bibleprotector:

Why would one supposed letter [corrupt,mind you] exist and yet no LXX[72]?
Just how old is the real first instance of this letter?
Plus I do understand that this letter is not to be trusted.
Y trust tainted materials as the Letter and the LXX[72].200AD.

Very interesting that he did not site one verse as an example,and that he had to do some of his own hand at translating because there was no copies for him to use.Hmm.

Even you accept that the letter and the supposed complete LXX[72 in common use of that day are dubious at best.

So Y the support? I still don't get that.