Right. BOTH sites were written by people who "knew nothing" about the topic and failed to do any "legitimate" historical research. Did you bother to view all their footnotes? Did you think that they just fabricated all the quotations they used? Are your eyes so squeezed shut that you cannot allow an opposing thought?
I HAVE heard of the Septuagint. It is a Greek translation of the Old Testament. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint:
"The Septuagint ( /ˈsɛptjuːəˌdʒɪnt/), or simply "LXX", is an Ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. It is referred to in critical works by the abbreviation [1] or G. It was originally the designation for the Koine Greek translation of the Pentateuch, but came in time to refer to the Greek translation of the Old Testament adopted by Christians, incorporating the translations of all the books of the Hebrew Bible and books later considered apocryphal or deutero-canonical, some composed in Greek and some translations. The translation process was undertaken in stages. It began by the 3rd century BCE and was completed by 132 BCE,[2][3] initially in Alexandria, but in time possibly elsewhere, too.[4]
It incorporates the oldest of several ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible into Koine Greek, the lingua franca of the Eastern Mediterranean from the death of Alexander the Great (323 BCE) until the development of Byzantine Greek (c.600 CE). Other versions are now preserved only in fragmentary form.
The Septuagint was held in great respect in ancient times; Philo and Josephus ascribed divine inspiration to its translators.[5] Besides the Old Latin versions, the LXX is also the basis for the Slavonic, the Syriac, Old Armenian, Old Georgian and Coptic versions of the Old Testament.[6] Of significance for all Christians and for Bible scholars, the LXX is quoted by the New Testament and by the Apostolic Fathers.
Some scripture of ancient origin are found in the Septuagint but are not present in the Hebrew. These include additions to Daniel and Esther.
These additional books are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah (which later became chapter 6 of Baruch in the Vulgate), additions to Daniel (The Prayer of Azarias, the Song of the Three Children, Sosanna and Bel and the Dragon), additions to Esther, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, Odes, including the Prayer of Manasseh, the Psalms of Solomon, and Psalm 151. The canonical acceptance of these books varies among different Christian traditions, and there are canonical books not derived from the Septuagint."
If you notice, verga, the Septuagint "incorporated" the translations of all the books of the Hebrew Bible and books later considered apocryphal or deutero-canonical, some composed in Greek and some translations. Those Apocryphal books NEVER were in Hebrew. The link I gave you previously explained that the Jewish leaders did not ascribe divine inspiration to those books and they were set apart from the books considered from God. They were NOT part of the Hebrew Canon and for very good reason, they did not come from divinely inspired prophets of God, therefore, they were NOT considered as part of the Jewish canon. The Dead Sea scrolls - which were collections of many books - were from a group called the Essenes. There are also differences in how these books were regarded by the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox as well as the Anglicans. From the same Wiki site:
The Septuagint includes some books not found in the Hebrew Bible, see Development of the Hebrew Bible canon for details. After the Reformation, many Protestant Bibles began to follow the Jewish canon and exclude the additional books. Roman Catholics, however, include some of these books in their canon while Eastern Orthodox Churches use all the books of the Septuagint except the Psalms of Solomon.[33] Anglican lectionaries also use all of the books except Psalm 151, and the full King James Version (following the Geneva Bible, 1560) includes these additional books in a separate section labeled the "Apocrypha".
When I asked you if you believed these books were equal to the other Scriptures, what I most wanted to know is if you understood just what that means. If these books ARE Divinely inspired, then it calls into question the infallible nature of all Scripture. You are essentially saying God made mistakes when he had men write Scripture and if there are errors, then we have no assurance that the Word of God is really the Word of God and it loses it's authority. No one can be sure we have a trustworthy Bible and, therefore, there is no back up for anything we know about Jesus, his ministry, his life, his teachings, nor what happened before he came. Without the assurance that God is the author of Scripture, we have no firm foundation for knowing how creation started, why it was started, nor who is out there.
Are you an atheist? Either that or you must want to place the Roman Catholic Church ABOVE Scripture and substitute the authority of God's word for man's. You can go there if you want, but I will not. I know better.
Look up the Dead Sea scrolls.
You will find that these books you claim were never in Hebrew were in fact written in ...... wait for it....... Hebrew.Never quoted from the Septuagint.
Did you look up the Jimmy Akin site I showed you? The Septuagint was referenced over 200 times.So if your source is wrong about that, same question what else are they wrong about?
I sent you to the Gutenberg site that has all the book in the Gutenberg Bible 150 years before Trent, when you falsely claim that the deutrocanoincals became part of the canon, yet there they are.
Do you see any discrepancy in your logic?
Do you see any discrepancy in your logic?