It’s really evident that this young man has such a zeal for Gods word. The way he lights up when he answers Sean’s questions. He’s like a kid in the candy store. He’s like an under valued stock that you should hold on to and keep an eye on because over time it’s going to yield compound dividends. Can’t wait to see what God continues to do in his life for his church.
DOCTOR Ferguson.. He’s got a PHD.. He isn’t a “kid” , he’s probably 28 years old. At least no younger than 26. You can’t be if you have a PHD it takes at least 8 years to complete.
pity it doesn't prove anything conclusively though eh? wouldn't it be nice if you lot could actuall prove that there is a god instead of having to cross your fingers and pray for another 2000 years. silly people on thier knees to a silly idea.
@@darkeen42 a Hebrew one I presume. What’s the connection between corruption and dictionaries? Usually I think of using dictionaries because of rich vocabulary.
Thank you both and especially Dr Ferguson for being and embracing the gift God gave you of being OCD and, as a result, being able to share your wealth of knowledge and understanding with us! God bless you both!
Charismatics have been faithful in preserving the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Cessationists have been faithful in preserving the Word. God has a plan! 😊
Thanks! In the midst of so many beautiful and useful thoughts. I especially appreciate the conversation about feeling lonely or feeling in the middle of a metaphoric desert. I appreciate it when people describe continuing in their mission even when they feel lonely or feeling that their mission has taken them “in to the desert.” It’s also interesting to hear about the resolution of the time of desert, as this speaker tells his own experience of that.
In the name of love and positivity, may those seeking employment find fulfilling opportunities, may the unwell experience swift healing, and may the light of hope shine upon all who come across this message. 🌈🙏💕
A manuscript of Esther has actually been found now from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Ascribe spilled their wine on it and stained it in such a way that it could not be deciphered. The technology caught up with the problem and they were able to see the writing through the wine stain. And voila its Esther in the Dead Sea Scrolls. If you Google you might find this. I think it was James Tabor in a video he did that mentioned it but I'm not sure I can't remember.
I worship the Lord in spirit and truth.. not the intellectual scribal work ...GOD is a spirit....they that worship Him in Spirit and in Truth...GOD is more concerned with the heart not the mind..but I appreciate the people who pursue the historical truth of how the word was formulated...GOD promises He will preserve His word.
I am a new believer whos digging into theology not because I think it will ever hide his light, Ive felt it literally physically and will never disbelieve in his Grace and Mercy, and this was almost unbelievable to find for me. Just learned about what Qumran is yesterday glad I did before this. I'm the person who has many questions for Dr. Ferguson. God is great I pray all know Him at their time. Does Dr Ferguson know about the radio spectroscopy and what their doing to Qumran and does he work with archaeological finds besides the texts and scriptures at all?
1 Enoch, jubilees, the book of giants, so many other scrolls were found. I believe that the above books are vital for understanding end times prophecy. I've said before, genesis 3, and genesis 6 are vital for understanding the book of daniel, revelation.
Ehrman is too emotional this unreliable. His position has been corrupted by being hurt by fake Christianity. Skeptics of the Bible can be good but not inaccurate ones.🤗
Well if you actually look up any of eclipse claims you only as he's lying and edits at all the people that point that out to him. Evangelical Christians are raised from birth to lie about the Bible otherwise I'll have to admit when it's clearly not true
What? I'm sorry but how did this confirm its written by God? It confirmed it was already written. And we all already know that the modern christian bibles are a rewrite so honestly there is no confirmation of what you said. That's why it requires faith.
go to a site that is less biased and listen to actual scholars of old languages and ancient texts break it down. You'll learn things about the original books and their authors from people without confirmation bias as the central theme. Instead you'll get a more accurate historical breakdown of the origins of the book that you know so well. Don't forget that before the christians the Jewish people were the protectors of these ancient manuscripts.
The older text fragments that date back to the first century and even within 25 to thirty years of Christs resurrection, were found in dunes in Egypt. They've been dated both by tests and supporting evidence. Papyrus 64 is a good example, at Oxford.
I'm looking to get into Old Testament textual criticism. Working on my MDiv right now, and I'll be reading Emanuel Tov's "Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible" over the summer.
They weren't any more careful than any other number of ancient scribal groups of the period. There is nothing remotely remarkable about the Jewish transmission of their scriptures.
@@DrKippDavis For instance Greeks and Homer? The point was not to denigrate other peoples. I would expect ancient people in general to be careful with important texts. We can afford to be careless with books today but clearly that wasn’t the case in the past.
Except for their grievance misstranslations. Like the people that created the story of Jesus had a translation from Hebrew to Greek. And the prophecy of Jesus called Mary a young unwed woman people that created the story of Jesus had a mistranslation and called her a virgin so that's the story they made of but originally it wasn't supposed to be virgin
@@charlesiragui2473 what they were most careful about is telling an interesting story that kept them in the job of telling stories for a living. If people didn't find your story compelling interesting or worthy of paying attention to you would be incentivized to tweak it and make it more impressive and exaggerate like every myth ever even ones that are rising today
I had hoped 'The Copper Scroll' would have been discussed. Was it from Joseph of Arimathea who was exiled after he exposed his connection to Jesus? Joseph of Arimathea went to England for the remainder of his life. England and France are geographically close. How did the Templars know exactly where to go in Jerusalem to obtain such large fortune?
I think that it would have been interesting to hear scholars talk about this issue:: The authors of the new testament were not using the masoretic text as far we can tell, they were using the septuagint which differs from the masoretic text in many places. This is an issue when it comes to the use of the bible by the New Testament authors in the development of their theology and when this apologist was talking about how the Christians translate the bible he said that they use the masoretic text which is only partially true. In these places where translating from the masoretic text would not look good for christianity they take their cues from the septuagint. It would be interesting to see them talk about how various scrolls in the Dead Sea Scroll collection read on these verses that are important to Christianity because I know that there are several textual traditions that are recorded in the Dead Sea Scrolls which might help us to understand the origins of the septuagint and the christian tradition. I want to know if any of the Dead Sea Scrolls record a tradition that fits better with the Septuagint version of the bible. It would also be interesting to hear how these compare to the verses that we have recorded in the Targumim and to other non-hebrew bibles that we have like the Syriac. I would rather hear about it from someone though who wasn't trying to sell me on the faithfulness of Christianity or the like because I'm far more interested in just knowing the truth about the situation and I am not as interested in being sold a religion. I know that Sean and his father have made their living on selling Christianity so I imagine that this is probably not the place to go but it would be interesting if I could find that somewhere. I should probably just look for a book on it. Meh.
@@leonardmasano312 I'm not sure if you listened to the interview but he explained that he approached this topic for apologetic reasons and feels like he is generally on the fringe of scholarship on this issue. I've learned to be very wary of apologists. I've been following many of them over the years and generally find them to be distrustful. I'm not just talking about ravi zacharias either. When you approach an issue of scholarship with the intention of using what you learn for propaganda I think its tends to taint things. I dont like to hear the sort of political spin that I hear from apologists who are always trying to sell, sell, sell and make a used car look as shiny as possible. I want the facts straight. I wanna know the good things and the bad things in a dispassionate way from someone who isnt trying to sell me anything so that I can make my mind up for myself. I do like to hear every side which is why you see me commenting here, because I came and watched the entire video but I've watched enough content from fundamentalist Christians to know that I dislike the spin.
@@joachimwest3217 Yes, I listened to the interview. This is what you expect to get from a pastor; he is believer who wants to strengthen his faith by looking at available evidence. You are right on disliking spin! I also don't like the spin from anyone, and especially of the opposite side that wants to prove otherwise, whatever the evidence, as they approach the subject with the agenda of disproving religion, especially Christianity, and want everyone to trust them. They tout their declared non-belief as enough credential for being justifiably correct on what they present. The case of Ravi Zacharias is one of the difficult issues in humanity and faith. It is similar to the case of Judas Iscariot, or the tares planted in the field that Jesus told a story about whereby the farmer didn't want them to be uprooted until harvest time! The case is no cause for anyone to celebrate as victory for his side. There are people who were acclaimed good bankers but robbed their banks. Some even seen as good husbands or wives but secretly cheat against their spouses. That is being human in a broken world!
@@leonardmasano312 There are definitely some atheist scholars that I take with a grain of salt but from what I've seen scholarship often lands somewhere in the middle with a mass of liberal Christians, jews and atheists who are just doing the research. Ravi Zacharias isn't a difficult issue for me. Christianity has always been a fantastic tool for people to make money and control other humans. In my opinion it was built that way. I just want the unfiltered information and I want to use the information for myself to try to figure out what is true or not. I don't like it when that information is given as part of a sales package. I understand that everyone has their hypothesis but I do my best to take the information from many sources and compare the information together to see for myself what the case is.
Chinese archeologists discovered old manuscripts from a tomb and gave a completely different description of how legendary kings passed power, which was the foundation of Confucius philosophy for thousands of years. It is very interesting how these ancient books evolved.
hi, if it proved the authenticity of the old testaments scriptures through dead sea scrolls, then how can we prove the authenticity of the new testaments writing?
The Dead Sea scrolls don't prove the authenticity of the old testament scriptures. What it proves is that the masoretic text isn't completely different from some texts that some people were reading two thousand years ago. Remember, over time people have used many different manuscript histories. Christians were using the latin vulgate for a very long time and before that they were using the greek septuagint and the septuagint and masoretic text differ in many places, places that are fundamental to the christian faith because the authors of the new testament were primarily using the septuagint. The Dead Sea scrolls are not only texts that follow the masoretic text line but also texts that follow other textual traditions. There' is really no way of knowing which textual traditions are the oldest because we don't have the original manuscripts. All we can do is look at what we have and try to make guesses about how things were originally constructed or what things originally looked like. We cant say that we have the text exactly as it was first written, in fact, i'm not sure many people would say that other than fundamentalist christians who are making a faith statement. Don't forget, a lot of the bible was probably written in paleohebrew and the masoretic text is not in paleohebrew though the Samaritan bible is written in something more akin to paleohebrew but there are some big differences between the samaritan bible and the masoretic text. We cannot prove the authentiticy of the new testament either because we don't have the original manuscripts. What we do know are that the gospels are texts that evolved over time. For example, Matthew is a rewritten copy of Mark with some additions and it very well may be the case that Mark is a rewritten version of something that came before it. Lots of scholars believe that there were other sources that books like Mark were copying from like something they call the "Q" source. Contemporary scholars are working through the text and are finding textual issues that you can learn about today. For example, things like the longer ending of mark, the story of the adulterous woman and that line about the trinity are famous "insertions" or bits of writing that we don't find in older manuscripts. IT wasn't unheard of for the people who were copying these texts to change wording or add things in. The truth is that early Christianity was a big mess with lots of different books and many different versions of books "there was more than one version of matthew for example" that were simply lost to time. It's especially hard to do research on early christianity because the romans destroyed jerusalem soon after the birth of christianity and whatever texts they might have been using are gone.
@@joachimwest3217 we were raised as evangelical christians, then we were taught that all scriptures were God's breath for both old and new testaments but base on history there were insertion of words or phrases into the original manuscript.... how can we now say they were inspired by Holy Spirit at that time when they wrote the scriptures?
@@chrisgeorge715 We really don't exactly know what was in the original manuscripts exactly because we don't have them but honestly I don't think that this is the biggest problem that Christianity has. I don't think that the view of inspiration that says "everything in the bible is true and accurate in a literal sense" is realistic but there are other views of inspiration. *shrug* For me, a bigger issue is that early Christianity is a giant mess and it's really hard to say that just because one Christian sect became very popular and found power in the seat of the Roman Empire that it's the correct form of Christianity, especially when we have reasons to believe that it was a breakoff sect of an older form of Christianity that is dead today. In other words, the proto-orthodox were like the Mormons of their day. A new religion that spun off from an older Christian movement. Why should we accept their traditions? For example, the idea that Matthew was written by Matthew or that Matthew is inspired by God are traditions passed down from this sect. We know of at least one other version of Matthew that was accepted by the Jewish Christians that was an adoptionist text so that Jesus wasn't born God but was adopted at God's son at his baptism. If you read the gospels together you will see that there is a discrepancy there. Depending on which version you read, God says different things. In Matthew God speaks and says "Matthew 17:5. While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him" in Mark he says "10 And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. 11 And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved;[a] with you I am well pleased.”" In the Hebrew Matthew, Jesus isn't born of a virgin birth from Mary and God, instead, this is the text where Jesus becomes the son of God as an adopted son. Which version is true? Well, depending on which sect you believe you might believe something different and if you accept traditional Jewish traditions instead of Christian ones, then they are all false. At some point you are putting your faith in a sect of humans and trusting that they are telling you the truth about something that happened 2 thousand years ago.
During my years of searching for the Lord I heard many Christians declare the Bible Is the inerrant word of God. I have always doubted this myself. I am pretty sure that ALL things suffer in translation. However, what I do believe is the overall message of the Bible IS consistent across all the books of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. I heard someone say recently that Genesis points to Jesus, and Jesus points to Genesis. God is faithful and God is true, men err God doesn’t. But, the Lord most certainly can make sure His message of Salvation is NOT inerrant. 🙏🙏🙏
Hmm, comments at 10:04-ish has me thinking, did Ezra have most of the 39 books compiled? Or was there more floating around but dis Jesus solidify, generally, what we consider OT? Did the apostles reinforce what we know as the OT?
I am a believer who has had direct help from Jesus with a clear vision of a future of at least 2 events or scenes in my life that came true in exact detail. So any claims to the unreliability of the Bible are therefore completely baseless. But we must also use our minds, science, logic to guard our faith. Sometimes we need help from people who do textual research and archeology full-time. A lot of the 'facts' and arguments being talked about in the post referenced below are new to me.
“Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Take these evidences, this evidence of the purchase, both which is sealed, and this evidence which is open; and put them in an earthen vessel, that they may continue many days. For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Houses and fields and vineyards shall be possessed again in this land.” Jeremiah 32:14-15 KJV The ancient Jewish tradition for preserving important documents was putting them in jars by God’s command and is most likely why this was done for the Biblical scrolls.
When Messiah said SCRIPTURE, the NT didn’t exist. He was preaching the TaNaK. He said they erred in the SCRIPTURE ( TaNaK) , not knowing the SCRIPTURE ( TaNaK) .
In the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah, which does it say that "the virgin is with child" like the Septuagint, or "the young woman is with child" as it is in the Masoretic text? I would really love to know the answer to that
The DSS use the same terminology in Isa 7:14 as the Masoretic Text - העלמה (ha'almah). An "almah", as you know, is a "young woman," traditionally unmarried, therefore in the Hebrew culture, would be a virgin. The Hebrew word almah is derived from the root word "elem" which means "something kept out of sight," therefore in my opinion, is clearly a virgin.
@@2besavedcom-7 amen Context is always important.. There are other OT usage of almah in reference to virgins in Xerxes haram who would be groomed to ( ensure the sexual needs of the King were met. These verse use betulah and almah interchangeably as I'm sure you already know. God bless.
African language for example in RDC , our language have been compromised with added vowels by Belgian in old times, they couldn’t pronounce it! because at some extend we did not use vowels.
@@martinsolomon5500 “But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed.” Isaiah 53:5 NASB1995 Yeah I had it confused but is the pierced here a mistranslation?
Even if it was "like a lion", guess what? The lion would represent Judah and the lion's teeth would still pierce the hands and feet. And that's not a jab at the Jews as we are all guilty of sin.
@@edge4192 do you know where I can see a picture of this I heard the word that the last letter is hard to decipher but even if it’s a vav then it would be a misspelled word, I’m just looking for truth
@@SeanMcDowell The KJV generally used the Masoretic Text as base but used the Septuagint in places where it was clear that the passage was Messianic prophecy about Jesus Christ - Ps 22:16, Isa 7:14. Over 90% of the quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament quotes the Septuagint instead of the Masoretic Text (whenever there's a difference between the two)
This stuff is beyond my understanding, and honestly makes me question what my Bible is textually based on and if it's worth reading. I noticed that mine says "descendants" (plural) in Genesis, when "seed" (plural and singular" would've been more accurate. Also saw a Jewish woman claim that the word "virgin" in Isaiah is different, or something, in the Messoretic text than the Septuegent. As a way to argue against Christ.
Many of the Bible translations today are based on the group of texts known as the masoretic text for the Old testament. A young woman would have been a virgin before marriage in that culture. Isaiah 7:14 how would the Lord be giving a sign (miracle) if the young (likely fertile) woman conceived not being a virgin.
Your thoughts on Jesus being educated from aged 12-30 by the Qmron community . Your ideas? Oh and as you mentioned Leviticus, how far back do the scrolls go? 600 B.C.? Thanks for this update on the scrolls through your PhD work.
Wow!! Love this. So fascinating and miraculous. God definitely in charge, seeing to it that His people hold the truth when they have the Bible in their hands.
Great video, Dr. McDowell! Love your stuff, but couldn't find a video in your library on the miracle that there's not a valid question that can be explained by any biblical claim of deity. Nobody else has made a video about this miracle, either. Yet, of course, it's the only validated miracle about the Bible. Wide-open opportunity for you here to publicize this miracle, don't you think?
@Dr. Sean McDowell Thank you, Dr. McDowell, for taking your valuable time to consider the explanation you've requested. Dr. Bart Ehrman seems to be the only biblical scholar who is fully cognizant of the significance of what I have in mind. All competent scholars are aware of it, but need to be reminded. Let me walk you through this: You see, neither the average person, nor Science, has unlimited resources to investigate every imaginable question. One must have a method to discriminate, but especially to rule-out subjective biases and agendas by people proposing questions to be investigated with our limited resources, which might be better spent elsewhere. The most effective method of discriminating which questions are worthy of our valuable resources, and to eliminate even our own biases, is the accident of anomalies -- a fact, or set of facts, which current models can't explain, and are therefore of INTRINSIC interest/value. You'll find, in the philosophical literature on validity (also called "justification"), that this agency of intrinsic value is front-and-center, even in Ethics. Take the very typical example of someone making a claim. If someone makes a claim, but explains no external fact, the claim explains only a belief, at best. But, if a claim explains an external fact, it becomes possessed of a value in and of itself. The claim assumes a "life" of it's own, distinct from the person who made the claim, called "intrinic value." The claim is said to be validated (or justified), and such claims are considered to be more probably true than not, by anyone who makes such a claim; well, until a better explanation for the fact is found. This is the agency which generates valid questions. It's a question validated in a fact (or facts) which current models cannot explain. They are intrinsically interesting questions because of the failure of current models, therefore valid no matter who states them. Science provides no answer to the question, "Did Jesus rise from the dead?" because the question is not validated with any known factual anomaly. This is why Bart Ehrman keeps pointing-out that this question is theologically biased, of no intrinsic interest to Historical Science. Were there, say, a miracle-worker, certified to be about two thousand years old, Christian theology might have a valid question that only it can explain. But, Christian theology, explaining no anomaly at all, is "as a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing," in MacBeth's bleak world. You see, now, Dr. McDowell, what I'm saying? Again, thank you for taking your valuable time to consider my explanation.
@@HegelsOwl The scientific method is currently our most effective tool for understanding the created universe, but it is inadequate for proving (or disproving) the existence of God (who by definition exists beyond time, space, or matter). So, your hope for externally valid proof is misplaced. The only way a person can come to know God is through God's own self-revelation. Evidence, reason, and theories can support or undermine belief, but God always works in a way that it will be our own heart that will reject or embrace God. None of this is to say having the veracity you're asking for is unimportant, but it will not foster faith and may have you chasing less important things. I Corinthians 1:8b "Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up" and I Peter 5:5b "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble" come to mind. Love, salvation, forgiveness, peace, grace, fellowship, as well as evil, sin, judgement, etc. are relational terms and science has nothing significant to say about these most important things.
@Troy Green I'm sorry, sir: You didn't write a sentence without a "Fallacy of Begging the Question." You are unbelieveably presumptuous. If you wish to be taken seriously, sir, in order to be respected by educated people, you'll need to show, by fluency on the questions, that you've raken things seriously. Now, stick your thumb back in your mouth: You'll sound more intelligent.
Hi Sean, would love to see you interview another scholar on this subject such as Lee Martin McDonald to give a much more consensus view of the Dead Sea Scrolls and authoritative text during the Second Temple period. While I appreciate that Dr. Ferguson’s studies potentially point to widespread usage of the proto-MT in Palestine, his claims that we therefore have a stable (and if I’m hearing him right, Christian) canon pre-Jesus seems to completely ignore the reality that early Christians and NT writers primarily (read almost exclusively) used the LXX, not the proto-Masoretic text-types. As he himself claims, his views don’t represent the vast majority of scholarship in this area, and I would say that’s a pretty large understatement. I’ve not come across a single scholar, religious or not whose primary focus area is on Second Temple Judaism who thinks that the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate a stable canon based off of the Masoretic text that both Jews and early Christians would have considered authoritative - quite the opposite. While I appreciate the novel ideas, much of the claims seem to be coming from a background of “I believe the text of the Protestant canon is inerrant, so I’m going to try and fit the evidence from the DSS to fit that model.” Really think that it would serve Christians better in the long run to interview someone whose personal beliefs you might not find objectionable, but whose academic and historical views actually reflect the work of most other historians in the field - otherwise this just becomes an echo chamber.
If there’s anything we don’t need right now, it’s an insistence on consensus based on what obviously brainwashed scholars since the 60s have determined to be truth. Sorry but this guy or gal who doesn’t even identify himself or herself should have shared this nasty note in private, in my opinion.
He highlights why its not. One of the reasons is alignment, but Ferguson provides answers for that, and shows the very close similarity between the DSS and MT in comparison to LXX and MT (although both very close). Many scholarly consensus is against many things Christians believe, for example that Jesus claimed Divinity. Should we believe that too??
@@lost_is_history8224 The problem isn't with alignment between the DSS and the MT, that's already a given. The problem is with assuming that the existence of proto-MT text-types implies a stable canon. The DSS represent absolutely nothing of the sort, and pointing to a proto-MT makes little sense regardless as the NT authors used the LXX rather than any sort of proto-MT, so they were using something they considered "authoritative" that clearly wasn't the MT. The issues with canon formation are extremely well known, and nothing he talks about address any of the known issues with the early formation of Jewish or Christian canon. RE "many scholarly consensus is against many things Christians believe" is both irrelevant and inaccurate. To the contrary, many biblical scholars, especially NT scholars, are self-professing Christians. In terms of relevance, dismissing a historical question because it conflicts with a very specific subset of a particular brand of modern Christian assumptions (the inerrancy of the Protestant canon) is not doing history and is, frankly, intellectually dishonest.
@@photoionized the authors were Greek speakers. They wouldn’t need to retranslate and translate again. Especially considering how many things aren’t legitimate interpretations but forgeries. And the text is fluid. Read his dissertation, he explains why these don’t infer a unstable cannon. Provide suitable objections to his thesis and provide page number plz.
I know God, I walk in covenant with God and I Love God. I fear God as well and that is the beginning of Love because until you fear disobeying God and causing God to look upon you in shame so you feel horrible then you can not love Him. I started this walk when I was 32, to look for God. I started to actually begin to find God when I was 39 and sealed myself to God as the gospel tells us to, those of us who listen to the gospel teacher and not the ones who came after him, know to take up the commandments of God and to seek out our roots back to Abraham and to Moses and Yehoshua and the prophets so we become firm in knowledge of what GOD ALONE asked of us. It took me several years of fighting sin and the devil by obeying God. I fought the sin out of me with God's help, by his instructions in the written word. It is a very narrow road and as the mattan/Matthew gospel says very few will find it. We have to fight Satan and the whole world that serves him in sin in order to get out and the one who will help is God alone because we can't trust anyone else. I am with God, God provides for myself and my family and yes there is absolutely evidence BUT not until you absolutely come clean, in thought, word and deed, the absolute opposite of all the lying religions. The gospel was sent down to free us from sin by sending us to our teacher and if you reject it then you are freed from God into sin perpetually and to death spiritually from God which as I can now see is absolutely hell on earth, your light you pretend to have is absolutely darkness caused by your unwillingness to even try to obey God. I speak to 99% of the population. If you can't put everyone first after God and stop yourself from all sin THEN YOUR NOT WORTHY AND YOU ARE ALREADY FINISHED BEFORE YOU EVEN STARTED. So come out of all sun, take up the commandments and begin your battle, call to GOD ALONE, LEARN YOUR ROOTS, BE GOD'S PEOPLE. FIGHT SATAN WHO IS THE SINNERS INNER VOICE, THE CONSCIENCE THAT LEADS YOU TO HURT YOU, that's not you, it's Satan the deceiver. If you come to God and pass the trials cleansing yourself by obedience then GOD WILL BECOME YOUR CONSCIENCE AND YOU WILL LOVE GOD AND HATE SIN, SATAN WILL FLEE FROM YOU. SO there it is. Peace, the ball in in your court Be wary of this world, it is the valley of death, you need God's light and God doesn't dwell with sin or sinners. Not until they begin the journey to stop sin. 😀😉
Everyone has a bias, it's what gives them their perspective. The only difference is that Theists are open and honest about them. It's weird how the sort of people who bang on about objectivity the most think that truth is subjective
The Mazaretic text has "lions at his hands and feet" while the Great Iseah Scroll has "peirced his hands and feet." This is said to be a deliberate change by early Jewish rabbis, to alter the prophecy of the crucifixion, so Jews would stop defecting to Christianity. Some Messianic Jews I have seen say, the rabbis skip Iseah 53 entirely in their weekly education in the Hebrew Bible. I am a KJV only person, and it seems the Septuagint and Vaticanus must have been copied from older copies of the Mazaritic text, before the changes, which were closer to the original Iseah.
Wonderful. Recently started to view these presentations on YT. So much anti-Christian on any viewing I have decided to limit as much worldly brain-burning as possible. Thank you. May God, the Creator and Father Bless & Protect you and strengthen the Spirit in 'Resting' in your Hearts. In Jesus' Name. Amen.
I agree with everyone on this gentleman's zeal. However, I still find it odd about these caves being on cliffs. The story and timing is odd too. There is a huge population that believes the book of Jubilees and 1st Enoch is also part of the Bible. Their beliefs are stronger because they were found in these scrolls. Why so many interpretation 's of scripture ? Why so many religions, if these hold truth?
When the guest speaks of there " always being a tradition of vowels ( used)" he leaves out the plane implication of the vowels being due to Greek influence
Hi! I get your point using OCD, but I would be mindful of using those terms unless you really mean to say that you are disordered by obsessive compulsivity. When many people say OCD today, I think they mean to say meticulous without making it sound like bragging. OCD is in fact a disorder, and affects people's day to day lives in harmful ways. OCD: Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a disorder in which people have recurring, unwanted thoughts, ideas or sensations (obsessions) that make them feel driven to do something repetitively (compulsions). God bless you all
@@gregariousguru I agree, and I am not claiming that no scholar or historian have obsessions or repetitive behavior. Some or many might even have OCD. I am criticizing saying "I am a bit OCD" when you actually mean to say that you can become obsessed with something that interests you sometimes. That is not OCD. It's like saying "I am a bit ADHD" when you are impulsive sometimes, "I am a bit ADD" if you can't always focus, or "I am a bit autistic" because you're sometimes socially awkward. These terms are actual psychological/neurological disorders and should be used carefully.
For everyone, God Bless you. Watch 2 lessons in "TOTAL ONSLAUGHT series" by professor, Pastor Walter Veith, titled (Battle of the Bibles , & the other is Changing The Word). Great info about different Bibles and why some are Very inclined to minimize Jesus. Cheers!
Anthony Ferguson wasnt completely honest in his depiction of the Dead Sea Scrolls. While a lot of the DSS manuscripts are proto Masoretic (there was no Masoretic Text back then), many of the DSS manuscripts were ProtoSeptuagint Texts. These were Hebrew texts (a Vorlage) [underlying the Septuagint (LXX) translation] found among the DSS. Whenever there's a difference between the MT and the LXX in the New Testament quotations of the Old, over 90% of the time the apostles chose to quote the LXX over the Masoretic Text (MT). So the NT authors preferred the LXX over the MT more than 90% of the time suggesting that their go-to text was the LXX. Besides, it is surprising that the Qumran scrolls /DSS would have any LXX, especially considering that they imagined themselves to be more strict and holier than the Sadducees in charge of the Temple - which is why they went away to Qumran to establish their own way of life which they thought was more in line with the Bible
@@joachimwest3217 For 2 reasons 1. What we call the LXX is largely Codex Vaticanus and Alexandrinus and what remains of Origen's Hexapla, and some would argue the Greek quotations of Josephus. 2. They (what we call the LXX) don't agree 100% word for word with the DSS manuscripts. Some of it might be scribal error etc, but in some cases there are minor variants.
@@noelenliva2670 I think that when people say LXX they could be referencing a lot of things. I understand that we don't have complete manuscripts of the lxx until hundreds of years later but we do have fragments and records of a greek translation that they called the septuagint since what? I can't remember exactly... the second or their century BC? I know that it originally referred to just the Torah but later came to refer to other books that were translated to greek and that there are several versions of the LXX. So to me I don't really understand why anyone would call it protoseptuagint or preseptuagint when really what is going on is that a small fraction of the dead sea scrolls have some similarities to some greek translations of the bible that existed at about the same time. Maybe the issue is some of the texts are from books that they don't think were translated at that point? I don't know, it just seems presumptuous to me to call it protoseptuagint but i'm not an expert on the subject. You said that it was surprising to you that its surprising to you that they had texts that come from a tradition that is similar to the greek tradition but from what I understand they had a lot of strange texts. They had texts that seem to mirror the samaritan bible as well as ones that don't seem to fit into any category. Really, from what I understand not a ton of text paralleled the lxx. It was some small fraction that paralleled the lxx and they had lots of strange things in there. Most of it I think parallels the Masoretic text.
@@joachimwest3217 You're right and I tend to agree with you 'personally' since I too believe that that is a valid school of thought. Academically though, the general teaching is that it is ProtoSeptuagint, maybe because they would like to undercut the real influence of the Septuagint. About 25% is Masoretic, about 5% Septuagint, another 5% Samaritan and the rest is classified as Non Aligned text
It's fun talking to you about this. thanks. I think you are right about the 5 percent septuagint and 5 percent samaritan but I remember reading that the majority of the text was Proto-Masoretic. Idk. I was really just trying to say that they found a lot of weird manuscripts in the dead sea scrolls.
If you are a checker, Check this. Why did God in Genesis 16 call "Ismael" bad but never truly explained anything negative he did. While anywhere else, if God has show dislike for a character, God has mentioned a little more detail about it. The truth about "Ismael's" real identity is hidden across the whole thing. He might not be who you think he is.
in isaiah 53 of 1QIsaA jesus "sees light" and this is a biblical way of saying to not be dead. it's the ressurrection. this is written out of the masoretic text as are several other important prophecies about jesus such as his hands being pierced in Psalm 22 . the masoretic text was maintained for hundreds of years by those who openly and persistently rejected Jesus. maybe thats why the OT geneologies are also monkied with in the MT to write Jesus out. Lining up behind the MT might not be the best approach.
Academia requires write up some specualtory theory which is by default always a conspiracy theory.so it never any shortage of criticisms to borrow from.
Some scholars say that the OT books where written by a school of writers and then attributed to selected authors. Is this true? If so, how does it affect the validity and authenticity of the texts as divine scripture?
Of course you are correct. See genesis flood narrative on Wikipedia. The flood narrative is made up of two stories woven together.[14] As a result many details are contradictory, such as how long the flood lasted (40 days according to Genesis 7:17, 150 according to 7:24), how many animals were to be taken aboard the Ark (one pair of each in 6:19, one pair of the unclean animals and seven pairs of the clean in 7:2), and whether Noah released a raven which "went to and fro until the waters were dried up" or a dove which on the third occasion "did not return to him again," or possibly both.[15] Despite this disagreement on details the story forms a unified whole (some scholars see in it a "chiasm", a literary structure in which the first item matches the last, the second the second-last, and so on),[c] and many efforts have been made to explain this unity, including attempts to identify which of the two sources was earlier and therefore influenced the other.[16][d] The flood narrative at large is composed of the Jahwist and Priestly sources; the Elohist source that the Jahwist narrative was later conjoined to apparently lacked any of the narratives pertaining to events that preceded the strife between Sarai and Hagar.[17] The Jahwist narrative, centuries older than the Priestly,[18] appears to constitute all the similarities with the flood myth from the Epic of Gilgamesh:
@@paulallen7962 You’re right. Of course, I am correct as you have correctly stated. That is correct. Thanks. On a side note, if I’m going to search for verifiable facts that are not biased I might want to bypass Wikipedia. Just sayin’ 😉 Furthermore, your characterization of the great flood of Noah as being a myth would, of course, be an opinion. Your opinion. And as we all know (except possibly you) opinions do not qualify as fact.
@@henryrogers5500 A global flood as described in this myth is inconsistent with the physical findings of geology, paleontology and the global distribution of species.[3][4][5] A branch of creationism known as flood geology is a pseudoscientific attempt to argue that such a global flood actually occurred.
@@paulallen7962 You seem to be long on feelings and opinions but short on facts. Let me remind you once again: your feelings and opinions do not qualify as fact.
It’s really evident that this young man has such a zeal for Gods word. The way he lights up when he answers Sean’s questions. He’s like a kid in the candy store. He’s like an under valued stock that you should hold on to and keep an eye on because over time it’s going to yield compound dividends. Can’t wait to see what God continues to do in his life for his church.
DOCTOR Ferguson.. He’s got a PHD.. He isn’t a “kid” , he’s probably 28 years old. At least no younger than 26. You can’t be if you have a PHD it takes at least 8 years to complete.
@@dazdavis7896 Well ….. Jonathan actually call the Doctor a “young man” who is “like a kid In a candy store”.
@@dazdavis7896 lol did you read the comment?
pity it doesn't prove anything conclusively though eh? wouldn't it be nice if you lot could actuall prove that there is a god instead of having to cross your fingers and pray for another 2000 years. silly people on thier knees to a silly idea.
@@HarryNicNicholas No need to troll bro, If you got nothing useful or building to say don't say it :)
Love the Joy in Dr Ferguson’s heart for the Word. Wonderful and informative interview…. Thank you.
Trusting in the sovereignty of God in the preservation of the Bible that He knows what we need. Beautiful idea.
The Bible has been corrupted before it was written down
@@darkeen42 Corrupted? What does that mean?
@@charlesiragui2473 um it means you need a dictionary
@@darkeen42 a Hebrew one I presume. What’s the connection between corruption and dictionaries? Usually I think of using dictionaries because of rich vocabulary.
@@charlesiragui2473 if you don't know what corrupt means you need a dictionary it's not complicated
Thank you both and especially Dr Ferguson for being and embracing the gift God gave you of being OCD and, as a result, being able to share your wealth of knowledge and understanding with us! God bless you both!
Thanks Ya'll. Maranatha!
Thank you for this Drs.. Ferguson and McDowell!. Bless you and your loved ones,!
The word of God is real 💯
Thank you for discover the truth 🙇🙇
Keep on do the good work 👍
Thank you both 😘😘
Charismatics have been faithful in preserving the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Cessationists have been faithful in preserving the Word. God has a plan! 😊
Thanks! In the midst of so many beautiful and useful thoughts. I especially appreciate the conversation about feeling lonely or feeling in the middle of a metaphoric desert. I appreciate it when people describe continuing in their mission even when they feel lonely or feeling that their mission has taken them “in to the desert.” It’s also interesting to hear about the resolution of the time of desert, as this speaker tells his own experience of that.
Um... just absolutely AMAZING, and very much enjoyed hearing and seeing Jesus in Dr. Ferguson's words and face!!!
Amen!
Although he is talking about the Hebrew Old Testament which opposes Jesus and the Greek New Testament otherwise Judaism wouldn’t still exist !
@@martinsolomon5500 Yes, the entire Bible, both old and new covenants are all about Messiah Jesus, from creation to the end.
In the name of love and positivity, may those seeking employment find fulfilling opportunities, may the unwell experience swift healing, and may the light of hope shine upon all who come across this message. 🌈🙏💕
Fascinating! Thank you for sharing your knowledge Dr. Ferguson. Great show!
A manuscript of Esther has actually been found now from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Ascribe spilled their wine on it and stained it in such a way that it could not be deciphered. The technology caught up with the problem and they were able to see the writing through the wine stain. And voila its Esther in the Dead Sea Scrolls. If you Google you might find this. I think it was James Tabor in a video he did that mentioned it but I'm not sure I can't remember.
I love that Sean pulls a Michael Scott for me and says the equivalent of “Why don’t you explain this to me like I’m five”. Bravo you two!
"Thou hast magnified Thy Word above all Thy Name!" Psalm 138:2...🙏☝️
Do you guys have any information on the Essenes?
Hi Dr. Sean. Is your dissertation published anywhere (about the fate of the apostles)? I’m intersted in the topic personally.
Thank you for all.
May you be well.
Great dialogue! Thank you for bringing out the example of the Maccabees, who were ready to die protecting and observing Sacred Scripture.
I love your channel. Thank you for the work you do and the interesting topics that you cover which helps people like me to strengthen their faith.
Thank you both, enjoyed and so informative.
I would love to read his dissertation. How can I get a copy?
Super informative and enjoyable! Thanks guys
I worship the Lord in spirit and truth.. not the intellectual scribal work ...GOD is a spirit....they that worship Him in Spirit and in Truth...GOD is more concerned with the heart not the mind..but I appreciate the people who pursue the historical truth of how the word was formulated...GOD promises He will preserve His word.
I’m not a scholar, didn’t even attend college, never had ANY desire to read a dissertation, until now.
I am a new believer whos digging into theology not because I think it will ever hide his light, Ive felt it literally physically and will never disbelieve in his Grace and Mercy, and this was almost unbelievable to find for me. Just learned about what Qumran is yesterday glad I did before this. I'm the person who has many questions for Dr. Ferguson. God is great I pray all know Him at their time. Does Dr Ferguson know about the radio spectroscopy and what their doing to Qumran and does he work with archaeological finds besides the texts and scriptures at all?
Never say never, doofus.
hay sean another great job i just love your biblical archeologey videos !
Nice use of Ecamm live. Great quality for your interview. Very helpful material. Preaching on this topic this coming Sunday as related to Luke 4.
Thanks. Just got a new camera that’s coming out soon too. I hope your message goes GREAT.
1 Enoch, jubilees, the book of giants, so many other scrolls were found. I believe that the above books are vital for understanding end times prophecy. I've said before, genesis 3, and genesis 6 are vital for understanding the book of daniel, revelation.
I totally agree. Those books have changed my life. They added lots of context and missing pieces!
PLEASE get Dr. Bart Ehrman on your show to discuss this and many other issues you often discuss with various guests. Thanks!
Ehrman is too emotional this unreliable. His position has been corrupted by being hurt by fake Christianity. Skeptics of the Bible can be good but not inaccurate ones.🤗
It’s good that evangelical Christians roll up sleeves and do scholarly work on the biblical text, and don’t leave it to unbelievers and liberals only
Well if you actually look up any of eclipse claims you only as he's lying and edits at all the people that point that out to him. Evangelical Christians are raised from birth to lie about the Bible otherwise I'll have to admit when it's clearly not true
I love that the Dead Sea scrolls just confirm what we're reading now is the real deal from our Creator
What? I'm sorry but how did this confirm its written by God? It confirmed it was already written. And we all already know that the modern christian bibles are a rewrite so honestly there is no confirmation of what you said. That's why it requires faith.
go to a site that is less biased and listen to actual scholars of old languages and ancient texts break it down. You'll learn things about the original books and their authors from people without confirmation bias as the central theme. Instead you'll get a more accurate historical breakdown of the origins of the book that you know so well. Don't forget that before the christians the Jewish people were the protectors of these ancient manuscripts.
You're an idiot
From what I have read and researched, it seems that Jesus was an Essene.
The older text fragments that date back to the first century and even within 25 to thirty years of Christs resurrection, were found in dunes in Egypt. They've been dated both by tests and supporting evidence. Papyrus 64 is a good example, at Oxford.
I'm looking to get into Old Testament textual criticism. Working on my MDiv right now, and I'll be reading Emanuel Tov's "Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible" over the summer.
Superb, thanks.
Jews were careful with their sacred texts. Why is this a surprise to some?
This interview is a breath of fresh air!
Awesome!
They weren't any more careful than any other number of ancient scribal groups of the period. There is nothing remotely remarkable about the Jewish transmission of their scriptures.
@@DrKippDavis For instance Greeks and Homer? The point was not to denigrate other peoples. I would expect ancient people in general to be careful with important texts. We can afford to be careless with books today but clearly that wasn’t the case in the past.
Except for their grievance misstranslations. Like the people that created the story of Jesus had a translation from Hebrew to Greek. And the prophecy of Jesus called Mary a young unwed woman people that created the story of Jesus had a mistranslation and called her a virgin so that's the story they made of but originally it wasn't supposed to be virgin
@@charlesiragui2473 what they were most careful about is telling an interesting story that kept them in the job of telling stories for a living. If people didn't find your story compelling interesting or worthy of paying attention to you would be incentivized to tweak it and make it more impressive and exaggerate like every myth ever even ones that are rising today
Important information for Christians!
I had hoped 'The Copper Scroll' would have been discussed. Was it from Joseph of Arimathea who was exiled after he exposed his connection to Jesus? Joseph of Arimathea went to England for the remainder of his life. England and France are geographically close. How did the Templars know exactly where to go in Jerusalem to obtain such large fortune?
I think that it would have been interesting to hear scholars talk about this issue:: The authors of the new testament were not using the masoretic text as far we can tell, they were using the septuagint which differs from the masoretic text in many places. This is an issue when it comes to the use of the bible by the New Testament authors in the development of their theology and when this apologist was talking about how the Christians translate the bible he said that they use the masoretic text which is only partially true. In these places where translating from the masoretic text would not look good for christianity they take their cues from the septuagint. It would be interesting to see them talk about how various scrolls in the Dead Sea Scroll collection read on these verses that are important to Christianity because I know that there are several textual traditions that are recorded in the Dead Sea Scrolls which might help us to understand the origins of the septuagint and the christian tradition. I want to know if any of the Dead Sea Scrolls record a tradition that fits better with the Septuagint version of the bible. It would also be interesting to hear how these compare to the verses that we have recorded in the Targumim and to other non-hebrew bibles that we have like the Syriac. I would rather hear about it from someone though who wasn't trying to sell me on the faithfulness of Christianity or the like because I'm far more interested in just knowing the truth about the situation and I am not as interested in being sold a religion. I know that Sean and his father have made their living on selling Christianity so I imagine that this is probably not the place to go but it would be interesting if I could find that somewhere. I should probably just look for a book on it. Meh.
What do you mean by scholars, if a man with a doctorate on the subject under discussion is not? Do you mean non Christians can be more accurate?
@@leonardmasano312 I didnt say he wasnt a scholar. I'm not sure where you are coming from really.
@@leonardmasano312 I'm not sure if you listened to the interview but he explained that he approached this topic for apologetic reasons and feels like he is generally on the fringe of scholarship on this issue. I've learned to be very wary of apologists. I've been following many of them over the years and generally find them to be distrustful. I'm not just talking about ravi zacharias either. When you approach an issue of scholarship with the intention of using what you learn for propaganda I think its tends to taint things. I dont like to hear the sort of political spin that I hear from apologists who are always trying to sell, sell, sell and make a used car look as shiny as possible. I want the facts straight. I wanna know the good things and the bad things in a dispassionate way from someone who isnt trying to sell me anything so that I can make my mind up for myself. I do like to hear every side which is why you see me commenting here, because I came and watched the entire video but I've watched enough content from fundamentalist Christians to know that I dislike the spin.
@@joachimwest3217 Yes, I listened to the interview. This is what you expect to get from a pastor; he is believer who wants to strengthen his faith by looking at available evidence.
You are right on disliking spin! I also don't like the spin from anyone, and especially of the opposite side that wants to prove otherwise, whatever the evidence, as they approach the subject with the agenda of disproving religion, especially Christianity, and want everyone to trust them. They tout their declared non-belief as enough credential for being justifiably correct on what they present.
The case of Ravi Zacharias is one of the difficult issues in humanity and faith. It is similar to the case of Judas Iscariot, or the tares planted in the field that Jesus told a story about whereby the farmer didn't want them to be uprooted until harvest time! The case is no cause for anyone to celebrate as victory for his side. There are people who were acclaimed good bankers but robbed their banks. Some even seen as good husbands or wives but secretly cheat against their spouses. That is being human in a broken world!
@@leonardmasano312 There are definitely some atheist scholars that I take with a grain of salt but from what I've seen scholarship often lands somewhere in the middle with a mass of liberal Christians, jews and atheists who are just doing the research. Ravi Zacharias isn't a difficult issue for me. Christianity has always been a fantastic tool for people to make money and control other humans. In my opinion it was built that way. I just want the unfiltered information and I want to use the information for myself to try to figure out what is true or not. I don't like it when that information is given as part of a sales package. I understand that everyone has their hypothesis but I do my best to take the information from many sources and compare the information together to see for myself what the case is.
Chinese archeologists discovered old manuscripts from a tomb and gave a completely different description of how legendary kings passed power, which was the foundation of Confucius philosophy for thousands of years. It is very interesting how these ancient books evolved.
Thanks very much. Very interesting.
hi, if it proved the authenticity of the old testaments scriptures through dead sea scrolls, then how can we prove the authenticity of the new testaments writing?
This convo may help:
m.th-cam.com/video/tylSrhSwTJY/w-d-xo.html
@@SeanMcDowell apparently it proves zip. there are still atheists.
The Dead Sea scrolls don't prove the authenticity of the old testament scriptures. What it proves is that the masoretic text isn't completely different from some texts that some people were reading two thousand years ago. Remember, over time people have used many different manuscript histories. Christians were using the latin vulgate for a very long time and before that they were using the greek septuagint and the septuagint and masoretic text differ in many places, places that are fundamental to the christian faith because the authors of the new testament were primarily using the septuagint. The Dead Sea scrolls are not only texts that follow the masoretic text line but also texts that follow other textual traditions. There' is really no way of knowing which textual traditions are the oldest because we don't have the original manuscripts. All we can do is look at what we have and try to make guesses about how things were originally constructed or what things originally looked like. We cant say that we have the text exactly as it was first written, in fact, i'm not sure many people would say that other than fundamentalist christians who are making a faith statement. Don't forget, a lot of the bible was probably written in paleohebrew and the masoretic text is not in paleohebrew though the Samaritan bible is written in something more akin to paleohebrew but there are some big differences between the samaritan bible and the masoretic text. We cannot prove the authentiticy of the new testament either because we don't have the original manuscripts. What we do know are that the gospels are texts that evolved over time. For example, Matthew is a rewritten copy of Mark with some additions and it very well may be the case that Mark is a rewritten version of something that came before it. Lots of scholars believe that there were other sources that books like Mark were copying from like something they call the "Q" source. Contemporary scholars are working through the text and are finding textual issues that you can learn about today. For example, things like the longer ending of mark, the story of the adulterous woman and that line about the trinity are famous "insertions" or bits of writing that we don't find in older manuscripts. IT wasn't unheard of for the people who were copying these texts to change wording or add things in. The truth is that early Christianity was a big mess with lots of different books and many different versions of books "there was more than one version of matthew for example" that were simply lost to time. It's especially hard to do research on early christianity because the romans destroyed jerusalem soon after the birth of christianity and whatever texts they might have been using are gone.
@@joachimwest3217 we were raised as evangelical christians, then we were taught that all scriptures were God's breath for both old and new testaments but base on history there were insertion of words or phrases into the original manuscript.... how can we now say they were inspired by Holy Spirit at that time when they wrote the scriptures?
@@chrisgeorge715 We really don't exactly know what was in the original manuscripts exactly because we don't have them but honestly I don't think that this is the biggest problem that Christianity has. I don't think that the view of inspiration that says "everything in the bible is true and accurate in a literal sense" is realistic but there are other views of inspiration. *shrug* For me, a bigger issue is that early Christianity is a giant mess and it's really hard to say that just because one Christian sect became very popular and found power in the seat of the Roman Empire that it's the correct form of Christianity, especially when we have reasons to believe that it was a breakoff sect of an older form of Christianity that is dead today. In other words, the proto-orthodox were like the Mormons of their day. A new religion that spun off from an older Christian movement. Why should we accept their traditions? For example, the idea that Matthew was written by Matthew or that Matthew is inspired by God are traditions passed down from this sect. We know of at least one other version of Matthew that was accepted by the Jewish Christians that was an adoptionist text so that Jesus wasn't born God but was adopted at God's son at his baptism. If you read the gospels together you will see that there is a discrepancy there. Depending on which version you read, God says different things. In Matthew God speaks and says "Matthew 17:5. While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him" in Mark he says "10 And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. 11 And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved;[a] with you I am well pleased.”" In the Hebrew Matthew, Jesus isn't born of a virgin birth from Mary and God, instead, this is the text where Jesus becomes the son of God as an adopted son. Which version is true? Well, depending on which sect you believe you might believe something different and if you accept traditional Jewish traditions instead of Christian ones, then they are all false. At some point you are putting your faith in a sect of humans and trusting that they are telling you the truth about something that happened 2 thousand years ago.
Great discussion. Fascinating!
During my years of searching for the Lord I heard many Christians declare the Bible Is the inerrant word of God. I have always doubted this myself. I am pretty sure that ALL things suffer in translation.
However, what I do believe is the overall message of the Bible IS consistent across all the books of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. I heard someone say recently that Genesis points to Jesus, and Jesus points to Genesis.
God is faithful and God is true, men err God doesn’t. But, the Lord most certainly can make sure His message of Salvation is NOT inerrant. 🙏🙏🙏
I think you meant to say, “NOT errant”. The irony drives the point.
Hmm, comments at 10:04-ish has me thinking, did Ezra have most of the 39 books compiled? Or was there more floating around but dis Jesus solidify, generally, what we consider OT? Did the apostles reinforce what we know as the OT?
The Bible does offer "self evident truth" and this makes it a value for even people who do not believe.
I don't believe anything about the Dead Sea scrolls until they are verified by independent examiners.
If this field of work doesn't work out for Dr. Ferguson then perhaps a Colgate sponsorship might work out
wooow thanx for doing this video
I am a believer who has had direct help from Jesus with a clear vision of a future of at least 2 events or scenes in my life that came true in exact detail. So any claims to the unreliability of the Bible are therefore completely baseless. But we must also use our minds, science, logic to guard our faith. Sometimes we need help from people who do textual research and archeology full-time. A lot of the 'facts' and arguments being talked about in the post referenced below are new to me.
where do you find his dissertation?
Hey, are there any references in the Old Testament of them burying scrolls for future discovery?
“Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Take these evidences, this evidence of the purchase, both which is sealed, and this evidence which is open; and put them in an earthen vessel, that they may continue many days. For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Houses and fields and vineyards shall be possessed again in this land.”
Jeremiah 32:14-15 KJV
The ancient Jewish tradition for preserving important documents was putting them in jars by God’s command and is most likely why this was done for the Biblical scrolls.
I have another query..what does the last 2000 years of idolaters prove?
When Messiah said SCRIPTURE, the NT didn’t exist. He was preaching the TaNaK. He said they erred in the SCRIPTURE ( TaNaK) , not knowing the SCRIPTURE ( TaNaK) .
In the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah, which does it say that "the virgin is with child" like the Septuagint, or "the young woman is with child" as it is in the Masoretic text? I would really love to know the answer to that
The DSS use the same terminology in Isa 7:14 as the Masoretic Text - העלמה (ha'almah). An "almah", as you know, is a "young woman," traditionally unmarried, therefore in the Hebrew culture, would be a virgin. The Hebrew word almah is derived from the root word "elem" which means "something kept out of sight," therefore in my opinion, is clearly a virgin.
@@2besavedcom-7 Thanks
@@2besavedcom-7 amen Context is always important.. There are other OT usage of almah in reference to virgins in Xerxes haram who would be groomed to ( ensure the sexual needs of the King were met. These verse use betulah and almah interchangeably as I'm sure you already know.
God bless.
@@johnalexander4940 - Indeed, and it ain't much of a "sign" if a young woman gives birth ;)
"Therefore Yahweh Himself gives you a SIGN..." (Isa 7:14)
That’s a bogus difference brought up by people with a certain position.
A maiden or young women would be expected to be a virgin.
I wonder what dr. Ferguson thinks of Michael heisner
African language for example in RDC , our language have been compromised with added vowels by Belgian in old times, they couldn’t pronounce it! because at some extend we did not use vowels.
Dr. McDowell please get wired EarPods rather than Bluetooth that may cause brain tumors. Keep up the good work. Your Dad led me to the Lord!
really? you know where the lord is hiding? can you get him to do something, anything really.
Thanks and amen
Is Dr. McDowell's dissertation available on-line?
The Fate of Apostles is his dissertation
So would you confirm or deny that Isaiah 53 says “pierced” instead of how the Jews translated as “like a lion”
That’s a psalms misquote not in Isaiah
@@martinsolomon5500 “But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed.”
Isaiah 53:5 NASB1995
Yeah I had it confused but is the pierced here a mistranslation?
The great Isaiah scroll within the dead sea scroll findings established that it was "pierced" and not "like a lion".
Even if it was "like a lion", guess what? The lion would represent Judah and the lion's teeth would still pierce the hands and feet. And that's not a jab at the Jews as we are all guilty of sin.
@@edge4192 do you know where I can see a picture of this I heard the word that the last letter is hard to decipher but even if it’s a vav then it would be a misspelled word, I’m just looking for truth
Is he related to Sinclair?
The Bible is God Holy Word Hallelujah what a Mighty God we serve Jesus is coming soon Hallelujah come Jesus come our Savior and our God 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
Talk to a scholar on the DSS who's 50+. Maybe James Tabor?
Question: Dr Anthony Ferguson, what are your views on the KJV?
Ooh, good one for next time!
The KJV First, it dropped down from Heaven then Pagons and Illuminati wrote the DSS and MS...🙄
@@SeanMcDowell The KJV generally used the Masoretic Text as base but used the Septuagint in places where it was clear that the passage was Messianic prophecy about Jesus Christ - Ps 22:16, Isa 7:14. Over 90% of the quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament quotes the Septuagint instead of the Masoretic Text (whenever there's a difference between the two)
This stuff is beyond my understanding, and honestly makes me question what my Bible is textually based on and if it's worth reading.
I noticed that mine says "descendants" (plural) in Genesis, when "seed" (plural and singular" would've been more accurate.
Also saw a Jewish woman claim that the word "virgin" in Isaiah is different, or something, in the Messoretic text than the Septuegent. As a way to argue against Christ.
Many of the Bible translations today are based on the group of texts known as the masoretic text for the Old testament.
A young woman would have been a virgin before marriage in that culture. Isaiah 7:14 how would the Lord be giving a sign (miracle) if the young (likely fertile) woman conceived not being a virgin.
Your thoughts on Jesus being educated from aged 12-30 by the Qmron community . Your ideas?
Oh and as you mentioned Leviticus, how far back do the scrolls go? 600 B.C.?
Thanks for this update on the scrolls through your PhD work.
Ah, you just mentioned Genesis!!!!fantastic!
Wow!! Love this. So fascinating and miraculous. God definitely in charge, seeing to it that His people hold the truth when they have the Bible in their hands.
Please cite the evidence; that the Masoretic Text is 1,000 BC.
So you talk about the scripture found but you didn’t share what they said
What about the book of jubilee?
Great video, Dr. McDowell! Love your stuff, but couldn't find a video in your library on the miracle that there's not a valid question that can be explained by any biblical claim of deity. Nobody else has made a video about this miracle, either. Yet, of course, it's the only validated miracle about the Bible. Wide-open opportunity for you here to publicize this miracle, don't you think?
Thanks for watching. Not sure I understand what miracle you’re talking about. Can you give me more context?
@Dr. Sean McDowell
Thank you, Dr. McDowell, for taking your valuable time to consider the explanation you've requested.
Dr. Bart Ehrman seems to be the only biblical scholar who is fully cognizant of the significance of what I have in mind. All competent scholars are aware of it, but need to be reminded. Let me walk you through this:
You see, neither the average person, nor Science, has unlimited resources to investigate every imaginable question. One must have a method to discriminate, but especially to rule-out subjective biases and agendas by people proposing questions to be investigated with our limited resources, which might be better spent elsewhere.
The most effective method of discriminating which questions are worthy of our valuable resources, and to eliminate even our own biases, is the accident of anomalies -- a fact, or set of facts, which current models can't explain, and are therefore of INTRINSIC interest/value. You'll find, in the philosophical literature on validity (also called "justification"), that this agency of intrinsic value is front-and-center, even in Ethics.
Take the very typical example of someone making a claim. If someone makes a claim, but explains no external fact, the claim explains only a belief, at best. But, if a claim explains an external fact, it becomes possessed of a value in and of itself. The claim assumes a "life" of it's own, distinct from the person who made the claim, called "intrinic value." The claim is said to be validated (or justified), and such claims are considered to be more probably true than not, by anyone who makes such a claim; well, until a better explanation for the fact is found.
This is the agency which generates valid questions. It's a question validated in a fact (or facts) which current models cannot explain. They are intrinsically interesting questions because of the failure of current models, therefore valid no matter who states them.
Science provides no answer to the question, "Did Jesus rise from the dead?" because the question is not validated with any known factual anomaly. This is why Bart Ehrman keeps pointing-out that this question is theologically biased, of no intrinsic interest to Historical Science.
Were there, say, a miracle-worker, certified to be about two thousand years old, Christian theology might have a valid question that only it can explain. But, Christian theology, explaining no anomaly at all, is "as a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing," in MacBeth's bleak world.
You see, now, Dr. McDowell, what I'm saying? Again, thank you for taking your valuable time to consider my explanation.
@@HegelsOwl The scientific method is currently our most effective tool for understanding the created universe, but it is inadequate for proving (or disproving) the existence of God (who by definition exists beyond time, space, or matter). So, your hope for externally valid proof is misplaced. The only way a person can come to know God is through God's own self-revelation. Evidence, reason, and theories can support or undermine belief, but God always works in a way that it will be our own heart that will reject or embrace God.
None of this is to say having the veracity you're asking for is unimportant, but it will not foster faith and may have you chasing less important things. I Corinthians 1:8b "Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up" and I Peter 5:5b "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble" come to mind. Love, salvation, forgiveness, peace, grace, fellowship, as well as evil, sin, judgement, etc. are relational terms and science has nothing significant to say about these most important things.
@Troy Green I'm sorry, sir: You didn't write a sentence without a "Fallacy of Begging the Question." You are unbelieveably presumptuous. If you wish to be taken seriously, sir, in order to be respected by educated people, you'll need to show, by fluency on the questions, that you've raken things seriously.
Now, stick your thumb back in your mouth: You'll sound more intelligent.
You should put this in podcast form.
Hi Sean, would love to see you interview another scholar on this subject such as Lee Martin McDonald to give a much more consensus view of the Dead Sea Scrolls and authoritative text during the Second Temple period.
While I appreciate that Dr. Ferguson’s studies potentially point to widespread usage of the proto-MT in Palestine, his claims that we therefore have a stable (and if I’m hearing him right, Christian) canon pre-Jesus seems to completely ignore the reality that early Christians and NT writers primarily (read almost exclusively) used the LXX, not the proto-Masoretic text-types.
As he himself claims, his views don’t represent the vast majority of scholarship in this area, and I would say that’s a pretty large understatement. I’ve not come across a single scholar, religious or not whose primary focus area is on Second Temple Judaism who thinks that the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate a stable canon based off of the Masoretic text that both Jews and early Christians would have considered authoritative - quite the opposite. While I appreciate the novel ideas, much of the claims seem to be coming from a background of “I believe the text of the Protestant canon is inerrant, so I’m going to try and fit the evidence from the DSS to fit that model.”
Really think that it would serve Christians better in the long run to interview someone whose personal beliefs you might not find objectionable, but whose academic and historical views actually reflect the work of most other historians in the field - otherwise this just becomes an echo chamber.
If there’s anything we don’t need right now, it’s an insistence on consensus based on what obviously brainwashed scholars since the 60s have determined to be truth. Sorry but this guy or gal who doesn’t even identify himself or herself should have shared this nasty note in private, in my opinion.
The great Isaiah scroll prophecies Jesus death way before he ever came. That's the most important one.
He highlights why its not. One of the reasons is alignment, but Ferguson provides answers for that, and shows the very close similarity between the DSS and MT in comparison to LXX and MT (although both very close). Many scholarly consensus is against many things Christians believe, for example that Jesus claimed Divinity. Should we believe that too??
@@lost_is_history8224 The problem isn't with alignment between the DSS and the MT, that's already a given. The problem is with assuming that the existence of proto-MT text-types implies a stable canon. The DSS represent absolutely nothing of the sort, and pointing to a proto-MT makes little sense regardless as the NT authors used the LXX rather than any sort of proto-MT, so they were using something they considered "authoritative" that clearly wasn't the MT. The issues with canon formation are extremely well known, and nothing he talks about address any of the known issues with the early formation of Jewish or Christian canon.
RE "many scholarly consensus is against many things Christians believe" is both irrelevant and inaccurate. To the contrary, many biblical scholars, especially NT scholars, are self-professing Christians. In terms of relevance, dismissing a historical question because it conflicts with a very specific subset of a particular brand of modern Christian assumptions (the inerrancy of the Protestant canon) is not doing history and is, frankly, intellectually dishonest.
@@photoionized the authors were Greek speakers. They wouldn’t need to retranslate and translate again. Especially considering how many things aren’t legitimate interpretations but forgeries. And the text is fluid. Read his dissertation, he explains why these don’t infer a unstable cannon. Provide suitable objections to his thesis and provide page number plz.
I know God, I walk in covenant with God and I Love God. I fear God as well and that is the beginning of Love because until you fear disobeying God and causing God to look upon you in shame so you feel horrible then you can not love Him. I started this walk when I was 32, to look for God. I started to actually begin to find God when I was 39 and sealed myself to God as the gospel tells us to, those of us who listen to the gospel teacher and not the ones who came after him, know to take up the commandments of God and to seek out our roots back to Abraham and to Moses and Yehoshua and the prophets so we become firm in knowledge of what GOD ALONE asked of us. It took me several years of fighting sin and the devil by obeying God. I fought the sin out of me with God's help, by his instructions in the written word. It is a very narrow road and as the mattan/Matthew gospel says very few will find it. We have to fight Satan and the whole world that serves him in sin in order to get out and the one who will help is God alone because we can't trust anyone else. I am with God, God provides for myself and my family and yes there is absolutely evidence BUT not until you absolutely come clean, in thought, word and deed, the absolute opposite of all the lying religions. The gospel was sent down to free us from sin by sending us to our teacher and if you reject it then you are freed from God into sin perpetually and to death spiritually from God which as I can now see is absolutely hell on earth, your light you pretend to have is absolutely darkness caused by your unwillingness to even try to obey God. I speak to 99% of the population. If you can't put everyone first after God and stop yourself from all sin THEN YOUR NOT WORTHY AND YOU ARE ALREADY FINISHED BEFORE YOU EVEN STARTED.
So come out of all sun, take up the commandments and begin your battle, call to GOD ALONE, LEARN YOUR ROOTS, BE GOD'S PEOPLE. FIGHT SATAN WHO IS THE SINNERS INNER VOICE, THE CONSCIENCE THAT LEADS YOU TO HURT YOU, that's not you, it's Satan the deceiver. If you come to God and pass the trials cleansing yourself by obedience then GOD WILL BECOME YOUR CONSCIENCE AND YOU WILL LOVE GOD AND HATE SIN, SATAN WILL FLEE FROM YOU.
SO there it is.
Peace, the ball in in your court
Be wary of this world, it is the valley of death, you need God's light and God doesn't dwell with sin or sinners. Not until they begin the journey to stop sin.
😀😉
Everyone has a bias, it's what gives them their perspective. The only difference is that Theists are open and honest about them.
It's weird how the sort of people who bang on about objectivity the most think that truth is subjective
The Mazaretic text has "lions at his hands and feet" while the Great Iseah Scroll has "peirced his hands and feet." This is said to be a deliberate change by early Jewish rabbis, to alter the prophecy of the crucifixion, so Jews would stop defecting to Christianity. Some Messianic Jews I have seen say, the rabbis skip Iseah 53 entirely in their weekly education in the Hebrew Bible. I am a KJV only person, and it seems the Septuagint and Vaticanus must have been copied from older copies of the Mazaritic text, before the changes, which were closer to the original Iseah.
If you are KJv only what do you do with the 1 John 5:7?
Wonderful. Recently started to view these presentations on YT. So much anti-Christian on any viewing I have decided to limit as much worldly brain-burning as possible. Thank you.
May God, the Creator and Father Bless & Protect you and strengthen the Spirit in 'Resting' in your Hearts. In Jesus' Name. Amen.
I agree with everyone on this gentleman's zeal. However, I still find it odd about these caves being on cliffs. The story and timing is odd too. There is a huge population that believes the book of Jubilees and 1st Enoch is also part of the Bible. Their beliefs are stronger because they were found in these scrolls. Why so many interpretation 's of scripture ? Why so many religions, if these hold truth?
There is a level of understanding about Satan that is needed to answer those very important questions you ask. You’re heading in the right direction.
Jesus said that a shepherd will leave all the sheep and search for one lamb did Jesus know about the dead sea scrolls
When the guest speaks of there " always being a tradition of vowels ( used)" he leaves out the plane implication of the vowels being due to Greek influence
This was so good
Hi! I get your point using OCD, but I would be mindful of using those terms unless you really mean to say that you are disordered by obsessive compulsivity. When many people say OCD today, I think they mean to say meticulous without making it sound like bragging. OCD is in fact a disorder, and affects people's day to day lives in harmful ways.
OCD: Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a disorder in which people have recurring, unwanted thoughts, ideas or sensations (obsessions) that make them feel driven to do something repetitively (compulsions).
God bless you all
You have to have repetitive behaviors in order to be a successful scholar or historian in their obsessions with the subject.
@@gregariousguru I agree, and I am not claiming that no scholar or historian have obsessions or repetitive behavior. Some or many might even have OCD. I am criticizing saying "I am a bit OCD" when you actually mean to say that you can become obsessed with something that interests you sometimes. That is not OCD.
It's like saying "I am a bit ADHD" when you are impulsive sometimes, "I am a bit ADD" if you can't always focus, or "I am a bit autistic" because you're sometimes socially awkward.
These terms are actual psychological/neurological disorders and should be used carefully.
I love the program, but why are all these commercial breaks about guns!
How is it that you are so interested in the sacred scriptures; I am the crazy one here in my country
I love this!
For everyone, God Bless you. Watch 2 lessons in "TOTAL ONSLAUGHT series" by professor, Pastor Walter Veith, titled (Battle of the Bibles , & the other is Changing The Word). Great info about different Bibles and why some are Very inclined to minimize Jesus. Cheers!
Anthony Ferguson wasnt completely honest in his depiction of the Dead Sea Scrolls. While a lot of the DSS manuscripts are proto Masoretic (there was no Masoretic Text back then), many of the DSS manuscripts were ProtoSeptuagint Texts. These were Hebrew texts (a Vorlage) [underlying the Septuagint (LXX) translation] found among the DSS.
Whenever there's a difference between the MT and the LXX in the New Testament quotations of the Old, over 90% of the time the apostles chose to quote the LXX over the Masoretic Text (MT). So the NT authors preferred the LXX over the MT more than 90% of the time suggesting that their go-to text was the LXX.
Besides, it is surprising that the Qumran scrolls /DSS would have any LXX, especially considering that they imagined themselves to be more strict and holier than the Sadducees in charge of the Temple - which is why they went away to Qumran to establish their own way of life which they thought was more in line with the Bible
Why would you call them protoseptuagint when the septuagint already existed at that time? That doesn't make much sense.
@@joachimwest3217 For 2 reasons
1. What we call the LXX is largely Codex Vaticanus and Alexandrinus and what remains of Origen's Hexapla, and some would argue the Greek quotations of Josephus.
2. They (what we call the LXX) don't agree 100% word for word with the DSS manuscripts. Some of it might be scribal error etc, but in some cases there are minor variants.
@@noelenliva2670 I think that when people say LXX they could be referencing a lot of things. I understand that we don't have complete manuscripts of the lxx until hundreds of years later but we do have fragments and records of a greek translation that they called the septuagint since what? I can't remember exactly... the second or their century BC? I know that it originally referred to just the Torah but later came to refer to other books that were translated to greek and that there are several versions of the LXX. So to me I don't really understand why anyone would call it protoseptuagint or preseptuagint when really what is going on is that a small fraction of the dead sea scrolls have some similarities to some greek translations of the bible that existed at about the same time. Maybe the issue is some of the texts are from books that they don't think were translated at that point? I don't know, it just seems presumptuous to me to call it protoseptuagint but i'm not an expert on the subject. You said that it was surprising to you that its surprising to you that they had texts that come from a tradition that is similar to the greek tradition but from what I understand they had a lot of strange texts. They had texts that seem to mirror the samaritan bible as well as ones that don't seem to fit into any category. Really, from what I understand not a ton of text paralleled the lxx. It was some small fraction that paralleled the lxx and they had lots of strange things in there. Most of it I think parallels the Masoretic text.
@@joachimwest3217 You're right and I tend to agree with you 'personally' since I too believe that that is a valid school of thought. Academically though, the general teaching is that it is ProtoSeptuagint, maybe because they would like to undercut the real influence of the Septuagint.
About 25% is Masoretic, about 5% Septuagint, another 5% Samaritan and the rest is classified as Non Aligned text
It's fun talking to you about this. thanks. I think you are right about the 5 percent septuagint and 5 percent samaritan but I remember reading that the majority of the text was Proto-Masoretic. Idk. I was really just trying to say that they found a lot of weird manuscripts in the dead sea scrolls.
If you are a checker, Check this. Why did God in Genesis 16 call "Ismael" bad but never truly explained anything negative he did. While anywhere else, if God has show dislike for a character, God has mentioned a little more detail about it. The truth about "Ismael's" real identity is hidden across the whole thing. He might not be who you think he is.
in isaiah 53 of 1QIsaA jesus "sees light" and this is a biblical way of saying to not be dead. it's the ressurrection. this is written out of the masoretic text as are several other important prophecies about jesus such as his hands being pierced in Psalm 22 . the masoretic text was maintained for hundreds of years by those who openly and persistently rejected Jesus. maybe thats why the OT geneologies are also monkied with in the MT to write Jesus out. Lining up behind the MT might not be the best approach.
"..you can't say words without vowels."
Psst, here's a little secret. *YES* you can say words without vowels.
Academia requires write up some specualtory theory which is by default always a conspiracy theory.so it never any shortage of criticisms to borrow from.
Not essenes but exiled temple priests.... qumran now, wilderness of bethabara then... Exiled temple priest hated the pharisees in jerusalem...
Dead Sea scroll comes closer to the New Testament passages.Will we come to know who the wicked priest was during that time.
Some scholars say that the OT books where written by a school of writers and then attributed to selected authors. Is this true? If so, how does it affect the validity and authenticity of the texts as divine scripture?
Which “scholars?” LOL!!! To answer your question directly and simply, no, that’s not true.
Of course you are correct. See genesis flood narrative on Wikipedia.
The flood narrative is made up of two stories woven together.[14] As a result many details are contradictory, such as how long the flood lasted (40 days according to Genesis 7:17, 150 according to 7:24), how many animals were to be taken aboard the Ark (one pair of each in 6:19, one pair of the unclean animals and seven pairs of the clean in 7:2), and whether Noah released a raven which "went to and fro until the waters were dried up" or a dove which on the third occasion "did not return to him again," or possibly both.[15] Despite this disagreement on details the story forms a unified whole (some scholars see in it a "chiasm", a literary structure in which the first item matches the last, the second the second-last, and so on),[c] and many efforts have been made to explain this unity, including attempts to identify which of the two sources was earlier and therefore influenced the other.[16][d]
The flood narrative at large is composed of the Jahwist and Priestly sources; the Elohist source that the Jahwist narrative was later conjoined to apparently lacked any of the narratives pertaining to events that preceded the strife between Sarai and Hagar.[17] The Jahwist narrative, centuries older than the Priestly,[18] appears to constitute all the similarities with the flood myth from the Epic of Gilgamesh:
@@paulallen7962 You’re right. Of course, I am correct as you have correctly stated. That is correct. Thanks.
On a side note, if I’m going to search for verifiable facts that are not biased I might want to bypass Wikipedia. Just sayin’ 😉
Furthermore, your characterization of the great flood of Noah as being a myth would, of course, be an opinion. Your opinion. And as we all know (except possibly you) opinions do not qualify as fact.
@@henryrogers5500 A global flood as described in this myth is inconsistent with the physical findings of geology, paleontology and the global distribution of species.[3][4][5] A branch of creationism known as flood geology is a pseudoscientific attempt to argue that such a global flood actually occurred.
@@paulallen7962 You seem to be long on feelings and opinions but short on facts. Let me remind you once again: your feelings and opinions do not qualify as fact.
The oldest Ancient Hebrew doesn’t have vowels.
Any change or tampering of the original Hebrew into the Septuagint is a red flag.
Dr. H.
Professor Ferguson haha 😊