'No such thing as *the* LXX' (Steve Carr)

• 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.


MATT BELL
And what is the date for the earliest copy of a Christian version of an LXX
with the Apocrypha? 

Thanks
Matt Bell

• Previous message: We are all apart of the Satanic Organization, a Satanic Organizat ion...
• Next message: 'No such thing as *the* LXX' (Steve Carr)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]