I havn't done any work on the LXX. The little work I have done on the NT leads me to believe that there are significant variations in texts, the most notorious being the endings of Mark and the "Woman Taken in Adultery", which at least one major text of John does not have. (from memory, I'm supposed to be doing something else now.)
I havn't done any work on the LXX.
I have done very little myself. It becomes apparent right up front that the entire story of the LXX is legend with no basis in fact. Further, the idea of "A" Septuagint is fantasy. No such animal exists. Apologists from both camps make arguments on both sides of the fence. Choose your poison.
The little work I have done on the NT leads me to believe that there are significant variations in texts, the most notorious being the endings of Mark and the "Woman Taken in Adultery", which at least one major text of John does not have. (from memory, I'm supposed to be doing something else now.)
It has long been my opinion that no such thing as a "perfect" Bible exists. I am satisfied; however, that each of the Bibles used by Catholics and Protestants is sufficiently correct.
2 Timothy 3:
[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,