Re. Septuagint to English translations

It appears a number of Christians are now interested in the recent translations of the Septuagint to English translations now available. I have recently looked at the Genesis genealogy account in one of them, the NETS and have found that there is an error which places the death of Methuselah as being 14 years after the Flood. The KJV shows him dying the year of the Flood. I am placing my calculations on here in pdf format to show the proof of what I am saying. We need to be careful with new translations.
Len McM

Yep,
Basically the Septuagint was a hack job.
70 days by 70 scribes....

It was quoted often and referenced by NT writers. So it's interesting to know when it's being backhandedly referenced by them....

But it's no where near as accurate as today's translations.

One of my favorite odd facts is how the Jews discriminated heavily anyone who used it or referenced it exclusively. Unless you could read the Tenach in Hebrew you were mostly a Goyim.

Hellenistic Jews couldn't read Hebrew. Such was the case of Stephen....the first martyr. He quoted the Septuagent to the Sanhidrin and paid for it with his life.

Today we have people who use the Cambridge/Oxford Church of England translation entitled as the King James translation who discriminate against everyone who uses a more non-denominational modern translation. Even though these people are not members of the Church of England or even share in their doctrines....they have a dedication to this translation. Kinda odd IMHO.

And today there is a growing group of people who are dismissing manuscripts in favor of some erroneous Septuagent translations to come up with some really weird theologies. "The Council that is God" and etc.

Welcome to CC, Len…
You may have overlooked the fact that a translation of the Septuagint is not a translation of the original-language texts, and that any variation from those texts should be considered to be rooted in the source material, not the translation itself. There is no reason to disparage a translation of the LXX just because it doesn’t match the KJV; you shouldn’t expect it to, nor should you use the KJV as the standard against which to examine other versions.

If a translation team attempted to make the LXX match the KJV, they would not be doing their job properly and the resulting version would be worthless.

Welcome!

Precious friend, A Very Warm Welcome To Chat.
Yes, I try to be Very prayerful and Careful:

Which Version is Authorized By God?
+
Handling The Word Of Life!

Please Be Very RICHLY Encouraged And Edified In
The LORD JESUS CHRIST, And His Word Of Truth, Rightly
Divided (+ I and II).

Grace, Peace, And JOY!… + RICH Blessings

If you are right (and I did look at your calculations, though I didn't "proof" them), then the conclusion would seem to be that there is an error in the Septuagint itself, which is of course then carried over into the NETS English translation that you reference. This is likely the case if/since the same error is found in other English translations of the Septuagint.

Being aware that the Septuagint was a very loose translation, and by today's standards is not a good linguistic version of the original Hebrew, I am not really surprised by your finding.

What is interesting (and intriguing) is that Jesus Himself quoted from the Septuagint.
Maybe this shows that some of our nitpicky squabbles over translations are not as important as we like to think?!