would have been more accurate to say every Christian version of
the Septuagint included the Apocyrpha, or at least some of those books.

There is no such thing as *the* LXX. There are many Septuagintal
translations, but it was never translated all at one time.

-- 
Steven Carr steven@bowness.demon.co.uk
Visit the UK's leading atheist Web page
 http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/

• Previous message: LXX (Hebrews 11:21)(SteveCR/F.Till)
• Next message: LXX (Hebrews 11:21)(Matt Bell)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]