Is the bible authoritive and truly inspired?

The Bible has claimed the following of people as it is, on internal evidence, quite irrespective of its provenance. It induces faith even in people who read it and detest it, as a thousand daily posts on the 'net, and two thousand years of hypocrisy make crystal clear. That capacity does not necessarily make its message a true one, but it probably means that discussion of its authorship and inspiration can be of limited scope in effecting significant changes in its following, either in size or character.

It is not certain that Jesus used the LXX. At an early age he was apparently focussed on the centre of Hebrew learning in Jerusalem, and no translation of Hebrew or its Semitic family could fail to be other than a pale imitation of languages that were like no others, particularly Hebrew itself, due to its particular culture. In his contests with the Jewish religious leaders he would have needed to have been closely familiar with the Hebrew texts, and there are strong signs in his detailed references to their Scriptures that he was familiar with them.It may be simply that the gospel writers naturally used the familiar LXX in quoting him in their Greek gospels, where it was a fair represention of the original (and it quite often isn't). There is certainly some value to the scholar in the LXX (mostly in checking uncertainties in the Hebrew sources), but its role is much exaggerated by certain sorts of religious people.

'Since the Catholic Church is the origin of the Christian religion'A. Hitler said that he used the RCC as a model for the Third Reich (somehow, I suspected that before I read it). So we might as well be unbelievers, because there won't be a lot of difference between heaven and hell.

'the Septuagint would have been accurately translated'Claptrap. The LXX has known errors, plenty of them, and no self-respecting scholar would dream of using it as a base text.Edited by ochaye, : ClarificationEdited by ochaye, : No reason given.