There is no historical evidence for any BC Septuagint.
The Septuagint that is used now is from Origen, written in AD not BC.
That Protestants believe that there was a BC Septuagint doesn't make it any more true then if Roman Catholics do.
There is no BC textual evidence of the Septuagint, other then some fragments from the Pentateuch.
This is admitted by Bruce Metzger, who states Almost the only manuscript copies of the Septuagint which we have down to us today were written by Christian scribes....(Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha, (New York: Oxford University: 1957, pp.175-178, cited in The Old Testament Canon And The Apocrypha, William Webster, Christian Resources INC, 2002, p.35)
Also,
Paul Kahle, a notable O.T. scholar (1875-1964), did extensive research and work relative to the Septuagint. He concluded that there was never one original old Greek version adn that consquently the manuscripts of the Septuagint (so-called) cannot be traced back to one archtype...."Summarizing Kahle's position, Dr. John H.P. Reumann states: Professor Paul Kahle....argued that there was never any LXX, at least until Christian times and that our Letter of Aristeas is progaganda for a revision of the Greek Bible which was made in Alexandra....The LXX is a Christian compilation and the Letter of Aristeas is a fiction designed to further to use as a revision in Alexandria about 130 B.C. (The Septuagint, A Critical Analysis, Floyd Jones, 2000, 6th Edit. KingsWord Press, pg.20)
As for Isa.7:14, we know that the word 'virgin' is meant because the Greek [partheonos] in Matthew 1:23 states it.
That defines the meaning of Isa.7:14, not a Greek Septuagint.
So the Roman Catholic Bible contains at least 8 additional books. First, you should say "Protestants have at least 8 books fewer because we cut them out". And second, where do you get 14 books? And finally, they are not "apocrypha" books. Apocrypha means "hidden". They are properly called the Deuterocanonicals.
First, let me correct my own error, it is seven books not 8.
Second, as for wheather or not we have too few, or you have too many is not the point that we were discussing.
You stated that your Bible is the same as ours (Protestant) and it is not, not at least by 7 books, an addition to Daniel and a different textual line in the NT.
As for what the term 'Apocrypha, it was a term that Jerome himself used,
St. Jerome evidently applied the term to all quasi-scriptural books which in his estimation lay outside the canon of the Bible, and the Protestant Reformers, following Jerome's catalogue of Old Testament Scriptures -- one which was at once erroneous and singular among the Fathers of the Church -- applied the title Apocrypha to the excess of the Catholic canon of the Old Testament over that of the Jews. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm
Now, had you simply admitted the term and stated that you as a Catholic preferred the term Deutro-Canonical, that would have been an honest and acceptable reply.
These are 'apocrypha' Books, which even Jerome rejected as being equal with scripture (Deutro-canonical) "Even"? You mean "ONLY". And next, Jerome DID accept them once the Church decided they belonged. Would you like quotes?
Jerome never accepted the Books that Trent finally decreed as Canonical in the 16th century.
The influence of Jerome...While there were some who followed Augustine and the Council of Hippo and Carthage in accepting the Apocryphal books, the vast majority of theologians, bishops, and cardinal throughout the Middle Ages followed Jerome. This is seen in three major historical examples: the express statements of the Glossa ordinaria-the official Biblical commentary used during the Middle Ages, the teaching of major theologicans who cited Jerome as a the authority for determining the authoritative canon of the Old Testament, and the bible translations and commentaries produced just prior to the Reformation (The Old Testament Canon and the Apocyrpha, William Webster, Christian Rosources Inc, 2002, p.58)
Jerome never accepted the 'Deutro-Canonical books as equal to the Hebrew Canon.
From that Received Text is the one that resulted in the people getting the Bible back into their native language (Luther, Tyndale), so they could understand the words of God and not be held in bondage by the empty rituals of Romanism. Please. Tyndale AND Luther BOTH changed words in the Bible and added to it. The Word of God was corrupted by these men so as to suit their little beliefs and theological innovations. The Scriptures were being printed into the Vulgate (Latin) LONG time before Luther every came around. And the LATIN WAS the language of the people for hundreds of years. Before the Reformation, the Church began to translate the Scriptures into other languages. It is the Church's job to protect the Scripture, not let any old heretic change words and meanings of God's Word. The so-called "Received Text" has many errors in translation.
The Bible of Luther and Tyndale brought light into the Dark Ages.
It was Rome's position that the average person should not have the Bible in their own language and read it for himself.
Because Rome was not able enforce this tyranny, she was forced to printing bibles in the peoples own language to compete with the flood of Bibles in German, French, Dutch, Czech, and English.
As for the Latin, it seems that Rome has rejected that also, the new versions She is supporting are far more corrupt then the Douey Rheims
The Romanists did not exist during the first three hundred years of the Church. Again, you don't know what you are talking about. There has been a Bishop in Rome since the FIRST CENTURY!
There was?
I do not see Paul addressing anyone in the Book of Romans in his farewell, as the 'Bishop of Rome'!
Actually it wasn't till the mid 3rd century that the primacy of Bishop Rome was asserted.
The persecution by the Romanists came after they aligned themselves with the State in the 4th century. You need to stop reading comic books and read actual historical works. I got to go. This is a waste of time. Perhaps you might want to read something other than Jack Chick?
And perhaps you might get around to reading the truth instead of Romanist propaganda. Good bye
So long.
I don't have the time nor inclination to prove that the earth is not flat again. Perhaps you should read other sources, some unbiased ones, perhaps, which would definitely prove that there was a Septuagint written hundreds of years before Christ, that there was a Bishop of Rome way before Constantine, and that Jerome accepted the Deuterocanonicals based on the Church's divinely given authority. No matter what evidence I bring out, it seems you will disregard it anyway - seeing you continue to argue such obvious errors...