[OLD REGGIE]

That would be an interesting argument if there were a copy of the Septuagint that used "like a lion" - there isn't. There ARE, however, MT manuscripts that are NOT consistent with the "like a lion" argument (though it now opens up whether the correct translation is "dug" or "pierced" - it is not "like a lion").

How many copies of, or portions of, the Septuagint have "dissapeared".

You will argue till the cows come home about the Aramaic word for ROCK yet you cannot produce one single piece of paper. In this instance the particular missing piece of paper is meaningless?

Tell ya what; if I accept your argument for the correctness of "pierced" based on the absence of evidence will you abandon your argument for the correctness of "ROCK" for the same reason?

(Or "cousin" for that matter).

[IMRight]

You will argue till the cows come home about the Aramaic word for ROCK yet you cannot produce one single piece of paper. In this instance the particular missing piece of paper is meaningless?

You have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not aware of a single manuscript (for the book in question of course) that does NOT have the Aramaic for "rock". Transliterated, perhaps... but no question that it is there.

Also, there a big difference between being unable to produce a "manuscript" that nobody claims ever existed and assuming that more modern MT manuscripts reflect an earlier document when there is no evidence to support the claim - and plenty to refute it.