Quote:
He would have no issue translating Hebrew into Greek and vice versa on the spot.


It is unlikely that Paul personally spoke to the whole province in person. And once Paul left, what would the Gentiles have done then?

If someone says that the converted Jews would be able to translate for the Gentiles, I think that this is unrealistic. First, because there were not Jews everywhere with Gentiles. Also, I think that making the Gentiles dependant upon converted Jews is not in line with the whole nature of the Gospel. The Gospel has been designed to pass into the hands of the Gentiles, who then are supposed to convert Jews. (E.g. see Romans 11:11).

The first English translation of the Reformation was far less refined than the King James Bible. It is not a problem for God to have a translation which is less. The early Christians likewise had to do with a Greek translation which was quite imperfect, and less than even Tyndale's Bible. There is no problem in having less pure Bibles in the past, because we know that God has caused the purification to occur through history, so that eventually we would have the refined Bible. (After all, this is the actual meaning of Psalm 12:6,7).

There is nothing to be afraid about if a King James Bible supporter agrees with all the information which says that there was a BC LXX. The information seems to be credible. The historians and encylopedias that I have looked at all indicate that the LXX is highly imperfect. Thus, acknowledging the existance of a BC LXX is in no way damaging to a proper King James Bible view.