In another thread, Dr. Walter wrote: "The Septuigent is not a "copy" of the Old Testament but a "translation" of the Old Testament." Why does this make a difference? Every human thought can be expressed in every human language. If this is not true then Islam is correct in claiming that the Q'ran can only be understood in Arabic and Wycliffe Bible Translators are committing fraud. Further, most of the KJB was copied from Tyndale and Tyndale was translated from Latin. from http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/william-tyndale.html "His literary activity during that interval was extraordinary. When he left England, his knowledge of Hebrew, if he had any, was of the most rudimentary nature; and yet he mastered that difficult tongue so as to produce from the original an admirable translation of the entire Pentateuch, the Books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, First and Second Samuel, First and Second Kings, First Chronicles, contained in Matthew's Bible of 1537, and of the Book of Jonah, so excellent, indeed, that his work is not only the basis of those portions of the Authorized King James Version of 1611, but constitutes nine-tenths of that translation, and very largely that of the English Revised Version of 1885." If the Holy Spirit could protect the double translation of the KJB then she could also protect the writing of the Sept. In other words, the old translations that most of you favor have gone through a two step translation process and the new translations that most of you shun are more authentic according to Dr. Walter's analysis. My favorite translation is from French and is no less authentic than the KJB. I probably have read six different translations cover to cover. Every one of them is "sufficient for faith and practice."