>This was a reason given for preferring the Septuagint, and its longer
>preflood and postflood chronologies (each about 1000 years longer, because
>the pregenerative years of each patriarch had 100 additional years). But
>now we know that the Dead Sea Scrolls included copies Hebrew manuscripts
>like those the Masoretes used, dating from 100 BC. The scribal differences
>were miniscule. So we don't have to use the "corrupt" translation (LXX);
>we can trust the Hebrew text, which we still usually call the Masoretic.
I was unaware that a copy of Genesis was found among the Dead Sea scrolls.
It's too bad someone didn't inform Luke - how embarrassing to be responsible
for fowling up the New Testament by trusting a "corrupt" text. Where was the
ASA in the first century? Instead of just keeping the world abreast of the
best texts, we could have helped out the New Testament authors, all of whom
quoted the Septuagint.
Frankly (my dear), we have no idea of how "corrupt" the Septuagint might have
been after only 300 years in circulation. The likelihood is that it was less
corrupt to the NT authors then the Masoretic text is to us today.
THE ORIGINS SOLUTION