The Literal Standard Version LSV l Review 

Me personally, I do as many as I can. Just so that I know how to talk to some people. I’m more of a KJV preferred guy, but idc about a NKJV though. It’s a good thing to be well read in as many Bible translations as possible.

Yes

Amen! Me to

Loose

The LXX is considered sacred scripture, it's influence is very important in correcting errors in the masoretic text and the DSS

@@clouds-rb9xt Assumed errors. There's only one historical source for the existence of the LXX, per my research. Besides, translations lose meaning. We have the OT in the original language it was written in, I don't get why the Greek translation is so revered over the Hebrew.

@@TragedysHalo Because the Masoretic Text is imperfect. It was compiled after the Septuagint and has a few errors that challenge the divinity of Christ. Since the LXX is one of the oldest copies of the Old Testament, it's considered important. The MT was compiled long after Christ by adherents of Judaism, and during that time theological bias starts to come into play. Other sources like the DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls) also present differences from the MT, which is why the DSS and LXX are used often in modern translations in tandem with the MT. Both are older sources.

@@clouds-rb9xt The Masoretic text is apart of the Majority text. I think ppl assume that older texts are more accurate & that's not necessarily true. All the codexes we found (Siniaticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus) are considered older text but hardly agree with each other. I'm not familiar with the idea that the MT leave out the divinity of Christ. In my opinion, that's what the critical text does. I currently use the KJV. I'm thinking of picking up a NKJV to look at the difference in text because it uses the LXX for the basis of the OT. Like I said hefore, we only have a single letter as a historical basis for the existence of the LXX. Not very credible to me.

Right

I’ve got another one about it on the channel also. God bless!