@Rella: concerning post #(58)
The Septuagint is not 'allegedly' questionable. It doesn't exist. All you have are some Greek translations of the Hebrew. Thus the claim is made that this must be the 'Septuagint'. The only reason to believe there was ever a Septuagint is the 'Letter of Aristeas'. A proven false document.
What is called the 'Septuagint' is nothing more than Origen's translation of the Old Testament into Greek, 200 years after Christ, found in his 'Hexapla' in the 5th column.
The translators are much more capeable than I in determining what a Greek or Hebrew text says. The reality of the Septuagint is about correct history, not translation. In other words a false history is created in order to accept a questionable translation.
If you want to discuss the most secure translation, you can hardly do better then the King James Version. Show me any version that had the input, and the checks and exercises, to secure a correct translation, as the King James employed.
Lees
