[annalex]

Yet you cannot even identify which books would have been in the Septuagint version in Paul's day.

No I cannot. So what? Am I in a police station?

[boatbums]

>>Yet you cannot even identify which books would have been in the Septuagint version in Paul's day.<<

No I cannot. So what? Am I in a police station?

Hey..you were the one who asserted:

The fact remains that St. Paul did not find it necessary to qualify his inspired remark about “all scripture” in any way, yet surely he was familiar of the existence of the Septuagint.

That's why I replied,

Yet you cannot even identify which books would have been in the Septuagint version in Paul's day. All you do is guess, presume, conjecture and wish - though why anyone would wish for writings from uninspired writers to be comingled with the books Jews AND Christians both consider Divinely-inspired is the REAL question. Can you admit that the MAIN reason is because the Council of Trent said so and you have to stand by them?

No, you cannot what? Admit that Trent attached the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals to the Divinely-inspired Old Testament canon and that is why you defend them? Or, no, you cannot identify what Apocryphal books were included in the Septuagint in Paul's day and, therefore, you cannot say with any surety Paul meant any of them were part of sacred inspired Scripture ?

Let's not forget that it was your contention that Paul's use of the phrase "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God" in his letter to Timothy meant the Septuagint - and all the books that were part of it. Seeing as you aren't under oath and giving a deposition, I don't see how asking you to clarify yourself is a negative request. If you can't defend your statement or you want to reword or retract it, by all means please do so.

[Elsie]

Am I in a police station?

No; a courtroom.

Certain charges have been leveled; and they MUST be dealt with.