The KJV has many editions. How many times has the KJV changed? Can you research and give us an number? If you're going to make claims. Back them up with evidence.
@@risermoreriser4237 the major change was eliminating the apocalyptic books. Which never were accepted by the early Christian’s nor the Jewish people before Christ. Other than that all the editions were grammatical. Absolutely no contextual changes were made. Which is easily researchable. If you care you will do that research The KJV only people have one major error I think. The difference in translations is based on the texts used. Textus Receptus, or the Catholic texts, used in all modern bibles since the late 1800’s. I am not KJV only. I am Textus Receptus only, otherwise known as the received, or traditional text.
@@jjpetkusiii nor are there any “original” New Testament copies. Either you believe God cares enough about his word to keep it true, or you don’t. But there can only be one true version period. You pick which one you will base your life on. Textus Receptus is my choice
@@jjpetkusiii I didn’t debate any of that. But it’s not the KJV that’s infallible it is the textus receptus from which the KJV is written that is important.
Everybody knows that Enjoyed your discussion Then everybody knows that You’re humorous entertains factual direct no 1/2 way Gods way or nothing Thank you Phil Stringer In awe of Gods word 🦋🦋
I’m curious if the Septuagint is dated at around 200BC by 6 scholars from every tribe 12 (6*12=72) where did they find these scholars? The 10 northern tribes of Israel were scattered to the wind in 722BC. There would not have been found scholars from each of the 12 tribes. In Deut 31:9,26 only the Levites were in charge of the scriptures. The only exception that I can find is the king to learn the word of God Deut 17:18-19. The other tribes would not have copied the word of God because that was the job of the Levites. We only have copies after 350AD of the Septuagint of Codex Vaticanus (Catholic), Codex Sinaiticus (Catholic) and Codex Alexandrinus. These Septuagint copies disagree 3000 times in the gospels alone.
James felt that there were still 12 identifiable tribes, however he may have been speaking figuratively/poetically. Even so, when there were times of revival, Godly Jews moved south to Judah, but did they keep their tribal identity? Simeon was presumed to have been absorbed by Judah, did they keep their tribal identity? Sounds fraudulent. Deut. 31 has the Levites storing the LAW in the Ark of the Covenant and commissioned to communicate the law, i don't see anything about writing the law. Joshua, David and Solomon authored writings, did they "source" them to Levites to write? Haven't checked the prophets yet except Amos who was from Tekoa, how many of them were Levites?
@@2HarveyCee - If you check it out you find that Moses commanded the People to write the law, to carve it on their doorposts, gates etc. You will find it in Deuteronomy.
@@witnessking9433 The jews were living in the land before Yashua was born. There were priests and Levites and a temple. John's father, Zechariah, was a priest.
Isn’t it pretty safe, as Christians, to pretty much disregard the authority of any Jewish Council after the time of Christ and during the time the NT was being written?
The masoretic text was written by talmudic scribes at talmudic academies in Babylon and Israel this is a documented fact. Also they were very antichrist
@@jjpetkusiii so if I think the kjv and the nkjv bibles are both acceptable translations, then I’m not regenerate? What Bible was an English speaker supposed to use in 1605, or was there no word of God before 1611?
Really? Luke 4:16-20 KJV And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. [17] And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, [18] The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, [19] To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. [20] And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. I get the statement but it is wrong to say he didn't use manuscripts.
I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think what he said was that they wouldn't be speaking Greek in the synagogues. Not that they wouldn't speak Greek in the streets. The New Testament is written more as a message or historical account being given to the people on the street.
@Paul Beduhn I dont know what these guys do with all that time they have to study. They dont se ess m the list bit interested in knowing or telling truth.
The attacks against the KJV reaffirms my faith each time. If anything, it makes me look into it more and learn more so I can defend it more! Satan, most of all, hates the KJV. I just had a guy spend a week attacking me. He called me a cultist, demonic, and all kinds of slanderous lies. All because I said I prefer my KJV. He was leaving comments that were at least 10 paragraphs long. By the end, he was defending Westcott and Hort and admitted one of his favorite translations is the perverted NIV. He danced around every point I made, including my debunking of his claim that the KJV was a Catholic translation "through and through". Smh
I gotta KJV 1611, but - apparently contrary to yours - mine doesn't indicate that "Satan...hates the KJV". My KJV includes Satan's doctrines in numerous places - Genesis 3, Job, even Matthew, Corithians, Acts, John. In other words, Satan's messages are all over the place in my KJV, so I don't see any particular basis for you to infer that he/she/it hates the KJV. Although I suppose it's plausible that Satan spoke to you and informed you what he/she/it "hates", and you do seem to be at least attempting to speak for Satan. If you do speak for Satan, perhaps you could inform me whether - or not - Satan's doctrine changed in between the Old Testament and the New Testament. You know.... Satan (or AKA a serpent) was apparently free to slither around in the garden of eden, according to Genesis at which point his doctrine was - apparently - "what did God really say". But by the time that God's word was allegedly written by Paul in his 2nd letter to the Corinthians Satan's doctrine appears to be deception because "Eve was deceived". Seems to me there's a big difference between a doctrine asking "what did God really say" and a doctrine that deceives people. Since you speak for Satan, perhaps you can explain that distinction.
@@baubljos103 why the hell do demonic possessed 🤡s have to try to reinterpret someone's words just to satisfy their own lies? Where did I speak for Satan? I said Satan clearly hates the KJV- hence why anti-Christian men, occultists and Jesuits, attack it and try to replace it. Your weird attempt at putting thoughts and words in my mouth fail, 🤡. I have a 1611 KJV Facsimile myself, along with a couple other King James Bibles. Your claim that it has Satan's doctrine throughout it is extremely ignorant. The KJV very clearly, blatantly, speaks against Satan and all wickedness.
@@baubljos103 Genesis 3 has Satan's doctrine? Because God exposes what Satan did? That makes absolutely no sense. Also, Satan gave mankind knowledge at the garden. What was this knowledge? I believe it has a lot to do with Gnosticism which is another direct enemy to the KJV ironically. Gnostics believe that as well. They think Lucifer is a good guy who came to give men knowledge to save them from an evil creator.
@@SixStringSlinger1 Nonesense? Genesis 3 KJV refers to a "serpent" that spoke to Eve. But Revelation 12:9 seems to indicate that Serpent was also called Satan. Did the Serpent/Satan express a doctrine to Eve? I say "yes". Satan's doctrine was to doubt what God instructed by asking if "every tree" was included. And to contradict God by claiming "ye shall not surely die". Satan's doctrine includes claims about what "God knows". So - I say Satan's doctrine is in the bible. You can also see Satan's doctrine in the book of Job, and in Matthew's gospel. It's also plausible that Satan's doctrine has entered the bible under the names of other authors such as Paul, or by way of translations of words from Hebrew to Latin to English, and also through the Greek language. As to what Gnostics "believe" - I'm never really certain about what other people "believe" because belief is a cognitive process deep within the mind. It's very difficult for one person to get into the mind of another person. So I rather doubt claims about what people "believe". But I can read the bible and understand what's written. The book of Job has an interesting report about Satan. The report is - essentially - that Satan had a conference with God. God commanded Satan to do things to Job and Satan followed God's commands precisely. So - the Job report seems to imply that Satan is an obedient servant. Maybe you'll find that is also nonsense. Read it yourself.
@@baubljos103 everything you say is pure ignorance. For one, all Bible translations contain the story of the serpent. Same with the Job account. Just because YOU don't understand what's happening doesn't mean it's a bad doctrine. That same story is in the Septuagint and ALL Biblical accounts. Are you calling God a liar? I find YOU to be nonsensical.
+awatchwoman Thank God for headphones! lol I have been reading Sam Gipp's book "The Answer Book" and he agrees with this teaching. The LXX is a fake at best and non existent at worst.
The first Bible I read was an NIV and I quickly changed to a NKJV. I got saved out of that NKJV, and looking back I can see how diluted they are compared to the King James. The KJV has power because God’s hand is on that book. As you grow in your spiritual walk after being born again, I believe you’ll graduate to the KJV.
I think there is something to this. I grew as a Roman Catholic and I am now a Lutheran. My congregation uses the ESV. I was always told by both Catholics and Protestants that the one Bible not to get was a KJV except for some sort of nostalgia factor that I never personally had. Yet the more I have researched the history of this Bible, the more convinced I am that we seriously err by abandoning the received text. And to the degree that the KJV faithfully translates that text, it is the best translation on the market. I do like the NKJV here and there but there are places in the Old Testament where it gives opposite meanings to the KJV, and I cannot help but believe that it is the NKJV that erred not the KJV because the former is departing from the same underlying Hebrew as the latter. In Lutheran circles, the late Theodore Letis was probably the best advocate for the KJV. Unfortunately not nearly enough people have heard of him. The KJV wields authority in a way that no other translation does. I now use it exclusively in my personal studying.
@@anewmaninchrist - The KJV is translated from the corrupted Masoretic text and this enables Rabbis to pick holes in the NT. The NKJV has much of this corruption corrected from the Septuagint.
I am 55 years old. When i was a child of 9 years old, I was born again in Christ Jesus. Ever since that age of 9 years old, I have been able to read God's Word (KJB) and understand it. However I am not able to fully know all the depths of God's Word, but i have not had a problem reading and understanding the wording. I tried the Living Bible and I did not like it at all. I would compare those translations using John 3:16. If they did not convey the meaning of that verse, then i got rid of that bible.
They only come here to pick things apart. They are drawn to the subject and frankly, it's demonic. There are clearly demonic forces at work to attempt to destroy faith in the word of God. No matter how well people like Dr. Stringer show the truth they will not change or acknowledge anything he said is true. Satan is in an all-out attack to destroy faith in the Bible, but especially the KJV.
God gave man logic, Dr. Stringer doesn't use his. Consider, for example - According to the KJV (Masoretic) Abraham was born less that 300 years after the Flood. The Tower of Babel had been built and destroyed, Sargon of Akkad's empire had been and gone, the city of UR was a trading centre importing goods from Afghanistan and the Indus Valley. There was civilisation in Sudan, Egypt and China with city states all round the fertile crescent. Did all that happen in 300 years of the Masoretic or is it more logical to believe it took place over the 1100 years of the Septuagint? Watch - "The Old Testament and Rabbi Akiva" by Barry Setterfield on YT.
I watched the ENTIRE video from beginning to end. He is DECEIVED, and a false teacher. The LXX was the source for the NT. Psalm 40 and Hebrews 10 is the most important scripture in the entire bible. But a body you have prepared for me. The Masoretic text was written by Jews who hated that their fellow Jews were converting to Christianity BECAUSE of psalm 40, which Paul quotes in Hebrews 10. This man is a liar!
Saw the title, said "That tripe ain't worth my time;" but thought, "I might learn a thing." So glad I listened. Sometimes the best feeling comes from finding out you were wrong.
So Jesus was not directly reading from the scroll of Isaiah 61 in the Synagogue in Luke 4. It says He was, and what He read lines up with the Septuigent much better than the Masoretic text.
The catholics copied the septuagint in 350 ad to make it look like it was more accurate. Actually they twist the words in the septuagint, why don't you get it , you are decieved
@@jjpetkusiii how did you get 2 upvotes in just 20 minutes? You joke of a scholar. Stop typing and read where the Masoretic text came from. Stop upvoting your lies, and stop deceiving people...
@@jwatson181 What exactly did Dr. Springer make up? You are the one making things up because you disagree with him. You evidently do not believe in the preservation and word-for-word inspiration of scripture. I do not believe that the KJV is a flawless TRANSLATION because it does have errors, but that does not discount that God's word has been preserved all the way down to 2023 to an incredible degree. If you believe the lies of those who support the critical text you will NEVER see the truth. You MUST of necessity excuse all of the changes and omissions found in almost all modern translations due to the fact they were based on the extremely corrupt critical text with literally thousands of omissions. I wonder seriously if you even know Christ as your Savior? No, Dr. Stringer is NOT making things up, you are a false accuser, just like Satan. Btw, the truth is NOT determined by debates. I could for example lose a debate on whether or not Acts 8:37 actually belongs in the Bible. Was that one verse originally inspired by God? Why is it not in most modern translations? Let me tell you something, if you don't know that verse belongs there I question if you have the Holy Spirit of God in you and that you are truly a born-again child of God. Btw, the same goes for First John 5:7 and number of other verses.
Not if you are using the KJV/Traditional text line. Besides this there is too much intrigue surrounding any, all the Alexandrian texts to trust them over the preserved text which has no actual flaws to be found like are throughout the Alexandrian sourced texts. He glories in concealing things, in His word for us to search Him out; the only text line faithful to His vry words is the Preserved text line, KJV, all the modern versions use dynamic equivalence to translate giving their own understanding of meaning(s) of words completely ignoring and stripping the Spirit from His own word; this is why these Alexandrian texts are dead texts, they can not be searched out!
@@Obediah002 you just touched on something I’ve know for a long time but thought it was just me. Had a friend that was strictly NASB. Here’s the oddity to this, I could sense the difference in the Spirit even though we went to the same church. Only when I read the KJV do I sense the Spirit. I have all the other Bible versions but just have not been able to adapt to them except maybe for clarification here & there. Now how odd is that?
@@susyhebner2543 Yes think maybe we are on the same page, you see what I have discovered the Spirit is in the very words of the KJV and not in the leavened moderns. Have a few of them in my Library including he RCC bible but only use them to research, and know error.
This guy is wrong. I don't believe in the apocrypha, but I do use the Septuagint. If you compare Luke 4:18 it matches Isaiah 61:1 in the Septuagint NOT the Masoretic text which doesn't mention "the blind"
Your Septuagint was written after the new Testament and copied from Luke! NOT the other way around! And yes, this guy does know a lot of very good information on this subject!!
@@larrythrasher9713 Perhaps I didn’t explain this well. Isaiah 61 1 is *Almost* identical to Luke 4 18. The important part being they are similar enough to say the New Testament writers were using something from the Septuagint family but not similar enough to say that the scribes of the New Testament edited the Septuagint to match the New Testament. Pull up the Septuagint and Luke in codex sinaiticus. Isaiah has «ϊσασθε τους συντετριμμενους τη καρδιά» which is missing from Luke. It doesn’t make sense that if a New Testament scribe wanted to edited the Old Testament to match the New they would fail to actually match them in such a major way. But everything else about the Isaiah verse matches Luke down to the ordering of words. Something we often don’t see between New Testament manuscripts
@@jjpetkusiii I don’t understand what you are saying. It seems like you reject the LXX because you can’t find definitive proof it was around during the time of Jesus so instead you use the KJV which was definitely not around at the time of Jesus. The logical jump doesn’t make sense to me. If you want Old Testament scriptures from the time of Jesus wouldn’t you use the Dead Sea scrolls? (Josephus talks about the Septuagint so it had to be around pre 70s AD)
He's just paraphrasing the words of better men who came before him concerning this LXX/Masoretic text nonsense...Read Psalm 40:6-8 and then the direct quote in Hebrews 10: 5-7...the LXX translated from the original Hebrew, preserved this to show that Yashua/Jesus, came in the flesh to be the sacrificial lamb... Masoretic scribes changed this by 900 ad
he forgot to mention the DSS lines up with the LXX and not the masoretic as well as the masoretic text is a pharisee version of the Hebrew bible, the enemies of Jesus and the 12. but its important to ignore facts such as those when your trying to make your theology work.
Uh-oh now that statement you have made I KNOW is false, this is why the liberal theologian has went silent in regard to the DSS as it agrees perfectly with the Masoretic text and even more importantly to us who are His today, the text of the KJV's OT.
@@lavalleeverdun What said is quite true. The preserved word of God is His responsibility and He has preserved it in the Traditional tex line which is what the A/KJV is. Have compared these various version now for many years and the men behind them and they are not of Him.
@@Obediah002 you obviously have done no research. the idea that the LXX was a corrupt text has been thoroughly debunked with the discovery of the DSS. the MZ and LXX both vary from the DSS however the LXX has only a few, the MZ has a mountain. the LXX was put together by Jews with no agenda. the MZ was put together by pharisees in opposition to those that followed Jesus. the KJV was a copy of the biships bible, a copy of a copy lol when Jesus and the 12 quote the Hebrew bible it matches the LXX more then the MZ Here are just a few changes the MZ made, I dont have time to go through them all as there are to many: Psalm 22 16 pierced is replaced with lion. Prophecy passage about the Christ, but not anymore. Psalm 145 13 omitted Is 53 11 omits “light” Psalm 151 omitted Dt 32 8 Angels of Elohim changed to children of Israel. completely changes the meaning, this is a big one. trying to make a case for the MZ over the LXX is based on politics and goes back to the reformation and Catholics vs protestants. i was raised in a Baptist church, but i could care less what anyone believes. when it comes to the truth i want the text that matches the best.
@@joeydelrio The DSS have confirmed the unchanged nature of the Traditional text line of which the KJV is in line of, no changes or differences! You got it backwards the DSS agrees with KJV. The Alexandrain texts disagree between themselves, greatly. The one they call the oldest Bible Siniaticus is highly edited with multiple editors, altered and missing so much it is laughable to even call it a complete Bible. Psalm 22:16, my KJV says pierced, have no idea what you are trying to say here, Jews to this day reject the Septuagint despite the claim they wrote it (LOL). Psalm 145:13 is in my KJV too. Isaiah 53:11 again your confused here. Deuteronomy 32:8 claim is quite strained isn't it, if it isn't it still changes nothing! But the doctrinal & deity of Jesus changes between the kjv and ALL the Alexandrian texts are of great import to understand. The KJV is His preserved word for us today none of the leavened Alexandrian texts few as they are are of any truth or value to genuine believers today.
The truth to this debate and riddle is found in 2 Esdras 14:20 The 24 books became the Jewish OT the other 70 are the true Septuagint, later corrupted by both Judaism and Rome to what we think the LXX is today. The Esdras 70 are the DSS !!! See my video ‘false septuagint’ - Esdras & Epiphanius evidence by malcolm david, for complete explanation
At 16:30 he begins to use the argument that most of the available manuscripts of the Septuagint were developed after AD 350. He then proceeded to use that to say that they could have made there manuscripts match, word for word, the New Testament. Well, the Masoretic Text was not written until around AD 1000! Those writers didn’t have enough sense to go back and make their’s match the New Testament. Why? Because they did not believe the New Testament.
The initial translation by the Scholars in Egypt was only of the Torah, not the whole OT. Your statement about translating the “whole” OT in 72 days is misleading.
27:55. How did non Levite Englishmen produce an infallible translation if only Levites are able to? Why is believing that Jewish scholars in the 2nd century BC divinely produced independently identical translations so implausible but believing that a bunch of anglicans 1600 years later produced an infallible translation completely reasonable?
excepting Moses, Jeremiah, and Ezekial, and Hosea being unknown, the other writers were not Levites so they must have had Levites record for them. Would be tricky for Job to arrange for one
The Dead Sea scrolls contain Hebrew texts that match the Septuagint. So we know there was an older Hebrew text that was the basis for the Septuagint. The DSS also have a Hebrew text for the Wisdom of Sirach, and the Rabbis frequently quote from it in the Talmud.
@@dlbard1 I agree, All the DSS are valid scripture, the contents of the LXX was amended by Rome, see my video false Septuagint which shows how this happened
The DSS copper Isaiah scrolls from 220bce match the Tanakh... There is no "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14. Also kindly explain 1 John 5:7-8 Trinity admitted insertion
@@MitzvosGolem1 The Copper Scroll is basically a treasure map lol, it's not biblical text. The Dead Sea Scrolls have textual variants that support the LXX, MT, Samaritan Pentateuch, and even other witnesses like Josephus sometimes. It's not as clear cut and would be lying to say they 100% support the Masoretic Tanakh. Obviously 1 John 5:7 as present in the KJV and other Bibles is not textually supported and obviously not legitimate.
@@malcolm4887 The DSS were not the manuscripts preserved in the temple but variants circulating amongst the various Jewish sects of that era. The first 5 books (atleast) of the LXX were translated from the official temple manuscript. With the utter destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, there no longer is any original unmodified hebrew Bible. We only have a Jewish reconstruction post Christ based on variant texts and scibes memories which finally became the masoretic text of today (how much did this match the originals, how much was badly changed, no one knows) AND the septuagint family of manuscripts based on translations of the official temple manuscripts (but after that no one can prove or disprove edits or changes that changed meanings).
Oh...and guess what? The kjv translators also used the Septuagint! Suprise suprise! The kjv translators were only to translate and not to alter words based on their beliefs. If they had only used the Masoretic text then in Isiah we would have lost the miracle of Christs birth! But kjv preserves it which proves the kjv scholars used other texts and the Septuagint preserves the miracle of Christs birth!
Exactly. Also, the King James has "they have pierced my hands and feet" in Psalm 22, taken from the Septuagint. The Masoretic text has instead "like a lion my hands and feet", weirdly worded as that is. Jews have insisted for centuries that they have the right wording and that the Psalm has nothing to do with the Messiah. They are wrong. The correct version from the Septuagint was confirmed by recent discoveries in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Christians had it right all along, but we would have lost another fulfilled prophecy if the King James translators had trusted the Masoretic text.
@@lavalleeverdun exactly. The LXX has been preserved in Christian hands for two-thousand years. The Masoretic text was completely in Jewish hands over the centuries when those same Jews witnessed the growth of Christianity from obscurity to the dominant religion in the world, or certainly that part of the world where the Jews were living. They had to alter their texts in order to survive as a distinct people. They had to alter their own prophecies that pointed to Christ. It is sad that some would choose their own cultural identity over their God, but that's what they did.
I find it odd that KJV onlyists like this speaker denigrate the LXX. The translators were sometimes led by God to use a Masoretic reading (most the time), sometimes the Septuagint (less frequently), and occasionally even used Syriac or Latin or Aramaic readings (fairly infrequently, but they did). For the record, I'm firmly convinced the Authorised King James is _The Bible_ for the English speaking world. I defend it to the hilt to friends who use the aberrant modern versions, but to think that defending the KJV necessitates a defense of the Jesus-rejecting Orthodox Jews' text is very strange. It's an indefensible position, and one that undercuts the authority of our English Bible. Folks, do your own research (I mean, actual research.) Cheers.
Many KJV Onlyists are unaware that the Apocrypha remained in King James Bibles for centuries and was not officially removed until 1885 by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Not only did the King James Bible include the Apocrypha, but it also included numerous references to it in the margins [of books considered canonical], treating it the same as other Scripture: ● Matt. 6:7 references Ecclesiasticus 7:14 ● Matt. 23:37 references 2 Esdras 1:30 ● Matt. 27:43 references Wisdom 2:15-16 ● Luke 6:31 references Tobit 4:16 ● Luke 14:13 references Tobit 4:7 ● John 10:22 references 1 Maccabees 4:59 ● Rom. 9:21 references Wisdom 15:7 ● Rom. 11:34 references Wisdom 9:13 ● 2Cor. 9:7 references Ecclesiasticus 35:9 ● Heb. 1:3 references Wisdom 7:26 ● Heb. 11:35 references 2 Maccabees 7:7 “The Onlyists claim, ‘The King James translators knew the Apocrypha was not scripture, so they placed it BETWEEN the Old and New Testament...’ [James L. Melton, “Fables And Facts About The King James Bible”, Bible Baptist Church: Sharon, TN, 1996; www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/fables.html, accessed July 7, 2015.] "But if they knew it was not Scripture, then why include it at all? And if there was nothing wrong with it, why take it out later? In contrast, most of the MODERN versions [NIV, NKJV, RSV, etc...] criticized by the KJV-Onlyists do not contain the Apocrypha at all... and never did!” There is no widely-accepted reason for the removal of the Apocrypha in the 1880s that has ever been officially issued by a mainline Protestant denomination.” [“English Bible History”. www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history
The original 1611 King James contained the Apocrypha, and King James threatened anyone who dared to print the Bible without the Apocrypha with heavy fines and a year in jail. The books which are in the KJV Apocrypha are: Prayer of Manasseh (MAN) - Esdras (1ES) - Tobit (TOB) - Judith (JDT) - additions to Esther (ESG) - Wisdom of Solomon (WIS) - Sirach (SIR) - Baruch (BAR) - Letter of Jeremiah (LJE) - additions to Daniel (S3Y, BEL & SUS) Up until the 1880s every Protestant Bible (not just Catholic Bibles) had 80 books, not 66! The Inter-testamental books written hundreds of years before Christ called “The Apocrypha” were part of virtually every printing of the Tyndale-Matthews Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Protestant Geneva Bible, and the King James Bible ... until their removal in the 1880s! Only for the last 120 years has the Protestant Church rejected these books, and removed them from their Bibles. This has left most modern-day Christians believing the popular myth that there is something ‘Roman Catholic’ about the Apocrypha.
Seems that even the KJV Translators affirmed the value of the LXX; so were they confused or in error? The Translators to the Reader: "... it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek Prince (Greek for descent and language) even of Ptolemy Philadelph King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek. This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal."
@@lavalleeverdun You are simply a Bible doubter, people like you always think there is a newer and better understanding to be had ... it is you that is in error when it comes to the holy scriptures ... LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. Psalm 119 89 KJV
Hey Brother, hope all is well. My only question is what proof is there that the current Septuagint was not made to read like Hebrews 1:6? Is there evidence that the LXX read like this before the time of Christ? This is what Dr. Stringer was saying. Have a great day.
@@christopheryetzer that begs the question as to how Paul would have quoted that in the first place. It is an argument that does not follow. What can be deduced is that Paul quoted a text that clearly stated exactly that. Furthermore, it is a clearly inspired text that he quoted. While some may like to claim that the LXX was changed to mirror the NT, the reality is that there were multiple recensions of the Greek to me more in line with the MT than any other text. So, the opposite for later editions would have been true. Furthermore, the verse in Deut. 32 is a little longer in the Greek than in the MT and contains parts Paul did not quote, "Rejoice, you heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him; rejoice you Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will render vengeance, and recompense justice to his enemies, and will reward them that hate him; and the Lord shall purge the land of his people." It is impossible to say that the LXX was changed to fit Hebrews because the LXX has more words than Hebrews would allow to be added. If anyone tries to claim that the LXX was invented later, that also begs the question as to why... it is difficult to claim due to evidence left by the the earliest church fathers who were very much in favor of the Greek OT because it gave the Jews such fits. Some were furious with Jerome for using the MT because of the virgin passage in Isaiah 7. The NT writers quoted from a combination of texts, sometimes not even verbatim, but generally what a text said. They did not strictly use the MT, the Greek was widely used amd valued, as has been demonstrated by the presence of Greek texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
@@nibs1989 I appreciate your opinion and am sensitive to these ideas. The way I see it is that someone wanting to clear up difficulties in the NT could have easily "helped" out by changing the LXX and therefore frustrating the Jews. Many scholars have talked about Hebrews 1:6 and found no need of using the Septuagint. See Diodati, John Gill, 1645 English Annotations etc. Albert Barnes who notes that not all manuscripts of the Septuagint include this phrase, disagrees with the idea that the author of Hebrews would have quoted it from that context anyway. In the second paragraph, what Greek are you talking about, the LXX or the NT? If the NT can you give an example? and what does that prove? I am confused how the NT drifting to a more Hebrew base would prove that the LXX was not changed, when many scholars throughout the centuries and even today, say that it has at least in some points. If it is the LXX which has drifted to Hebrew what would that say about those changing it and what they thought of it? I really don't get why it is impossible for Deut. 32 to have been changed because it is longer. Why is that impossible for someone to make a longer verse? Isn't that what a lot of modern scholars believe happened in 1 John? In fact there are many verses in the Septuagint that are longer and as far as I am aware most if not all scholars do not include them in the modern Bible translations. Not a big deal, but just curious how a long verse proves that it couldn't have been changed? I would say you answered your own question about why "the earliest church fathers who were very much in favor of the Greek OT because it gave the Jews such fits". Which fathers are you referring to by the way? I honestly don't know what the Dead Sea Scrolls prove about manuscripts of Greek Scripture since there were so few (6 if I'm not mistaken, all of the Pentateuch except 1) and since there is so much confusion over the community and the scrolls themselves. It certainly indicates that at least some passages were translated in Greek by someone, but what else I'm not sold on. I hope nothing I have said comes across as aggressive. I appreciate getting to chat with you about it. I know your dad well and I'm sure you are the same quality of man. God bless you.
@@christopheryetzer I would again say that assuming someone went in and changed it is begging the question. Who, where, when? Those are not arguments any can make that are in any way strong. Lets take a church father from the second century, Iranaeus, who wrote in Book 3, chapter 21, section 3, that the Greek translation of the Penteteuch was accurate. The LXX technically only can refer to the Penteteuch because those are the only books the supposed 70 translators had worked on. He believed them to be "unadulterated." Furthermore, he states, "For the Apostles, since they are of more ancient date than all these heretics, agree with this aforesaid translation; and the translation harmonizes with the tradition of the apostles. For Peter, and John, and Matthew, and Paul, and the rest successively, as well as their followers, did set forth all prophetic announcements, just as the interpretation of the elders contains them." In that same chapter, which I encourage you to read, Against Heresies: Book III, Chapter XXI, Iranaeus explains the prophetic announcement in Isaiah, and quotes the Greek translation of it. This was in the 2nd Century AD, and telling from his writing, it was something he would have held in his possession. Irenaeus was born in AD 130 in Smyrna and died in AD 202 in Lyon current day France.
@@nibs1989 Iranaeus is actually one of my favorites. I don't prefer much some of the others, so I was just curious which ones you were referring to. I have heard and read that some of the Christian's up to Jerome followed the LXX. I would like to put a quote here from Allan Menzies Ante-Nicene Fathers, "Origen's most important contribution to biblical literature was his elaborate attempt to rectify the text of the Septuagint by collating it with the Hebrew original and other Greek versions. On this he spent twenty-eight years, during which he travelled through the East collecting materials. The form in which he first issued the result of his labours was that of the Tetrapla, which presented in four columns the texts of the LXX., Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. He next issued the Hexapla, in which the Hebrew text was given, first in Hebrew and then in Greek letters. Of some books he gave two additional Greek versions, whence the title Octapla; and there was even a seventh Greek version added for some books. Unhappily this great work, which extended to nearly fifty volumes, was never transcribed, and so perished." Are you positive that some Christians didn't use one of these other Greek texts, or even that the LXX of today is truly only that one that went back to Christ? Just because Iranaeus had a Greek OT does not mean it was "the LXX". Just look at the way Bibles are dealt with today, or even how there were different Latin Bibles throughout the centuries. God bless you!
28:08 Saying we shouldn't trust scribes who "went where they weren't supposed to go" is an argument Dr. Stringer should probably abandon, because Jesus also "went where he wasn't supposed to go." To Egypt as a child. By that logic Jesus should be disqualified from being "used by God."
Or perhaps He can go wherever He wants because He’s The Lord Jesus Christ and it was God’s plan. The manuscripts from Egypt are very corrupt. Erasmus threw them out completely. Egypt is always a picture of the world and sin in Scripture. Jesus fleeing from Herod to Egypt is a picture of the Jew’s future persecution from the antichrist. I don’t think it had anything to do with Christ approving the manuscripts that would come from there. Historic fact proves that they are unreliable.
I have used a KJV Study Bible for almost 30 years and would never use anything else because I have hundreds of handwritten notes in it but with that being said there are some serious issues with the Masoretic Text. Being translated by Jewish scribes who were biased against Christianity should throw caution into the wind for anyone who studies seriously. Many of the Old Testament quotes made by the apostles that were recorded in the New Testament match up with the Septuagint more than the Masoretic Text. The prophecies regarding Christ are different as well so the KJV is not the perfect Bible as so many say but I'll still use it along with the Septuagint.
I would like to say I'm not a King James Only person, but he makes some good points. However, the Septuagint (as we have it) can sometimes be a good textual witness to the original Hebrew. You have to take everything on a case-by-case basis honestly.
For example, Hebrews 10:5 quoting Psalm 40:6 except the Masoretic text omits "but a body hast thou prepared me." This is included in the LXX, which was written in 250 BC to 100 BC, before the Pharisees had an axe to grind.
I have to strongly disagree, because that FACT IS THE SEPTUIGENT IS FICTION!! YOU NEVER USE FICTION TO PROVE FACT OTHER THAN TO SAY THAT THE FACT IS THIS OR THAT IS FICTION!!! The FACTS presented here ARE SUFFICIENT to show the RIDICULOUSLESSNESS OF EVEN SAYING ANYTHING POSITIVE ABOUT IT. It is EXACTLY RIGHT to simply refer to the Septuigent as the FICTION IT IS!!! It is ACTUALLY a HILARIOUS STORY how others have tried and continue to try to PROVE it is LEGITIMATE, BECAUSE 72 70 Jewish guys ALL PRIVATELY AND SEPARATELY WROTE DOWN FROM MEMORY THE COMPLETE OLD TESTAMENT AND LOW AND BEHOLD, ALL OF THE MANUSCRIPTS WERE IDENTICAL!!!! Actually, I think they could have invented a better, more believable story, if they would have just tried harder!!! But you see, ARROGANT people ALWAYS SLIP UP SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE WHILE THEY ARE LYING EVERY STEP OF THE WAY, and in their own little puny, prideful hearts think they have EVERYONE FOOLED!!! SO THANKFUL THE PRESERVED WORDS OF GOD IN THE KING JAMES BIBLE!! Also, you erroneously referred to these guys as King James Only. You ARE WRONG!!! There are ACCURATELY translated Bible Translations in other languages and the King James Translators had access to view and verify them!! But, the King James Bible IS AND WILL ALWAYS BE THE ONLY ENGLISH TRANSLATION ACCURATE TO AND EQUAL TO ALL THE MANUSCRIPTS AND MANY ACCURATE FOREIGN TRANSLATIONS!!! IT NEEDS NO IMPROVEMENT!!! LITERALLY OVER A 1,000 ATTEMPTS HAVE TRIED TO REPLACE IT AND THEY ALL HAVE THE SOME SIN-ADDICTED FLAW; THE ALEXANDRIAN TEXTS!!!
I have noticed in the letter to the Hebrews, the author quoted from the LXX, not the Masoretic text of the Tanakh (Old Testament) when the author was talking about angels worshipping the Son of God, the Son of Man. Heb rews 1:6 The Greeks detest Jews for mistransscribing the Torah. The seventy Hellenized Jews were commissioned by Ptolemy II Philadelphus to translate from the original Hebrew to Greek to get seventy copies of the OT. They were totally unbiased concerning the first coming of Christ (Messiah), they were clueless, period. But the Masoretes, the Jewish scribes, having heard Christians talking about Jesus being of the order of Melchisedek, decided to drop just one letter from the genealogy of Shem and there were 7 generations after Shem to Abraham and the years shortened by 7 hundred years and now Jewish boys can show that Abraham met Shem as Melchisedek. This is why Greeks hated Jews. Be that as it may, I love reading the Hebrew in the Masoretic Text, but I always keep in mind the discrepancies where it is written in the Shem genealogy as well as the 430 years of affliction, and 75 Israelites of Jacob's family came to Egypt (LXX) instead of 70 (MT). On the balance, the Jews have survived to this day all the oppression by the Gentiles over 2000 years after the crucifixion of their Messiah. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.
The production of the Masoretic text began late 1st early 2nd century AD and wasn't completed till the 7th or 8th Century AD. That is the Hebrew version that the KJV was translated from. Therefore it is impossible that the various writers of the NT were quoting from the Masoretic text. They were either quoting from the Septuagint or the paleo Hebrew and that is why quotations in the NT are not to be found in the Masoretic, the Masoretic didn't exist at the time of writing the NT. Watch - "The Old Testament and Rabbi Akiva" by Barry Setterfield on YT.
The Jews, along with Israel (Northern Kingdom), have survived to this day not because or their righteousness but because God made promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob regrading their descendants. Neither will fulfil their purpose until after they are redeemed when Messiah returns. Zechariah 8:13.
@@jjpetkusiii - Go back to Genesis ch.11 and the genealogies. According to the Masoretic text there is a little less than 300 years between the Flood and the birth of Abraham. 100 years after the Flood we find a guy called Peleg and it says that - "in his days the Earth was divided." This is generally taken to mean the division of the nations at the Tower of Babel. So in that 100 years Noah and his family settled around Ararat, then when their numbers were sufficient they moved to Sumer, made bricks and built the tower and a city, saw it destroyed and were then scattered. Is that feasible in 100 years? Now move forward 270 years to the time Abraham enters Canaan and what do we find? We have varying degrees of civilisation from the British Isles to China and from Egypt to Anatolia. There were the city states of Canaan and Mesopotamia and the city of Ur was a trading hub with goods coming from Afghanistan and the Indus Valley in one direction and from the Mediterranean in the other - quite a busy and populous little world to have developed in 270 years. Again, is all of that feasible in that time? However, if we consider the timeline of Genesis 11 in the Septuagint we get something like an other 700 years or around 1200 years from the Flood till Abraham enters Canaan and that does make it more feasible. Apparently the Rabbis changed the timeline in Genesis 11 so as to identify Melchizadek with Shem - who according to the Septuagint was dead by Abraham's time. That wasn't the only scriptures the Rabbis changed - and you will either have to admit they changed the scriptures that God entrusted them with or you will have to accept their argument that it was Christians who changed them.
@@jjpetkusiii - You just don't get it. For the sake of understanding we will forget about the Greek Septuagint. What follows concerns the KJV, not the NKJV which has been edited to correct some of the alterations made by Rabbis. The KJV bible you have was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text. This Masoretic text did not exist during the time of Jesus and His Apostles, they used an earlier text and whether it was Greek or Hebrew is irrelevant. That text was used by Christians to prove that Jesus was the promised Messiah and this upset the Jewish establishment who had rejected Jesus. At some point after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD the Rabbis began to change the relevant parts of the text and in all likelihood these changes would be mostly completed early in the 2nd Century AD. the final version of the Masoretic text wasn't completed till much later. So what is the relevance of all this? The main problem arises with anti-missionary Rabbis. They will take quotes from the Old Testament made by Jesus or His apostles and tell you "it is not there" - and neither it is - for the simple reason that neither Jesus or His apostles were quoting from the Masoretic text, they were quoting from the original and whether that was in Greek or Hebrew is irrelevant. These Rabbis will tell you that the relevant quote not being in the OT proves that Christians made it all up, that the NT is based on lies. So your dilemma is - did Christians make it all up - or was the Masoretic, on which your KJV is based, corrupted by Rabbis. watch th-cam.com/video/SYodNsyIKJ4/w-d-xo.html
@@PhantomNites Don’t have a link to share. David W.Daniels is who has proven the supposed Septuagint is NOT a BC invention, but a 1st century AD to early 2nd AD. He wrote a book on it..”Did Jesus Use The Septuagint?” Get you a copy!
@@JR-lg7fd I’m definitely better at Bowhunting than research! Order you a copy of “Did Jesus Use The Septuagint”, by David W.Daniels. He gives all the info about the Septuagint NOT being a BC, but a 1st-early 2nd century AD invention. Great information! He’s done all the research. I’m not sure and don’t remember why I said 250-300 ad..may had been a misprint, then said what I believe in a comment under original comment. He has great vlogs too, to watch.
…it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment … in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? … They that are wise, had rather have their judments at libery in differences of readings, then to be captivated to one, when it may be the other. From the Original KJV introduction
Jeremiah himself went to Egypt (Jer 43). Anyone looking at the DSS realizes that even in the ancient Land of Israel there was no "definitive" version of Scripture as the DS Scrolls contain Hebrew, Aramaic, Paleo-Hebrew and Greek. Yes, Jesus would have read the Hebrew, but also read the targums in Aramaic. Also, is it not concievable that Christianity spread through the Mediteranian world with the use of the LXX? Pagan converts would not have read the Hebrew, and St. Paul would not have used it. Finally, the Jewish rabbis of Jabnia did not reject the Apocrypha because they were "false" but because they came after the end of the age of prophecy.
Jesus used the septuagint? Don't think so. Matthew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. Matthew 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. Here the Lord refers to the LAW and the PROPHETS. The Hebrew scriptures are divided thus: 1. The Torah (תּוֹרָה, literally "teaching") consists of five books, commonly referred to as the "Five Books of Moses". (Law) 2. Nevi'im (Hebrew: נְבִיאִים Nəḇî'îm, "Prophets") is the second main division of the Tanakh, between the Torah and Ketuvim. It contains two sub-groups, the Former Prophets (Nevi'im Rishonim נביאים ראשונים, the narrative books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings) and the Latter Prophets (Nevi'im Aharonim נביאים אחרונים, the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel and the Twelve Minor Prophets). This division includes the books which cover the time from the entrance of the Israelites into the Land of Israel until the Babylonian captivity of Judah (the "period of prophecy"). Their distribution is not chronological, but substantive.(The Prophets) The septuagint in contrast is divided into four parts: law, history, wisdom and prophets with apocryphal books interspersed within the last three divisions. If Jesus used the septuagint why did he not use the phrases "wisdom" and history" to refer to these divisions within its structure? Since Late Antiquity, once attributed to a Council of Jamnia, mainstream rabbinic Judaism rejected the Septuagint as valid Jewish scriptural texts. Several reasons have been given for this. First, some mistranslations were ascertained.[29] Second, the Hebrew source texts, in some cases (particularly the Book of Daniel), used for the Septuagint differed from the Masoretic tradition of Hebrew texts, which was affirmed as canonical by the Jewish rabbis. Third, the rabbis wanted to distinguish their tradition from the newly emerging tradition of Christianity.[22][30] Finally, the rabbis claimed for the Hebrew language a divine authority, in contrast to Aramaic or Greek-even though these languages were the lingua franca of Jews during this period.[31] As a result of this teaching, translations of the Torah into Koine Greek by early Jewish Rabbis have survived as rare fragments only. Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Luke 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. If Jesus used the septuagint why the references to jot and tittles? The word "jot" itself is an English transliteration of "iota" which is the 9th letter of the Greek alphabet. "Iota," in turn, is the nearest Greek equivalent for the Hebrew yodh. The "tittle" is the small decorative spur or point on the upper edge of the yodh. If you can imagine a tiny letter with a slightly visible decorative mark: Tittle is used by Greek grammarians of the accents and diacritical points. It means the little lines or projections by which the Hebrew letters differ from each other. One example would be the difference between the letter L and I. The difference is only one small mark. We use phrases like "the dotting of the i, and the crossing of the t," and "every iota." It is interesting that the Jewish scribes who copied the MT (Massoretic Text) of the Hebrew Bible scrolls paid the greatest attention to the minutiae of detail and such marks attached to each consonant throughout the entire text. They even numbered every letter, word, sentence, paragraph, chapter, section, and scroll to insure that the total equaled that of the text being copied before allowing it to enter the holy synagogue. Why would Jewish scholars travel to Alexandria Egypt to translate the scriptures to greek?? Alexandria was the gnostic center of men like Philo, Origen and other lost "academics" who perverted the scriptures with greek philosophy. Biblical verses about Egypt: Revelation 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. Micah 6:4 For I brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of the house of servants; and I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. Hosea 12:13 And by a prophet the LORD brought Israel out of Egypt, and by a prophet was he preserved. Ezekiel 17:15 But he rebelled against him in sending his ambassadors into Egypt, that they might give him horses and much people. Shall he prosper? shall he escape that doeth such things? or shall he break the covenant, and be delivered? Jeremiah 44:26 Therefore hear ye the word of the LORD, all Judah that dwell in the land of Egypt; Behold, I have sworn by my great name, saith the LORD, that my name shall no more be named in the mouth of any man of Judah in all the land of Egypt, saying, The Lord GOD liveth. The septuagint contained the apocrypha which were not considered canonical for these reasons: 1. They were not written in Hebrew. 2. The writers of the apocrypha never claimed inspiration. 3. They were never acknowledged by Jesus or other New Testament writers. 4. They were rejected for the first 4 centuries. 5. They contain contradictions in relation to the canonical scriptures and between themselves. 6. They taught doctrines in opposition to the Bible. 7. They teach immoral biblical practices. Jesus read in the synagogues and preached to the Jews of his day while the land of Judea was under Roman control. Would God fearing Jews listen to Jesus gladly if he was speaking greek and not Hebrew and reciting Hebrew scripture. The Jews separated themselves from other cultures and detested Roman occupation. The sect of the Jewish population called Zealots confirm this fact. The Hellenistic Jewish population outside Israel after the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. may have used greek manuscripts, but Jesus? Sounds like catholic tradition to me. Lastly, the King James Version nullifies the septuagint.
Tania Koen I reject the Septuagint or any non Hebrew scriptures anyway. My comment is about how many are unaware the original Septuagint was not the entire hebrew Bible just Genesis to Deuteronomy.
I have gotten called ignorant and stupid over the years by fellow christians all the time for being king james only. And it makes me laugh because every single time it's by christians who have never even read their bible cover to cover even once. It's by people who have never won a person to christ by taking the bible and showing them how they can be saved. If that what being "educated" means. Is that I don't read my bible and I don't get people saved. Then I would rather be a drooling at the mouth ignoramus any day of the week.
The Septuagint closely matches the Samaritan Torah. Why is that, exactly, when they’re separated communities? That looks like proof that the Septuagint can’t simply be dismissed.
I'm not that familiar with the Samaritan Torah, what is the oldest extent manuscript? Is it possible that one is a translation of the other and they were done after the time of Christ?
The Septuagint was the most common bible at that time when Jesus lived. So yes most likely he did read from it as well as his apostles. One thing is for sure the Septuagint has more correct OT dates and preserves the miracle of Christs birth. The masoretic text decieves and totally takes out the miracle of Christs birth which is shocking!
Masoretic text dates to 1000 years after Christ. The Septuagint agrees with dead sea scrolls which goes back to time of Christ. The point is Christ and disciples did not quote from masoretic text. Don't know Christ quoted from Septuagint but it certainly was not masoretic
After....literally AFTER the NEW Testament. Thats whats so hilarious. The "Old" Testament" is using a yonger language than the New" Testament. The original Hebrew, if it even exists is gone correct? Unless we call Phoenician "Paleo-Hebrew" we really don't have the original Hebrew. Thus we lean on the Greek. These are Judiazers spreading lies.
Actually my friend Dr. Phil Stringer here might be interested to learn that his precious King James Bible was actually heavily influenced by the CATHOLIC Douay-Rheims translation AND that its first two editions contained the seven books that the Protestants ripped out of the Old Testament which he refers to as the so called 'apocrypha.'
The Lord told me about infallible Catholic Doctrine - like the Papal Bull "Cum nimis absurdum" issued by Pope Paul IV in 1555 to ensure The jews of Rome were walled up in the Roman Ghetto. It takes its name from its first words: "Since it is absurd and utterly inconvenient that the Jews, who through their own fault were condemned by God to eternal slavery..." The Ghetto was a walled quarter with three gates that were locked at night. Under the Papal Bull, Jewish males were required to wear a pointed yellow hat, and Jewish females a yellow kerchief - up until 1870 when the Italian risorgimento abolished Papal rule in Italy. Mmmm ... sounds familiar ....reminds me of the actions of a certain Catholic German ruler in the 1930s and 40s, 10,000 of whose followers managed to get to Argentina a bit later with the help of the Vatican..... errr....where the Pope is from. Funny that !!!
FALSE> The apocrypha was placed between the the OT and NT for historical reference which it is useful for. It was never part of the canon of the 1611 as explicitly stated by the translators.
The apocryphal books were Jewish books in Greek which were not recognized as scripture by Jewish authorities. And they were not officially recognized and listed as canonical by the Roman Catholics until the Council of Trent in 1546. So they have not been "ripped out".
good point it also should be known that the king Jimmy is derived from the masoretic text its also known the masorites hated the Yashua and it was written around 9 to 12 hundred years after the LXX so i wonder which scriptures Apostles used and when i read the NT it seams to me that it lines up with the LXX but hey each to their own
Then you have become a Romanist, by default as the Septuagint proves the RCC argument that Rome is the one true church! Revelation 18:3-4 King James Version (KJV) 3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. 4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
@@jamesancliffe, not sure exactly what you mean by your question but the KJV does not support the claims of those who support the Septuagint- Jesus did not quote the septuagint but in the use of the Alexandrian translations; they all were translated in and from Alexandrian source texts so they will confirm Jesus used Septuagint. The preserved text line, the Received Text line, the KJV does not. I personally believe the Septuagint is a fraudulent text in the line of the False Decretals of Rome.
@@jjpetkusiii if you want the deepest understanding you need to know the original languages. The KJV is a great translation but it’s still a translation. You may not realize that the verse in question is a poem or a song because the rhyme is lost in translation. Let’s take monogenes which is used in two places in the Bible. It has been translated as Only Begotten but modern scholarship and discoveries have show it actually means something closer to Unique and one of a kind. That changes the meaning and is a more consistent translation especially when applied to Isaac who wasn’t the only son of Abraham.
The reality of the LXX is not based upon some "letter". This is a lie that is repeated over and over again by the One World Bible Onlyists who support the KJV. These types of people refuse to debate the subject with anyone that actually knows the subject well. There is a simple question that must be answered. What Scripture did the Gentiles search? There is no evidence whatsoever that the Gentile nations that ultimately spread the Gospel throughout the world had to learn Hebrew to study the Scriptures. When Paul wrote to those in Rome.... he wasn't writing to a people that had converted to Judaism and learned the extraordinarily complex Hebrew language to know the Scriptures. God had already prepared this world to have the Scriptures in a common languages that both Jews and Gentiles could use TOGETHER. The NT has survived challenges to this very day in the Greek Language. The writers of the NT wrote in the Greek language. Josephus LEARNED Greek and later, first wrote extensive in Greek because of this very fact. It is extraordinarily reckless to preach this type of nonsense.
@@jjpetkusiii No authoritative Hebrew text can be found anywhere. The dubious history of the Hebrew text is clear. God's word hasn't passed away. It is contained in extant LXX manuscripts themselves. BTW..... What is going to happen to the KJV when this world "passes away"??? You KJVOnlyist charlatans can't think past the end of your noses. You all live in half truths and rudimentary constructs that mean nothing. King James is dead. Do you KJVOist even realize "KING" james is competing with King Jesus. You can't have but one. King James can't be your king while claiming Jesus at the same time. Remember when Jesus asked what inscription was found on Roman coin? Do you remember the answer? You're rendering to James what is only due James. Why should Jesus care one thing about the "King's English". It isn't His language. It is language of dubious men.
@@jjpetkusiii Yes they are. They are many Hebrew copies of the so called "apocrypha". You need to stop listening to someone and go find the information yourself.
mitzvos Golem I have heard Jewish apologists make this serious claim - that the "original" Septuagint contained only the Pentateuch, but how true is this? Moreover, this seems like a modern day allegation... in other words, for nearly 2000 years since Christ, how often has this allegation been raised by credible scholars of time past? Just trying to ascertain the truth of the matter.
If I remember right the "original" story Dr. Stringer references throughout the video mentions that they only translated the Pentateuch, but later on the rest of the books were added.
The New Testament references to specific passages in the Old Testament that match up exactly with the Septuagint aren’t quotes, they are new revelations from the Holy Spirit that just happen to be the same as the Septuagint, which is an evil text from Egypt. That seems to be what he is saying, and my mind isn’t flexible enough for those mental gymnastics.
Stringer says "Aristeas is the only ancient reference to the Septuagint.” This is patently false. Philo, Josephus, Aristobolus, Ephiphanius all reference it. Aristobolus and Ephiphanius include details the Letter of Aristeus does not contain.
Let's consider the two theoretical timelines: 1. OT Hebrew text--Septuagint LXX--Greek New Testament. The Hebrew was finished roughly 435-400 BC (Malachi). The Septuagint was done around 250-200 BC in Alexandria Egypt. The Greek New Testament was written between 37-100 AD. What historical facts, dates, and markers harmonize with this layout? Alexander the Great lived from 356-323 BC. He took over the known world and spread the Greek language all over, including Israel. A translation date of 250-200 makes sense here. the Bible speaks of proselytes to Judaism (God-fearers, etc). The Pharisees made them, Pentecost had thousands of them--they existed all over the Roman Empire. Are we to imagine that they did so with no OT Scripture in their tongue? The cross of Jesus shows Pilate communicating to the masses through Hebrew (ethnic tongue), Latin (military tongue), and Greek (trade language). While the Romans were well-acquainted with Latin, many of their conquered people's were not. The Greek from Alexander's time predominated for a long while. Another leading question is this--would God in his sovereignty have not prepared *the entire region* for the coming of Christ with a translation of the OT into the common tongue? 2. OT Hebrew text--Greek New Testament--Septuagint LXX. The Hebrew was finished roughly 435-400 BC (Malachi). The Greek New Testament was written between 37-100 AD. The Septuagint was done around 250-200 *AD* in Alexandria Egypt. This suggested timeline leaves alot of questions. Why is it 500 years after the time of Alexander? How did the proselytizing happen with a vernacular OT? Where is the evidence for this timeline? There is historical evidence against it. Philo (30AD) and Josephus (70AD) both make mention of the Greek Septuagint. In fact there are multiple and varied quotes from a variety of sources--all pre-200AD making mention of the Septuagint. What is being suggested in position two is that neither God nor man saw fit to have the OT put into the common language of the day until *centuries* after Christ's birth. The 2nd position claims that the LXX translators copied *certain* verses out of the Greek NT in order to harmonize them. This is absurd on its face for several reasons. 1. Why didn't they harmonize every quotation? Even within the same Biblical book (for example Hebrews) not every quotation matches the LXX. 2. It is a translation of the Hebrew. This was done by JEWS. Not Christians. Jewish people hated the NT. They idea that they harmonized with the NT is laughable. Where did this idea come from? I don't know precisely where, but I do know for a fact that Peter Ruckman specifically spread the idea that the LXX was post-Jesus. He wrote an entire book on the subject.
early church father justin martyr lived from about 100 to 165 a.d and wrote right around 150 a.d 12:17 his writings here we're going to talk about are found in volume 1 of the antoniosine church fathers pages 278-279 12:26 justin martyr mentions ptolemy he mentions the library in alexandria egypt 12:31 he mentions 70 wise men from jerusalem that were sought after by the by the high priest and and came 12:39 to alexandria egypt he mentions miraculous agreement between the translators and he mentions that 12:45 ptolemy was struck with amazement and believed that the translation had been written by divine power Link to video where text was derived is found here: th-cam.com/video/htkxlRgVMwU/w-d-xo.html
Stringer says: “Greek was forbidden in synagogues. No ancient copy of Greek has ever been found in a synagogue.” (27:35) The link below shows a Greek inscription from a synagogue in *Jerusalem* around 100 BC from a Greek named synagogue leader. (The very term “synagogue” is a Greek word!) th-cam.com/video/tyEZ4mewdDs/w-d-xo.htmlsi=_6w70pELwR-17D1L Time stamp 21:00
@jjpetkusiii the answer to my question is the reformers used the LXX for Isaiah 7:14 because Matthew used the LXX for Isaiah 7:14 , Matthew didn't use the Masoretic Text, if you read the Masoretic Text Isaiah 7:14 it reads a" young woman" not a "virgin" the fact that a "virgin" would conceive is a foundational tenant for Christianity, this fact is found in the LXX not the Masoretic Text
@lavalleeverdun understood!! The problem for him is that chatgpt isn't inspired like the Septuagint so he still can't refute the facts, when he gets tired of being wrong and copying chatgpt he resorts to name calling and being wrong lol 😆 A clear sign he's losing bad and knows it!!
@jjpetkusiii this is more about Dr. Stringer's and your willful ignorance of the Greek Septuagint being the Old Testament used by the New Testament writers as the Lingua franca of the world at the time of the Apostles and being used by the translators of the infallible King James Version in the old testament in various places instead of the masoretic text
@jjpetkusiii There is no such thing as" the entire Old Testament in Biblical Hebrew" existing before the LXX and the Masoretic Text because" biblical Hebrew" is the Masoretic text. The original Hebrew was consonants only. Modern Hebrew had vowels added to the scriptures by the Masoretes in the 9th century AD. However, the Greek Septuagint, which was a translation from the original Hebrew Scriptures starting in early third century BC, existed before Christ during the time of Christ and the Apostle, throughout the early church before the Masoretic Text and the KJV and until this very day.
@jjpetkusiii the original Hebrew Holy Scripture, is preserved in Koine Greek and is read and spoken every single day. Hebrew vowels have everything to do with it, the Original Hebrew doesn't exist, the Hebrew we have today comes from the 9th century Masoretes after they added vowels. It's time for you to do some research instead of using chatGPT and relying on Dr. Stringers' misguided views
In my humble opinion. As I too study the word. Its complex using just one source. Even learning the meaning of one word I use other sources to get better understanding. I seek his word and try to understand with the Salt that I'm given. So far from what I'm understanding. That the Holy works of God himself needed everything in our history ancestry and blood to show the Grace of his love through his only Son. The ancient text provides the coming of the lamb of God. In english Jesus. Just like our times are waiting for the coming of God himself. Also without Sin the Sacrifice of his son would hold No truth or be any different from mans sacrifice of animals. That's why Jesus was born of a virgin and not of a man of flesh. Even the unclean are worthy of his love that why Sin remains and he shows of this through his Son when he washes the feet of Judas. Our free will to accept Jesus as our savior and Lord God is everlasting life.
No don't compare versions for understanding, instead use the Traditional text/KJV and look at the words translated from for understanding. Thee Holy Spirit is in the very words in Traditional text line, the KJV but not in any of the modern versions which use the Dynamic Equivalence method of translation.
The story about the Septuagint is nothing more than a fairy tale for adults. To believe that the Pharaoh Ptolemy II of Egypt around 260 B.C. wanted to know all about the Jewish bible, the plagues and how all the Egyptians were killed just begins the insanity. In his so-called letter to Philocrates (PHILO? born in 25 BC) he requests 72 Jewish Scholars to come to Egypt and translate the O.T. into Greek without even knowing whether these JEWISH Scribes even spoke or knew how to speak or read or write in Greek. All of these scribes would have spoken and written in Hebrew. Then, after being warned by God over and over again in that Old Testament that they, as Jews, were not to return to Egypt under any circumstances, all 72 of these Jewish Scribes disobeyed God & returned to Egypt anyway, and all with the approval of their High priest. Yea Sure! Give me a break. Then all 72 scribes complete the task which probably would have taken years in just 72 days and they all match exactly, word for word! Alleluia! Praise the Lord! Then, for some unknown reason they call it the SEVENTY instead of the SEVENTY-TWO. That's the story. Here is a note from Wikipedia concerning the letter to Aristeas: The narrative is "open to the gravest suspicion, and the letter abounds with improbabilities and is now generally regarded as more or less fabulous," observed The Classical Review 335/6 (August-September 1919:123), reporting H. St.J. Thackeray's The Letter of Aristeas, with an Appendix of the Ancient Evidence on the Origin of the LXX.. The reason why some of Jesus words match the Septuagint is because when the LXX was done in the 3rd century A.D. CENTURIES after Jesus died and was resurrected, they had the entire New Testament right in front of them to look at and they then went back into the O.T. and made it match the New Testament as they were completing it. The LXX IS the last column of Origin's Hexapla, and No extant (EXISTING) copy of the LXX exists before the 3rd century A.D. Also ask yourself, If this were true, why would Ptolemy, the Pharaoh need all of these scholars, 72, to come to Egypt to complete it in the first place? Wouldn't he much more likely ask the high priest to have it translated into Greek and send him a copy when it was completed? He certainly didn't need 72 copies. Although he spoke Greek, everyone else in Egypt spoke Egyptian until the 6th century when they began speaking Arabic. Nothing but a FAIRY TALE FOR ADULTS, and this B.S. is taught in almost every Christian School.
I've come to realize like most of these Christian squabbles; it's not about the evidence, its about the heart. The bible has a lot to say about a prepared heart ready to receive the truth, and a hardened heart that won't.
When I took Greek at an independent Baptist college in the 80's, they practically worshipped the Hebrew manuscripts there, put it on a very high pedestal, and considered Greek as the little brother. All these years later, I can see now that they did not have all of the English translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls at their disposal, some of the last manuscripts from St Catherine's monastery, discovered after a fire damaged a wall in 1972, weren't even published in English until 1999. So when I took college courses in the 80's, they were very reluctant to say what I have come to believe right now - the Masoretic Text, copies of which date only back to around 1000 AD, the Masorites were pharisees. The rabbis were pharisees. The LXX was so popular among Christians that the rabbis and pharisees doubled down on the Hebrew, and Jerome, in my opinion, was both a hero and a man. As a hero, Jerome opened up Hebrew to us. As a man, he was not perfect. Augustine was both a hero and a man, who clung to the LXX. They all made mistakes because these manuscripts are so complex. Now that the Dead Sea Scrolls from 200 BC have been translated, and they show that both Hebrew and Greek manuscripts were used at Qumran back then, I think we have to be honest enough to admit that the Word of God survived a lot of copies and translations but it's powerful in every voice no matter how it comes to us, but strongest of all when we have BOTH the Greek and the Hebrew scholarship side by side, not one over the other. If the Greek OT was good enough for Jesus and the apostles, it's good enough for me! I grew up hearing 1611 straight from heaven, well how about this instead - The B I B L E - yes that's the Book for me. I don't care if it's in English, Greek, or Martian, it's all good, the living Word that penetrates the heart.
The only copy of the Hebrew/masoretic OT is from the 10th-11th century, no earlier copies remain. So all translations use this copy to get there text. Thats 1100 years after Christ, way more than 350AD of the LXX The Masoretic was compiled outside of the church by Jewish scholars wishing to erase Christ from the scriptures. Makes you wonder if this guy knows what he is talking about. If you read the Anti-Nicean fathers they all quote from the LXX. I would put my faith in Holy men who heard and were tought by the Apostles rather than scholars of today.
Many KJV Onlyists are unaware that the Apocrypha remained in King James Bibles for centuries and was not officially removed until 1885 by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Not only did the King James Bible include the Apocrypha, but it also included numerous references to it in the margins [of books considered canonical], treating it the same as other Scripture: ● Matt. 6:7 references Ecclesiasticus 7:14 ● Matt. 23:37 references 2 Esdras 1:30 ● Matt. 27:43 references Wisdom 2:15-16 ● Luke 6:31 references Tobit 4:16 ● Luke 14:13 references Tobit 4:7 ● John 10:22 references 1 Maccabees 4:59 ● Rom. 9:21 references Wisdom 15:7 ● Rom. 11:34 references Wisdom 9:13 ● 2Cor. 9:7 references Ecclesiasticus 35:9 ● Heb. 1:3 references Wisdom 7:26 ● Heb. 11:35 references 2 Maccabees 7:7 “The Onlyists claim, ‘The King James translators knew the Apocrypha was not scripture, so they placed it BETWEEN the Old and New Testament...’ [James L. Melton, “Fables And Facts About The King James Bible”, Bible Baptist Church: Sharon, TN, 1996; www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/fables.html, accessed July 7, 2015.] "But if they knew it was not Scripture, then why include it at all? And if there was nothing wrong with it, why take it out later? In contrast, most of the MODERN versions [NIV, NKJV, RSV, etc...] criticized by the KJV-Onlyists do not contain the Apocrypha at all... and never did!” There is no widely-accepted reason for the removal of the Apocrypha in the 1880s that has ever been officially issued by a mainline Protestant denomination.” [“English Bible History”. www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history
Pastor, why have you deified the Masoretic translation? Where’s your authority for that? The LXX is the oldest translation from Hebrew to a European language. It’s closer, timeline-wise, than any other, to the original Hebrew texts. Pastor, why are you concealing the fact that there are no extant Hebrew Scriptures that pre-date Christ. In other words, the argument you use against the LXX would work even better against the Masoretic translation and the KJV.
i should leave it alone but i can't help my self i only watched to 8min . please sr stop discrediting scripture on the basis of a mans poor arguments. the seputigant is not lose its the more in-depth . you ask why I read it ( why its better) because i can show it to you. i can show you ever old testament scripture in the new testament that has missing words in the masaretic are there in the septuagint. i can show you how the maseretic scripture is wrong by using the maseretic it self. but how the septuagint is right. and the apocrypha did you know that intel 1850 when the KJV was rewritten. the apocrypha was in the KJV. go read the early church writers 3rd 4th century they all use the septuagint and justin myarter can show where and when and why the maseretic has been altered
Do you speak more than one language? Probably not. Even starting with the same Hebrew, there is not only one way to translate into Greek, especially poetry and expressions.
Am I the only one that understands that Jesus and the Apostles did not have the King James Bible? And since the KJV is a translation into English, it can vary from one translator to another from different decades in time. This KJO position is ripe with ignorance!
Hey KJBRC, I challenge you to present a clear Biblical gospel message without mentioning the KJV. If you can’t do it you are preaching a different gospel! The translation you prefer is a secondary issue, not primary
at 10:11 this was a forced translation by Hellenistic apostate heretics. It was only the first five books being Genesis to Deuteronomy. It states this in any lxx. This man very good accurate.
@@Piflaser oh...sorry I forget.. No one knows who wrote the New Testament since it was an oral tradition. There are hundreds of variant versions of Christian Bibles.. So anything goes.. You are correct. Dr Bart Ehrman exposes this. Christopher Hitchens also.
You lost me at Palestine!! In the time of Christ there was no such place as Palestine. The Roman invaders renamed the land after the ancient Philistines well after the time of Christ.
I think you may be lost because you don't know all of your history. With regards to the name Palestine, Herodotus would disagree with you. The maps of Herodotus would disagree with you as well. Herodotus refers to Israel as Palestine in 500 bc.
The king James New Testament isn’t wrong. However, the argument is that the Old Testament ( masoretic ) is what is wrong. If you cross reference the New Testament to the Septuagint it’s far more accurate.
To which Septuagint? The current edition? Is that what existed at or before the time of Christ? Those are the questions most people are not willing to confront.
Christopher Yetzer Well any LXX still has way more direct quotes associated to it and the New Testament than any masoretic version. So I would argue that any version is still a more accurate version of what the New Testament authors used as their Torah.
Christopher Yetzer there is no version of the Old Testament that can be attributed to the time of Christ with certainty. However, I’ll follow the book that more directly quotes the New Testament, and that’s the LXX
@@texastrojan3343 From my own research (meaning not perfect, but an honest effort) I found 277 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament. 28 matched Hebrew and did not match the LXX (10%), 79 matched LXX and not Hebrew (29%), 83 did not match either (30%), 61 were not a literal quote (22%), and 101 agreed to some extent with both (36%). With the amount of variants, I just do not support the "The Apostles quoted from the LXX" narrative, as if they were carrying around the LXX in their pocket and memorized it from front to back. To me there are still too many questions. Why quote from it just 30% of the time? Why are there so many differences in the sources quoted? Are we sure that what exists today is the LXX they had? I am sure you also aware with the current theory of textual criticism which says the harder reader is to be preferred or in other words if it is too accurate it is probably changed to be that accurate. If that theory is used with Greek New Testament manuscripts, why can it not apply to quotes from the New Testament. Just a few thoughts. Have a great day !
Psalm 22v7 is it lion or to pierced or dig. Jesus said about these preachers they strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. Ecclesiastes chapter 7 v 16 is ideal verse for this circular argumentative teachings,not preaching.
Christ is Himself Thee word of God; why would He use Septuagint!/? This is such a flawed argument, it has to be no more than a straw man, it's too absurd to accept. Think about it Jesus used Septuagint so we must too; LOL!
Ironic how Christians claim God is sovereign over all things but somehow God cannot preserve his own words/book. Even though the sole author, God is too weak to keep man from corrupting his word(s). Yet these Christians STILL hold God is sovereign over all things. How can they not see it? Answer, many don't want to. It strokes their egos to claim they can better translate....many do it for the praise of men (oh you're so learned, so smart, etc.) though they claim they just want to be accurate....hardly.
I wonder why all these people cling to an Anglican translation of the scriptures, and yet they reject the efficacy of the sacraments, the three-fold order of deacons, presbyters and bishops, and the feasts and fasts of the liturgical year, etc of the Anglican Church?
@@lavalleeverdun I did once and it was a waste of time. Have you noticed that somehow he/she/it instantly get two likes for every comment, no matter how banal?
I used to think "why use the Septuagint?... Wouldn't you just read the original Hebrew for a Hebrew work?"...I had no idea. Especially that the Masoretic texts were written after 900 ad. The Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus is a more accurate translation of the Bible than the Masoretic texts and it's not verbatim. I feel it's a bad assumption to take broken pieces of the Dead Sea Scrolls and find a few words that match and call it 100% accurate. The NIV has matching words and it's a TERRIBLE translation. This is what they have done ..get the main points right, but mess the little details that divert the perspective entirely. People think revelation is future because of this....and it's not...and easily provable. But I'll leave that there. But if you need evidence that Judaism pulls scripture unnecessarily one way and Christians the other in a biased manner...just read all the versions of Dan 9:24-xx prophecy.. they have that translation all jacked up.. The Septuagint is in fact.. The most accurate..not 100%..but most accurate.
New testament writers quoted the septuagint. It isn't a stretch they also read the septuagint. If they read the septuagint they also read the apocrypha. They also quoted the book of Enoch and the assumption of Moses. If they quoted these writings they also read these writings and considered them authoritative. Today the church claims the bible is the verbally inspired and inerrant word of God yet reject the very texts that they are based on as not inspired. Talk about irony........🤣
This is one of the guys that gives Christianity a bad name. Him and his audience. Talk about preaching to the choir. I wonder if he would debate a real scholar. Probably not.
Sarcasm in a preacher never is very becoming. Even if he is correct, and I'm not convinced he is, his message would be hard to receive from such a strident messenger. I don't speak the English spoken in the 17th century, and I'm very thankful to have a Bible in my own language.
It is better to consider Septuagint (which early church fathers agreed on) instead of KJV which derived from MT which indeed was said canonical by the people who doesn't have Holy Spirit... The so called Jews does not have Holy Spirit....hence they don't have the authority to say which is canonical.... And as far as there is no proof for council of Jamnia.
the ever changing rabbit hole of the NIV is one deep hole i don't desire to ever get near ........
Demonic Bible written from Catholic texts. Stuck to the textus receptus
The KJV has many editions. How many times has the KJV changed? Can you research and give us an number? If you're going to make claims. Back them up with evidence.
@@risermoreriser4237 the major change was eliminating the apocalyptic books. Which never were accepted by the early Christian’s nor the Jewish people before Christ. Other than that all the editions were grammatical. Absolutely no contextual changes were made. Which is easily researchable. If you care you will do that research
The KJV only people have one major error I think. The difference in translations is based on the texts used. Textus Receptus, or the Catholic texts, used in all modern bibles since the late 1800’s.
I am not KJV only. I am Textus Receptus only, otherwise known as the received, or traditional text.
@@jjpetkusiii nor are there any “original” New Testament copies. Either you believe God cares enough about his word to keep it true, or you don’t. But there can only be one true version period. You pick which one you will base your life on. Textus Receptus is my choice
@@jjpetkusiii I didn’t debate any of that. But it’s not the KJV that’s infallible it is the textus receptus from which the KJV is written that is important.
Everybody knows that
Enjoyed your discussion
Then everybody knows that
You’re humorous entertains factual direct no 1/2 way Gods way or nothing
Thank you Phil Stringer
In awe of Gods word
🦋🦋
@@yffadkcud I wish he would get right with God.
I’m curious if the Septuagint is dated at around 200BC by 6 scholars from every tribe 12 (6*12=72) where did they find these scholars? The 10 northern tribes of Israel were scattered to the wind in 722BC. There would not have been found scholars from each of the 12 tribes. In Deut 31:9,26 only the Levites were in charge of the scriptures. The only exception that I can find is the king to learn the word of God Deut 17:18-19. The other tribes would not have copied the word of God because that was the job of the Levites. We only have copies after 350AD of the Septuagint of Codex Vaticanus (Catholic), Codex Sinaiticus (Catholic) and Codex Alexandrinus. These Septuagint copies disagree 3000 times in the gospels alone.
James felt that there were still 12 identifiable tribes, however he may have been speaking figuratively/poetically. Even so, when there were times of revival, Godly Jews moved south to Judah, but did they keep their tribal identity? Simeon was presumed to have been absorbed by Judah, did they keep their tribal identity? Sounds fraudulent. Deut. 31 has the Levites storing the LAW in the Ark of the Covenant and commissioned to communicate the law, i don't see anything about writing the law. Joshua, David and Solomon authored writings, did they "source" them to Levites to write? Haven't checked the prophets yet except Amos who was from Tekoa, how many of them were Levites?
@@2HarveyCee - If you check it out you find that Moses commanded the People to write the law, to carve it on their doorposts, gates etc. You will find it in Deuteronomy.
@@witnessking9433 The jews were living in the land before Yashua was born.
There were priests and Levites and a temple.
John's father, Zechariah, was a priest.
@@jjpetkusiii you need to be reported for providing false info...
Everyone needs to report this fool!
@@jjpetkusiii blah, blah, blah, your a bot, yada yada yada...
Isn’t it pretty safe, as Christians, to pretty much disregard the authority of any Jewish Council after the time of Christ and during the time the NT was being written?
it would only make sense
The masoretic text was written by talmudic scribes at talmudic academies in Babylon and Israel this is a documented fact. Also they were very antichrist
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text
@@jjpetkusiii none of those verses prove that the King James Bible is the only true English translation.
@@jjpetkusiii so if I think the kjv and the nkjv bibles are both acceptable translations, then I’m not regenerate?
What Bible was an English speaker supposed to use in 1605, or was there no word of God before 1611?
Jesus didn't use any manuscripts. He was the living manuscript. What He Said was confirmed by the old testament written by Moses.
Really?
Luke 4:16-20 KJV
And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. [17] And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, [18] The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, [19] To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. [20] And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
I get the statement but it is wrong to say he didn't use manuscripts.
If they weren't speaking Greek in the time of Christ then why is the new testament written completely in Greek?
I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think what he said was that they wouldn't be speaking Greek in the synagogues. Not that they wouldn't speak Greek in the streets. The New Testament is written more as a message or historical account being given to the people on the street.
@Paul Beduhn I dont know what these guys do with all that time they have to study. They dont se ess m the list bit interested in knowing or telling truth.
At that time Greek was international language like English today.
@@jjpetkusiii So?
@@jjpetkusiii Ok
Let the doubters doubt, and let the Nay sayers say Nay, but as for me and my house, we stand unreservedly on the Holy Bible (King James).
@@peterwiebewall5608 idolatry
The attacks against the KJV reaffirms my faith each time. If anything, it makes me look into it more and learn more so I can defend it more! Satan, most of all, hates the KJV.
I just had a guy spend a week attacking me. He called me a cultist, demonic, and all kinds of slanderous lies. All because I said I prefer my KJV. He was leaving comments that were at least 10 paragraphs long. By the end, he was defending Westcott and Hort and admitted one of his favorite translations is the perverted NIV. He danced around every point I made, including my debunking of his claim that the KJV was a Catholic translation "through and through". Smh
I gotta KJV 1611, but - apparently contrary to yours - mine doesn't indicate that "Satan...hates the KJV". My KJV includes Satan's doctrines in numerous places - Genesis 3, Job, even Matthew, Corithians, Acts, John. In other words, Satan's messages are all over the place in my KJV, so I don't see any particular basis for you to infer that he/she/it hates the KJV. Although I suppose it's plausible that Satan spoke to you and informed you what he/she/it "hates", and you do seem to be at least attempting to speak for Satan. If you do speak for Satan, perhaps you could inform me whether - or not - Satan's doctrine changed in between the Old Testament and the New Testament. You know.... Satan (or AKA a serpent) was apparently free to slither around in the garden of eden, according to Genesis at which point his doctrine was - apparently - "what did God really say". But by the time that God's word was allegedly written by Paul in his 2nd letter to the Corinthians Satan's doctrine appears to be deception because "Eve was deceived". Seems to me there's a big difference between a doctrine asking "what did God really say" and a doctrine that deceives people. Since you speak for Satan, perhaps you can explain that distinction.
@@baubljos103 why the hell do demonic possessed 🤡s have to try to reinterpret someone's words just to satisfy their own lies? Where did I speak for Satan? I said Satan clearly hates the KJV- hence why anti-Christian men, occultists and Jesuits, attack it and try to replace it. Your weird attempt at putting thoughts and words in my mouth fail, 🤡.
I have a 1611 KJV Facsimile myself, along with a couple other King James Bibles. Your claim that it has Satan's doctrine throughout it is extremely ignorant. The KJV very clearly, blatantly, speaks against Satan and all wickedness.
@@baubljos103 Genesis 3 has Satan's doctrine? Because God exposes what Satan did? That makes absolutely no sense. Also, Satan gave mankind knowledge at the garden. What was this knowledge? I believe it has a lot to do with Gnosticism which is another direct enemy to the KJV ironically. Gnostics believe that as well. They think Lucifer is a good guy who came to give men knowledge to save them from an evil creator.
@@SixStringSlinger1 Nonesense?
Genesis 3 KJV refers to a "serpent" that spoke to Eve. But Revelation 12:9 seems to indicate that Serpent was also called Satan.
Did the Serpent/Satan express a doctrine to Eve? I say "yes".
Satan's doctrine was to doubt what God instructed by asking if "every tree" was included. And to contradict God by claiming "ye shall not surely die".
Satan's doctrine includes claims about what "God knows".
So - I say Satan's doctrine is in the bible. You can also see Satan's doctrine in the book of Job, and in Matthew's gospel.
It's also plausible that Satan's doctrine has entered the bible under the names of other authors such as Paul, or by way of translations of words from Hebrew to Latin to English, and also through the Greek language.
As to what Gnostics "believe" - I'm never really certain about what other people "believe" because belief is a cognitive process deep within the mind. It's very difficult for one person to get into the mind of another person. So I rather doubt claims about what people "believe".
But I can read the bible and understand what's written. The book of Job has an interesting report about Satan. The report is - essentially - that Satan had a conference with God. God commanded Satan to do things to Job and Satan followed God's commands precisely. So - the Job report seems to imply that Satan is an obedient servant.
Maybe you'll find that is also nonsense. Read it yourself.
@@baubljos103 everything you say is pure ignorance. For one, all Bible translations contain the story of the serpent. Same with the Job account. Just because YOU don't understand what's happening doesn't mean it's a bad doctrine. That same story is in the Septuagint and ALL Biblical accounts. Are you calling God a liar?
I find YOU to be nonsensical.
Pity the sound is so low.
+awatchwoman Thank God for headphones! lol I have been reading Sam Gipp's book "The Answer Book" and he agrees with this teaching. The LXX is a fake at best and non existent at worst.
+awatchwoman
Crank it up homeslice
James White! hahahahahaha
Whatever!
The first Bible I read was an NIV and I quickly changed to a NKJV. I got saved out of that NKJV, and looking back I can see how diluted they are compared to the King James. The KJV has power because God’s hand is on that book. As you grow in your spiritual walk after being born again, I believe you’ll graduate to the KJV.
Amen
Truth is a magnet to the saved Job 32:8
I think there is something to this. I grew as a Roman Catholic and I am now a Lutheran. My congregation uses the ESV. I was always told by both Catholics and Protestants that the one Bible not to get was a KJV except for some sort of nostalgia factor that I never personally had. Yet the more I have researched the history of this Bible, the more convinced I am that we seriously err by abandoning the received text. And to the degree that the KJV faithfully translates that text, it is the best translation on the market. I do like the NKJV here and there but there are places in the Old Testament where it gives opposite meanings to the KJV, and I cannot help but believe that it is the NKJV that erred not the KJV because the former is departing from the same underlying Hebrew as the latter. In Lutheran circles, the late Theodore Letis was probably the best advocate for the KJV. Unfortunately not nearly enough people have heard of him.
The KJV wields authority in a way that no other translation does. I now use it exclusively in my personal studying.
@@anewmaninchrist - The KJV is translated from the corrupted Masoretic text and this enables Rabbis to pick holes in the NT. The NKJV has much of this corruption corrected from the Septuagint.
I am 55 years old. When i was a child of 9 years old, I was born again in Christ Jesus. Ever since that age of 9 years old, I have been able to read God's Word (KJB) and understand it. However I am not able to fully know all the depths of God's Word, but i have not had a problem reading and understanding the wording. I tried the Living Bible and I did not like it at all. I would compare those translations using John 3:16. If they did not convey the meaning of that verse, then i got rid of that bible.
Good job brother!!
@@truthreigns7 it is a good translation
Plenty of alexandrinans here that did not listen to Dr. Stringer. Amazing.
They only come here to pick things apart. They are drawn to the subject and frankly, it's demonic. There are clearly demonic forces at work to attempt to destroy faith in the word of God. No matter how well people like Dr. Stringer show the truth they will not change or acknowledge anything he said is true. Satan is in an all-out attack to destroy faith in the Bible, but especially the KJV.
EXACTLY
God gave man logic, Dr. Stringer doesn't use his. Consider, for example - According to the KJV (Masoretic) Abraham was born less that 300 years after the Flood. The Tower of Babel had been built and destroyed, Sargon of Akkad's empire had been and gone, the city of UR was a trading centre importing goods from Afghanistan and the Indus Valley. There was civilisation in Sudan, Egypt and China with city states all round the fertile crescent. Did all that happen in 300 years of the Masoretic or is it more logical to believe it took place over the 1100 years of the Septuagint?
Watch - "The Old Testament and Rabbi Akiva" by Barry Setterfield on YT.
@@skjones91199 thank goodness they didn't.
I watched the ENTIRE video from beginning to end.
He is DECEIVED, and a false teacher.
The LXX was the source for the NT.
Psalm 40 and Hebrews 10 is the most important scripture in the entire bible.
But a body you have prepared for me.
The Masoretic text was written by Jews who hated that their fellow Jews were converting to Christianity BECAUSE of psalm 40, which Paul quotes in Hebrews 10.
This man is a liar!
Saw the title, said "That tripe ain't worth my time;" but thought, "I might learn a thing." So glad I listened. Sometimes the best feeling comes from finding out you were wrong.
@@caldylangoss2287 it wasn't worth your time.
So Jesus was not directly reading from the scroll of Isaiah 61 in the Synagogue in Luke 4. It says He was, and what He read lines up with the Septuigent much better than the Masoretic text.
The catholics copied the septuagint in 350 ad to make it look like it was more accurate. Actually they twist the words in the septuagint, why don't you get it , you are decieved
There is a quote in Isaiah about the blind getting healed and the prison opening in another passage.
@@jjpetkusiii
I hope you stop deceiving yourself and others, and learn the history behind the Masoretic text.
@@jjpetkusiii how did you get 2 upvotes in just 20 minutes?
You joke of a scholar.
Stop typing and read where the Masoretic text came from. Stop upvoting your lies, and stop deceiving people...
@@jjpetkusiii why didn't you post on the video, but are all over the comments? It's because you MUST be a paid troll, a lying deceiver...
Dr. Stringer, you sure brought out the haters, experts, and arm chair theologians. You must be over the target.
Have you noticed he doesn't do debates? It's because he is lying to you.
@@jwatson181 Debates are not good determiners of truth.
@@John3.36 It can be. It can prevent people from just making things up.
@@jwatson181 What exactly did Dr. Springer make up? You are the one making things up because you disagree with him. You evidently do not believe in the preservation and word-for-word inspiration of scripture. I do not believe that the KJV is a flawless TRANSLATION because it does have errors, but that does not discount that God's word has been preserved all the way down to 2023 to an incredible degree. If you believe the lies of those who support the critical text you will NEVER see the truth. You MUST of necessity excuse all of the changes and omissions found in almost all modern translations due to the fact they were based on the extremely corrupt critical text with literally thousands of omissions. I wonder seriously if you even know Christ as your Savior? No, Dr. Stringer is NOT making things up, you are a false accuser, just like Satan. Btw, the truth is NOT determined by debates. I could for example lose a debate on whether or not Acts 8:37 actually belongs in the Bible. Was that one verse originally inspired by God? Why is it not in most modern translations? Let me tell you something, if you don't know that verse belongs there I question if you have the Holy Spirit of God in you and that you are truly a born-again child of God. Btw, the same goes for First John 5:7 and number of other verses.
@@John3.36 cults are not good determiners of truth either bub.
Interesting that when Jesus quotes the OT in the NT its direct in some cases from the LXX. Not the MT
I would have loved it if the speaker explained why some of jesus quotes of old T don't match MT
Not if you are using the KJV/Traditional text line. Besides this there is too much intrigue surrounding any, all the Alexandrian texts to trust them over the preserved text which has no actual flaws to be found like are throughout the Alexandrian sourced texts. He glories in concealing things, in His word for us to search Him out; the only text line faithful to His vry words is the Preserved text line, KJV, all the modern versions use dynamic equivalence to translate giving their own understanding of meaning(s) of words completely ignoring and stripping the Spirit from His own word; this is why these Alexandrian texts are dead texts, they can not be searched out!
@@Obediah002 you just touched on something I’ve know for a long time but thought it was just me. Had a friend that was strictly NASB. Here’s the oddity to this, I could sense the difference in the Spirit even though we went to the same church. Only when I read the KJV do I sense the Spirit. I have all the other Bible versions but just have not been able to adapt to them except maybe for clarification here & there. Now how odd is that?
@@susyhebner2543 Yes think maybe we are on the same page, you see what I have discovered the Spirit is in the very words of the KJV and not in the leavened moderns. Have a few of them in my Library including he RCC bible but only use them to research, and know error.
@@soban1981 He did. They were not direct quotes, Jesus words are scripture as well. He was alluding to what was said in the OT.
The original kjv included the Apocrypha .
no it did.. but it was placed between them when published to give that appearance
Check Sam Gipp/THE LXX
Yes, AND contained marginal note references to the old and new testaments...now it's gone..."added"..."removed"??? A double standard it would seem.
do you have a manuscript copy?! what year does it reflect?!
1611 included all Apoc
I have a copy + Great bible Henry viii 1539 all had 80 books until 1689 see vid false septuagint posted today
This guy is wrong. I don't believe in the apocrypha, but I do use the Septuagint. If you compare Luke 4:18 it matches Isaiah 61:1 in the Septuagint NOT the Masoretic text which doesn't mention "the blind"
Your Septuagint was written after the new Testament and copied from Luke! NOT the other way around! And yes, this guy does know a lot of very good information on this subject!!
@@larrythrasher9713 Perhaps I didn’t explain this well. Isaiah 61 1 is *Almost* identical to Luke 4 18. The important part being they are similar enough to say the New Testament writers were using something from the Septuagint family but not similar enough to say that the scribes of the New Testament edited the Septuagint to match the New Testament. Pull up the Septuagint and Luke in codex sinaiticus. Isaiah has «ϊσασθε τους συντετριμμενους τη καρδιά» which is missing from Luke. It doesn’t make sense that if a New Testament scribe wanted to edited the Old Testament to match the New they would fail to actually match them in such a major way. But everything else about the Isaiah verse matches Luke down to the ordering of words. Something we often don’t see between New Testament manuscripts
@@jjpetkusiii I don’t understand what you are saying. It seems like you reject the LXX because you can’t find definitive proof it was around during the time of Jesus so instead you use the KJV which was definitely not around at the time of Jesus. The logical jump doesn’t make sense to me. If you want Old Testament scriptures from the time of Jesus wouldn’t you use the Dead Sea scrolls? (Josephus talks about the Septuagint so it had to be around pre 70s AD)
Jesus quoted another part of Isaiah.
@@GodisGracious1031Ministries what part of Isaiah was he quoting? Luke 4: 18 (kjv) doesn’t match anywhere that I can tell in Isaiah (kjv)
Thank you so much for your faithfulness.
This is a GREAT video. It's the truth.
He's just paraphrasing the words of better men who came before him concerning this LXX/Masoretic text nonsense...Read Psalm 40:6-8 and then the direct quote in Hebrews 10: 5-7...the LXX translated from the original Hebrew, preserved this to show that Yashua/Jesus, came in the flesh to be the sacrificial lamb... Masoretic scribes changed this by 900 ad
he forgot to mention the DSS lines up with the LXX and not the masoretic as well as the masoretic text is a pharisee version of the Hebrew bible, the enemies of Jesus and the 12. but its important to ignore facts such as those when your trying to make your theology work.
joeydelrio of course man is to prideful.
Uh-oh now that statement you have made I KNOW is false, this is why the liberal theologian has went silent in regard to the DSS as it agrees perfectly with the Masoretic text and even more importantly to us who are His today, the text of the KJV's OT.
@@lavalleeverdun What said is quite true. The preserved word of God is His responsibility and He has preserved it in the Traditional tex line which is what the A/KJV is. Have compared these various version now for many years and the men behind them and they are not of Him.
@@Obediah002 you obviously have done no research. the idea that the LXX was a corrupt text has been thoroughly debunked with the discovery of the DSS.
the MZ and LXX both vary from the DSS however the LXX has only a few, the MZ has a mountain.
the LXX was put together by Jews with no agenda.
the MZ was put together by pharisees in opposition to those that followed Jesus.
the KJV was a copy of the biships bible, a copy of a copy lol
when Jesus and the 12 quote the Hebrew bible it matches the LXX more then the MZ
Here are just a few changes the MZ made, I dont have time to go through them all as there are to many:
Psalm 22 16 pierced is replaced with lion. Prophecy passage about the Christ, but not anymore.
Psalm 145 13 omitted
Is 53 11 omits “light”
Psalm 151 omitted
Dt 32 8 Angels of Elohim changed to children of Israel. completely changes the meaning, this is a big one.
trying to make a case for the MZ over the LXX is based on politics and goes back to the reformation and Catholics vs protestants. i was raised in a Baptist church, but i could care less what anyone believes. when it comes to the truth i want the text that matches the best.
@@joeydelrio The DSS have confirmed the unchanged nature of the Traditional text line of which the KJV is in line of, no changes or differences! You got it backwards the DSS agrees with KJV. The Alexandrain texts disagree between themselves, greatly. The one they call the oldest Bible Siniaticus is highly edited with multiple editors, altered and missing so much it is laughable to even call it a complete Bible.
Psalm 22:16, my KJV says pierced, have no idea what you are trying to say here, Jews to this day reject the Septuagint despite the claim they wrote it (LOL). Psalm 145:13 is in my KJV too. Isaiah 53:11 again your confused here. Deuteronomy 32:8 claim is quite strained isn't it, if it isn't it still changes nothing!
But the doctrinal & deity of Jesus changes between the kjv and ALL the Alexandrian texts are of great import to understand. The KJV is His preserved word for us today none of the leavened Alexandrian texts few as they are are of any truth or value to genuine believers today.
This guy never deals with the actual text and ignores the Dead Sea Scroll evidence.
alpha draconis what do you mean by using thus scripture?
Check Sam gipp/ the LXX
Yep, he also ignores the fact that the Septuagint matches the Samaritan Torah and that’s a completely separate community.
Dead sea scraps ...
The truth to this debate and riddle is found in 2 Esdras 14:20
The 24 books became the Jewish OT the other 70 are the true Septuagint, later corrupted by both Judaism and Rome to what we think the LXX is today. The Esdras 70 are the DSS !!!
See my video ‘false septuagint’ - Esdras & Epiphanius evidence by malcolm david, for complete explanation
...little boy Jesus understood God's Word...
@@mauricerose3082 stop being creepy about it
Liked and saved to playlist.
He spoke Hebrew
Ok, thank you, I will do that! God bless you!
At 16:30 he begins to use the argument that most of the available manuscripts of the Septuagint were developed after AD 350. He then proceeded to use that to say that they could have made there manuscripts match, word for word, the New Testament. Well, the Masoretic Text was not written until around AD 1000! Those writers didn’t have enough sense to go back and make their’s match the New Testament. Why? Because they did not believe the New Testament.
The initial translation by the Scholars in Egypt was only of the Torah, not the whole OT. Your statement about translating the “whole” OT in 72 days is misleading.
This is an important point.
But the rest of the OT was included over the following 50 years or so.
27:55. How did non Levite Englishmen produce an infallible translation if only Levites are able to? Why is believing that Jewish scholars in the 2nd century BC divinely produced independently identical translations so implausible but believing that a bunch of anglicans 1600 years later produced an infallible translation completely reasonable?
Haha, good one!
@@roobaba5415 thanks I thought so.
Cause in bc they were still under the law?
excepting Moses, Jeremiah, and Ezekial, and Hosea being unknown, the other writers were not Levites so they must have had Levites record for them. Would be tricky for Job to arrange for one
He's claiming it was done in 250 AD--that is 250 years after Christ's birth (roughly). Not under the law then!@@genesis1156
The Dead Sea scrolls contain Hebrew texts that match the Septuagint. So we know there was an older Hebrew text that was the basis for the Septuagint.
The DSS also have a Hebrew text for the Wisdom of Sirach, and the Rabbis frequently quote from it in the Talmud.
Also, they had 1 Enoch
@@dlbard1 I agree, All the DSS are valid scripture, the contents of the LXX was amended by Rome, see my video false Septuagint which shows how this happened
The DSS copper Isaiah scrolls from 220bce match the Tanakh...
There is no "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14.
Also kindly explain 1 John 5:7-8 Trinity admitted insertion
@@MitzvosGolem1 The Copper Scroll is basically a treasure map lol, it's not biblical text. The Dead Sea Scrolls have textual variants that support the LXX, MT, Samaritan Pentateuch, and even other witnesses like Josephus sometimes. It's not as clear cut and would be lying to say they 100% support the Masoretic Tanakh.
Obviously 1 John 5:7 as present in the KJV and other Bibles is not textually supported and obviously not legitimate.
@@malcolm4887 The DSS were not the manuscripts preserved in the temple but variants circulating amongst the various Jewish sects of that era. The first 5 books (atleast) of the LXX were translated from the official temple manuscript. With the utter destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, there no longer is any original unmodified hebrew Bible. We only have a Jewish reconstruction post Christ based on variant texts and scibes memories which finally became the masoretic text of today (how much did this match the originals, how much was badly changed, no one knows) AND the septuagint family of manuscripts based on translations of the official temple manuscripts (but after that no one can prove or disprove edits or changes that changed meanings).
Oh...and guess what? The kjv translators also used the Septuagint! Suprise suprise! The kjv translators were only to translate and not to alter words based on their beliefs. If they had only used the Masoretic text then in Isiah we would have lost the miracle of Christs birth! But kjv preserves it which proves the kjv scholars used other texts and the Septuagint preserves the miracle of Christs birth!
Exactly. Also, the King James has "they have pierced my hands and feet" in Psalm 22, taken from the Septuagint. The Masoretic text has instead "like a lion my hands and feet", weirdly worded as that is. Jews have insisted for centuries that they have the right wording and that the Psalm has nothing to do with the Messiah. They are wrong. The correct version from the Septuagint was confirmed by recent discoveries in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Christians had it right all along, but we would have lost another fulfilled prophecy if the King James translators had trusted the Masoretic text.
@@lavalleeverdun exactly. The LXX has been preserved in Christian hands for two-thousand years. The Masoretic text was completely in Jewish hands over the centuries when those same Jews witnessed the growth of Christianity from obscurity to the dominant religion in the world, or certainly that part of the world where the Jews were living. They had to alter their texts in order to survive as a distinct people. They had to alter their own prophecies that pointed to Christ. It is sad that some would choose their own cultural identity over their God, but that's what they did.
I find it odd that KJV onlyists like this speaker denigrate the LXX. The translators were sometimes led by God to use a Masoretic reading (most the time), sometimes the Septuagint (less frequently), and occasionally even used Syriac or Latin or Aramaic readings (fairly infrequently, but they did).
For the record, I'm firmly convinced the Authorised King James is _The Bible_ for the English speaking world. I defend it to the hilt to friends who use the aberrant modern versions, but to think that defending the KJV necessitates a defense of the Jesus-rejecting Orthodox Jews' text is very strange. It's an indefensible position, and one that undercuts the authority of our English Bible.
Folks, do your own research (I mean, actual research.) Cheers.
Many KJV Onlyists are unaware that the Apocrypha remained in King James Bibles for centuries and was not officially removed until 1885 by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Not only did the King James Bible include the Apocrypha, but it also included numerous references to it in the margins [of books considered canonical], treating it the same as other Scripture:
● Matt. 6:7 references Ecclesiasticus 7:14
● Matt. 23:37 references 2 Esdras 1:30
● Matt. 27:43 references Wisdom 2:15-16
● Luke 6:31 references Tobit 4:16
● Luke 14:13 references Tobit 4:7
● John 10:22 references 1 Maccabees 4:59
● Rom. 9:21 references Wisdom 15:7
● Rom. 11:34 references Wisdom 9:13
● 2Cor. 9:7 references Ecclesiasticus 35:9
● Heb. 1:3 references Wisdom 7:26
● Heb. 11:35 references 2 Maccabees 7:7
“The Onlyists claim, ‘The King James translators knew the Apocrypha was not scripture, so they placed it BETWEEN the Old and New Testament...’ [James L. Melton, “Fables And Facts About The King James Bible”, Bible Baptist Church: Sharon, TN, 1996;
www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/fables.html, accessed July 7, 2015.]
"But if they knew it was not Scripture, then why include it at all? And if there was nothing wrong with it, why take it out later? In contrast, most of the MODERN versions [NIV, NKJV, RSV, etc...] criticized by the KJV-Onlyists do not contain the Apocrypha at all... and never did!”
There is no widely-accepted reason for the removal of the Apocrypha in the 1880s that has ever been officially issued by a mainline Protestant denomination.” [“English Bible History”.
www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history
The original 1611 King James contained the Apocrypha, and King James threatened anyone who dared to print the Bible without the Apocrypha with heavy fines and a year in jail. The books which are in the KJV Apocrypha are:
Prayer of Manasseh (MAN) - Esdras (1ES) - Tobit (TOB) - Judith (JDT) - additions to Esther (ESG) - Wisdom of Solomon (WIS) - Sirach (SIR) - Baruch (BAR) - Letter of Jeremiah (LJE) - additions to Daniel (S3Y, BEL & SUS)
Up until the 1880s every Protestant Bible (not just Catholic Bibles) had 80 books, not 66! The Inter-testamental books written hundreds of years before Christ called “The Apocrypha” were part of virtually every printing of the Tyndale-Matthews Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Protestant Geneva Bible, and the King James Bible ... until their removal in the 1880s!
Only for the last 120 years has the Protestant Church rejected these books, and removed them from their Bibles. This has left most modern-day Christians believing the popular myth that there is something ‘Roman Catholic’ about the Apocrypha.
Seems that even the KJV Translators affirmed the value of the LXX; so were they confused or in error?
The Translators to the Reader:
"... it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek Prince (Greek for descent and language) even of Ptolemy Philadelph King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek. This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal."
I have watched all of David Bercot videos and they are very good. I been using the LXX for several months now since I've learned about it.
David
good point!
@@dlbard1 Sad ...
@@lavalleeverdun Up to date ? why because Gods word is ever changing ? thanks for the laugh heathen ...
@@lavalleeverdun You are simply a Bible doubter, people like you always think there is a newer and better understanding to be had ... it is you that is in error when it comes to the holy scriptures ... LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. Psalm 119 89 KJV
Read Deuteronomy 32:43 in the MT, then read Hebrews 1:6, then read Deuteronomy 32:43 in the Septuagint.
Hey Brother, hope all is well. My only question is what proof is there that the current Septuagint was not made to read like Hebrews 1:6? Is there evidence that the LXX read like this before the time of Christ? This is what Dr. Stringer was saying. Have a great day.
@@christopheryetzer that begs the question as to how Paul would have quoted that in the first place. It is an argument that does not follow. What can be deduced is that Paul quoted a text that clearly stated exactly that. Furthermore, it is a clearly inspired text that he quoted.
While some may like to claim that the LXX was changed to mirror the NT, the reality is that there were multiple recensions of the Greek to me more in line with the MT than any other text. So, the opposite for later editions would have been true.
Furthermore, the verse in Deut. 32 is a little longer in the Greek than in the MT and contains parts Paul did not quote, "Rejoice, you heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him; rejoice you Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will render vengeance, and recompense justice to his enemies, and will reward them that hate him; and the Lord shall purge the land of his people."
It is impossible to say that the LXX was changed to fit Hebrews because the LXX has more words than Hebrews would allow to be added.
If anyone tries to claim that the LXX was invented later, that also begs the question as to why... it is difficult to claim due to evidence left by the the earliest church fathers who were very much in favor of the Greek OT because it gave the Jews such fits. Some were furious with Jerome for using the MT because of the virgin passage in Isaiah 7.
The NT writers quoted from a combination of texts, sometimes not even verbatim, but generally what a text said. They did not strictly use the MT, the Greek was widely used amd valued, as has been demonstrated by the presence of Greek texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
@@nibs1989 I appreciate your opinion and am sensitive to these ideas. The way I see it is that someone wanting to clear up difficulties in the NT could have easily "helped" out by changing the LXX and therefore frustrating the Jews. Many scholars have talked about Hebrews 1:6 and found no need of using the Septuagint. See Diodati, John Gill, 1645 English Annotations etc. Albert Barnes who notes that not all manuscripts of the Septuagint include this phrase, disagrees with the idea that the author of Hebrews would have quoted it from that context anyway.
In the second paragraph, what Greek are you talking about, the LXX or the NT? If the NT can you give an example? and what does that prove? I am confused how the NT drifting to a more Hebrew base would prove that the LXX was not changed, when many scholars throughout the centuries and even today, say that it has at least in some points. If it is the LXX which has drifted to Hebrew what would that say about those changing it and what they thought of it?
I really don't get why it is impossible for Deut. 32 to have been changed because it is longer. Why is that impossible for someone to make a longer verse? Isn't that what a lot of modern scholars believe happened in 1 John? In fact there are many verses in the Septuagint that are longer and as far as I am aware most if not all scholars do not include them in the modern Bible translations. Not a big deal, but just curious how a long verse proves that it couldn't have been changed?
I would say you answered your own question about why "the earliest church fathers who were very much in favor of the Greek OT because it gave the Jews such fits". Which fathers are you referring to by the way?
I honestly don't know what the Dead Sea Scrolls prove about manuscripts of Greek Scripture since there were so few (6 if I'm not mistaken, all of the Pentateuch except 1) and since there is so much confusion over the community and the scrolls themselves. It certainly indicates that at least some passages were translated in Greek by someone, but what else I'm not sold on.
I hope nothing I have said comes across as aggressive. I appreciate getting to chat with you about it. I know your dad well and I'm sure you are the same quality of man. God bless you.
@@christopheryetzer I would again say that assuming someone went in and changed it is begging the question. Who, where, when? Those are not arguments any can make that are in any way strong.
Lets take a church father from the second century, Iranaeus, who wrote in Book 3, chapter 21, section 3, that the Greek translation of the Penteteuch was accurate. The LXX technically only can refer to the Penteteuch because those are the only books the supposed 70 translators had worked on.
He believed them to be "unadulterated." Furthermore, he states, "For the Apostles, since they are of more ancient date than all these heretics, agree with this aforesaid translation; and the translation harmonizes with the tradition of the apostles. For Peter, and John, and Matthew, and Paul, and the rest successively, as well as their followers, did set forth all prophetic announcements, just as the interpretation of the elders contains them."
In that same chapter, which I encourage you to read, Against Heresies: Book III, Chapter XXI, Iranaeus explains the prophetic announcement in Isaiah, and quotes the Greek translation of it. This was in the 2nd Century AD, and telling from his writing, it was something he would have held in his possession. Irenaeus was born in AD 130 in Smyrna and died in AD 202 in Lyon current day France.
@@nibs1989 Iranaeus is actually one of my favorites. I don't prefer much some of the others, so I was just curious which ones you were referring to. I have heard and read that some of the Christian's up to Jerome followed the LXX.
I would like to put a quote here from Allan Menzies Ante-Nicene Fathers, "Origen's most important contribution to biblical literature was his elaborate attempt to rectify the text of the Septuagint by collating it with the Hebrew original and other Greek versions. On this he spent twenty-eight years, during which he travelled through the East collecting materials. The form in which he first issued the result of his labours was that of the Tetrapla, which presented in four columns the texts of the LXX., Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. He next issued the Hexapla, in which the Hebrew text was given, first in Hebrew and then in Greek letters. Of some books he gave two additional Greek versions, whence the title Octapla; and there was even a seventh Greek version added for some books. Unhappily this great work, which extended to nearly fifty volumes, was never transcribed, and so perished."
Are you positive that some Christians didn't use one of these other Greek texts, or even that the LXX of today is truly only that one that went back to Christ? Just because Iranaeus had a Greek OT does not mean it was "the LXX". Just look at the way Bibles are dealt with today, or even how there were different Latin Bibles throughout the centuries. God bless you!
28:08 Saying we shouldn't trust scribes who "went where they weren't supposed to go" is an argument Dr. Stringer should probably abandon, because Jesus also "went where he wasn't supposed to go." To Egypt as a child. By that logic Jesus should be disqualified from being "used by God."
Good point.
Or perhaps He can go wherever He wants because He’s The Lord Jesus Christ and it was God’s plan. The manuscripts from Egypt are very corrupt. Erasmus threw them out completely.
Egypt is always a picture of the world and sin in Scripture. Jesus fleeing from Herod to Egypt is a picture of the Jew’s future persecution from the antichrist. I don’t think it had anything to do with Christ approving the manuscripts that would come from there. Historic fact proves that they are unreliable.
Unless it was in fulfillment of OT prophecy that I will call my son out of Egypt.
It was suppouse to be a refrence to Moses leading people out of Egypt.
I have used a KJV Study Bible for almost 30 years and would never use anything else because I have hundreds of handwritten notes in it but with that being said there are some serious issues with the Masoretic Text. Being translated by Jewish scribes who were biased against Christianity should throw caution into the wind for anyone who studies seriously. Many of the Old Testament quotes made by the apostles that were recorded in the New Testament match up with the Septuagint more than the Masoretic Text. The prophecies regarding Christ are different as well so the KJV is not the perfect Bible as so many say but I'll still use it along with the Septuagint.
"throwing caution to the wind" generally means that someone will move forward in spite of any cautions.
I would like to say I'm not a King James Only person, but he makes some good points. However, the Septuagint (as we have it) can sometimes be a good textual witness to the original Hebrew. You have to take everything on a case-by-case basis honestly.
Check Sam Gipp/ The LXX
Check Sam Gipp/LXX
At least you're honest unlike the KJV-hate club.
For example, Hebrews 10:5 quoting Psalm 40:6 except the Masoretic text omits "but a body hast thou prepared me." This is included in the LXX, which was written in 250 BC to 100 BC, before the Pharisees had an axe to grind.
I have to strongly disagree, because that FACT IS THE SEPTUIGENT IS FICTION!! YOU NEVER USE FICTION TO PROVE FACT OTHER THAN TO SAY THAT THE FACT IS THIS OR THAT IS FICTION!!! The FACTS presented here ARE SUFFICIENT to show the RIDICULOUSLESSNESS OF EVEN SAYING ANYTHING POSITIVE ABOUT IT. It is EXACTLY RIGHT to simply refer to the Septuigent as the FICTION IT IS!!! It is ACTUALLY a HILARIOUS STORY how others have tried and continue to try to PROVE it is LEGITIMATE, BECAUSE 72 70 Jewish guys ALL PRIVATELY AND SEPARATELY WROTE DOWN FROM MEMORY THE COMPLETE OLD TESTAMENT AND LOW AND BEHOLD, ALL OF THE MANUSCRIPTS WERE IDENTICAL!!!! Actually, I think they could have invented a better, more believable story, if they would have just tried harder!!! But you see, ARROGANT people ALWAYS SLIP UP SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE WHILE THEY ARE LYING EVERY STEP OF THE WAY, and in their own little puny, prideful hearts think they have EVERYONE FOOLED!!! SO THANKFUL THE PRESERVED WORDS OF GOD IN THE KING JAMES BIBLE!! Also, you erroneously referred to these guys as King James Only. You ARE WRONG!!! There are ACCURATELY translated Bible Translations in other languages and the King James Translators had access to view and verify them!! But, the King James Bible IS AND WILL ALWAYS BE THE ONLY ENGLISH TRANSLATION ACCURATE TO AND EQUAL TO ALL THE MANUSCRIPTS AND MANY ACCURATE FOREIGN TRANSLATIONS!!! IT NEEDS NO IMPROVEMENT!!! LITERALLY OVER A 1,000 ATTEMPTS HAVE TRIED TO REPLACE IT AND THEY ALL HAVE THE SOME SIN-ADDICTED FLAW; THE ALEXANDRIAN TEXTS!!!
I have noticed in the letter to the Hebrews, the author quoted from the LXX, not the Masoretic text of the Tanakh (Old Testament) when the author was talking about angels worshipping the Son of God, the Son of Man. Heb rews 1:6 The Greeks detest Jews for mistransscribing the Torah. The seventy Hellenized Jews were commissioned by Ptolemy II Philadelphus to translate from the original Hebrew to Greek to get seventy copies of the OT. They were totally unbiased concerning the first coming of Christ (Messiah), they were clueless, period. But the Masoretes, the Jewish scribes, having heard Christians talking about Jesus being of the order of Melchisedek, decided to drop just one letter from the genealogy of Shem and there were 7 generations after Shem to Abraham and the years shortened by 7 hundred years and now Jewish boys can show that Abraham met Shem as Melchisedek. This is why Greeks hated Jews. Be that as it may, I love reading the Hebrew in the Masoretic Text, but I always keep in mind the discrepancies where it is written in the Shem genealogy as well as the 430 years of affliction, and 75 Israelites of Jacob's family came to Egypt (LXX) instead of 70 (MT). On the balance, the Jews have survived to this day all the oppression by the Gentiles over 2000 years after the crucifixion of their Messiah. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.
The production of the Masoretic text began late 1st early 2nd century AD and wasn't completed till the 7th or 8th Century AD. That is the Hebrew version that the KJV was translated from. Therefore it is impossible that the various writers of the NT were quoting from the Masoretic text. They were either quoting from the Septuagint or the paleo Hebrew and that is why quotations in the NT are not to be found in the Masoretic, the Masoretic didn't exist at the time of writing the NT. Watch - "The Old Testament and Rabbi Akiva" by Barry Setterfield on YT.
The Jews, along with Israel (Northern Kingdom), have survived to this day not because or their righteousness but because God made promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob regrading their descendants. Neither will fulfil their purpose until after they are redeemed when Messiah returns. Zechariah 8:13.
@@jjpetkusiii - Go back to Genesis ch.11 and the genealogies. According to the Masoretic text there is a little less than 300 years between the Flood and the birth of Abraham. 100 years after the Flood we find a guy called Peleg and it says that - "in his days the Earth was divided." This is generally taken to mean the division of the nations at the Tower of Babel. So in that 100 years Noah and his family settled around Ararat, then when their numbers were sufficient they moved to Sumer, made bricks and built the tower and a city, saw it destroyed and were then scattered. Is that feasible in 100 years?
Now move forward 270 years to the time Abraham enters Canaan and what do we find? We have varying degrees of civilisation from the British Isles to China and from Egypt to Anatolia. There were the city states of Canaan and Mesopotamia and the city of Ur was a trading hub with goods coming from Afghanistan and the Indus Valley in one direction and from the Mediterranean in the other - quite a busy and populous little world to have developed in 270 years. Again, is all of that feasible in that time?
However, if we consider the timeline of Genesis 11 in the Septuagint we get something like an other 700 years or around 1200 years from the Flood till Abraham enters Canaan and that does make it more feasible.
Apparently the Rabbis changed the timeline in Genesis 11 so as to identify Melchizadek with Shem - who according to the Septuagint was dead by Abraham's time. That wasn't the only scriptures the Rabbis changed - and you will either have to admit they changed the scriptures that God entrusted them with or you will have to accept their argument that it was Christians who changed them.
Doth it have to be in the scripture he is quoting? Or did Holy Ghost inspire him to know?
@@jjpetkusiii - You just don't get it. For the sake of understanding we will forget about the Greek Septuagint. What follows concerns the KJV, not the NKJV which has been edited to correct some of the alterations made by Rabbis.
The KJV bible you have was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text. This Masoretic text did not exist during the time of Jesus and His Apostles, they used an earlier text and whether it was Greek or Hebrew is irrelevant. That text was used by Christians to prove that Jesus was the promised Messiah and this upset the Jewish establishment who had rejected Jesus. At some point after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD the Rabbis began to change the relevant parts of the text and in all likelihood these changes would be mostly completed early in the 2nd Century AD. the final version of the Masoretic text wasn't completed till much later.
So what is the relevance of all this? The main problem arises with anti-missionary Rabbis. They will take quotes from the Old Testament made by Jesus or His apostles and tell you "it is not there" - and neither it is - for the simple reason that neither Jesus or His apostles were quoting from the Masoretic text, they were quoting from the original and whether that was in Greek or Hebrew is irrelevant. These Rabbis will tell you that the relevant quote not being in the OT proves that Christians made it all up, that the NT is based on lies. So your dilemma is - did Christians make it all up - or was the Masoretic, on which your KJV is based, corrupted by Rabbis. watch th-cam.com/video/SYodNsyIKJ4/w-d-xo.html
It has been proven that the So Called Septuagint is NOT A 250-300 BC production.
My belief, is definitely OVER 50 AD invention.
Can you send me link please thx
@@luvbowhunting I hope you are better at bowhunting than doing research.
@@PhantomNites Don’t have a link to share. David W.Daniels is who has proven the supposed Septuagint is NOT a BC invention, but a 1st century AD to early 2nd AD. He wrote a book on it..”Did Jesus Use The Septuagint?” Get you a copy!
@@JR-lg7fd I’m definitely better at Bowhunting than research! Order you a copy of “Did Jesus Use The Septuagint”, by David W.Daniels. He gives all the info about the Septuagint NOT being a BC, but a 1st-early 2nd century AD invention. Great information! He’s done all the research. I’m not sure and don’t remember why I said 250-300 ad..may had been a misprint, then said what I believe in a comment under original comment. He has great vlogs too, to watch.
…it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment … in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? … They that are wise, had rather have their judments at libery in differences of readings, then to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.
From the Original KJV introduction
Great message. Keep up the good work that the Christians in the pew be not deceived.
Jeremiah himself went to Egypt (Jer 43). Anyone looking at the DSS realizes that even in the ancient Land of Israel there was no "definitive" version of Scripture as the DS Scrolls contain Hebrew, Aramaic, Paleo-Hebrew and Greek. Yes, Jesus would have read the Hebrew, but also read the targums in Aramaic. Also, is it not concievable that Christianity spread through the Mediteranian world with the use of the LXX? Pagan converts would not have read the Hebrew, and St. Paul would not have used it.
Finally, the Jewish rabbis of Jabnia did not reject the Apocrypha because they were "false" but because they came after the end of the age of prophecy.
KJV = The Living Word Of GOD.
Jesus used the septuagint? Don't think so.
Matthew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Matthew 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
Here the Lord refers to the LAW and the PROPHETS. The Hebrew scriptures are divided thus:
1. The Torah (תּוֹרָה, literally "teaching") consists of five books, commonly referred to as the "Five Books of Moses". (Law)
2. Nevi'im (Hebrew: נְבִיאִים Nəḇî'îm, "Prophets") is the second main division of the Tanakh, between the Torah and Ketuvim. It contains two sub-groups, the Former Prophets (Nevi'im Rishonim נביאים ראשונים, the narrative books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings) and the Latter Prophets (Nevi'im Aharonim נביאים אחרונים, the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel and the Twelve Minor Prophets). This division includes the books which cover the time from the entrance of the Israelites into the Land of Israel until the Babylonian captivity of Judah (the "period of prophecy"). Their distribution is not chronological, but substantive.(The Prophets)
The septuagint in contrast is divided into four parts: law, history, wisdom and prophets with apocryphal books interspersed within the last three divisions. If Jesus used the septuagint why did he not use the phrases "wisdom" and history" to refer to these divisions within its structure?
Since Late Antiquity, once attributed to a Council of Jamnia, mainstream rabbinic Judaism rejected the Septuagint as valid Jewish scriptural texts. Several reasons have been given for this. First, some mistranslations were ascertained.[29] Second, the Hebrew source texts, in some cases (particularly the Book of Daniel), used for the Septuagint differed from the Masoretic tradition of Hebrew texts, which was affirmed as canonical by the Jewish rabbis. Third, the rabbis wanted to distinguish their tradition from the newly emerging tradition of Christianity.[22][30] Finally, the rabbis claimed for the Hebrew language a divine authority, in contrast to Aramaic or Greek-even though these languages were the lingua franca of Jews during this period.[31] As a result of this teaching, translations of the Torah into Koine Greek by early Jewish Rabbis have survived as rare fragments only.
Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Luke 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
If Jesus used the septuagint why the references to jot and tittles?
The word "jot" itself is an English transliteration of "iota" which is the 9th letter of the Greek alphabet. "Iota," in turn, is the nearest Greek equivalent for the Hebrew yodh.
The "tittle" is the small decorative spur or point on the upper edge of the yodh. If you can imagine a tiny letter with a slightly visible decorative mark:
Tittle is used by Greek grammarians of the accents and diacritical points. It means the little lines or projections by which the Hebrew letters differ from each other. One example would be the difference between the letter L and I. The difference is only one small mark. We use phrases like "the dotting of the i, and the crossing of the t," and "every iota."
It is interesting that the Jewish scribes who copied the MT (Massoretic Text) of the Hebrew Bible scrolls paid the greatest attention to the minutiae of detail and such marks attached to each consonant throughout the entire text. They even numbered every letter, word, sentence, paragraph, chapter, section, and scroll to insure that the total equaled that of the text being copied before allowing it to enter the holy synagogue.
Why would Jewish scholars travel to Alexandria Egypt to translate the scriptures to greek?? Alexandria was the gnostic center of men like Philo, Origen and other lost "academics" who perverted the scriptures with greek philosophy.
Biblical verses about Egypt:
Revelation 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
Micah 6:4 For I brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of the house of servants; and I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.
Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.
Hosea 12:13 And by a prophet the LORD brought Israel out of Egypt, and by a prophet was he preserved.
Ezekiel 17:15 But he rebelled against him in sending his ambassadors into Egypt, that they might give him horses and much people. Shall he prosper? shall he escape that doeth such things? or shall he break the covenant, and be delivered?
Jeremiah 44:26 Therefore hear ye the word of the LORD, all Judah that dwell in the land of Egypt; Behold, I have sworn by my great name, saith the LORD, that my name shall no more be named in the mouth of any man of Judah in all the land of Egypt, saying, The Lord GOD liveth.
The septuagint contained the apocrypha which were not considered canonical for these reasons:
1. They were not written in Hebrew.
2. The writers of the apocrypha never claimed inspiration.
3. They were never acknowledged by Jesus or other New Testament writers.
4. They were rejected for the first 4 centuries.
5. They contain contradictions in relation to the canonical scriptures and between themselves.
6. They taught doctrines in opposition to the Bible.
7. They teach immoral biblical practices.
Jesus read in the synagogues and preached to the Jews of his day while the land of Judea was under Roman control. Would God fearing Jews listen to Jesus gladly if he was speaking greek and not Hebrew and reciting Hebrew scripture. The Jews separated themselves from other cultures and detested Roman occupation. The sect of the Jewish population called Zealots confirm this fact. The Hellenistic Jewish population outside Israel after the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. may have used greek manuscripts, but Jesus? Sounds like catholic tradition to me.
Lastly, the King James Version nullifies the septuagint.
on #4, wrong it existed since day 1 of Christanity
MarpleZoss It was against Jewish laws JC followed to study Greek Bible . Only allowed hebrew prayers.
james norse Not really Jesus Never once quoted the septuagint
Tania Koen I reject the Septuagint or any non Hebrew scriptures anyway. My comment is about how many are unaware the original Septuagint was not the entire hebrew Bible just Genesis to Deuteronomy.
james norse Ok cool i rejecte the septuagint also
I have gotten called ignorant and stupid over the years by fellow christians all the time for being king james only. And it makes me laugh because every single time it's by christians who have never even read their bible cover to cover even once. It's by people who have never won a person to christ by taking the bible and showing them how they can be saved. If that what being "educated" means. Is that I don't read my bible and I don't get people saved. Then I would rather be a drooling at the mouth ignoramus any day of the week.
The Septuagint closely matches the Samaritan Torah. Why is that, exactly, when they’re separated communities? That looks like proof that the Septuagint can’t simply be dismissed.
I'm not that familiar with the Samaritan Torah, what is the oldest extent manuscript? Is it possible that one is a translation of the other and they were done after the time of Christ?
The Septuagint was the most common bible at that time when Jesus lived. So yes most likely he did read from it as well as his apostles. One thing is for sure the Septuagint has more correct OT dates and preserves the miracle of Christs birth. The masoretic text decieves and totally takes out the miracle of Christs birth which is shocking!
th-cam.com/video/-5vgrr4Tfa0/w-d-xo.html
Check Sam Gipp /TheLXX
Masoretic text dates to 1000 years after Christ. The Septuagint agrees with dead sea scrolls which goes back to time of Christ. The point is Christ and disciples did not quote from masoretic text. Don't know Christ quoted from Septuagint but it certainly was not masoretic
After....literally AFTER the NEW Testament. Thats whats so hilarious. The "Old" Testament" is using a yonger language than the New" Testament. The original Hebrew, if it even exists is gone correct? Unless we call Phoenician "Paleo-Hebrew" we really don't have the original Hebrew. Thus we lean on the Greek.
These are Judiazers spreading lies.
Actually my friend Dr. Phil Stringer here might be interested to learn that his precious King James Bible was actually heavily influenced by the CATHOLIC Douay-Rheims translation AND that its first two editions contained the seven books that the Protestants ripped out of the Old Testament which he refers to as the so called 'apocrypha.'
No, it is known as the English inqusition, Catholics were not allowed or priest in England, for they were hanged, drawn & quarted.
The Lord told me about infallible Catholic Doctrine - like the Papal Bull "Cum nimis absurdum" issued by Pope Paul IV in 1555 to ensure The jews of Rome were walled up in the Roman Ghetto. It takes its name from its first words: "Since it is absurd and utterly inconvenient that the Jews, who through their own fault were condemned by God to eternal slavery..."
The Ghetto was a walled quarter with three gates that were locked at night. Under the Papal Bull, Jewish males were required to wear a pointed yellow hat, and Jewish females a yellow kerchief - up until 1870 when the Italian risorgimento abolished Papal rule in Italy.
Mmmm ... sounds familiar ....reminds me of the actions of a certain Catholic German ruler in the 1930s and 40s, 10,000 of whose followers managed to get to Argentina a bit later with the help of the Vatican..... errr....where the Pope is from. Funny that !!!
FALSE> The apocrypha was placed between the the OT and NT for historical reference which it is useful for. It was never part of the canon of the 1611 as explicitly stated by the translators.
The apocryphal books were Jewish books in Greek which were not recognized as scripture by Jewish authorities. And they were not officially recognized and listed as canonical by the Roman Catholics until the Council of Trent in 1546. So they have not been "ripped out".
good point it also should be known that the king Jimmy is derived from the masoretic text its also known the masorites hated the Yashua and it was written around 9 to 12 hundred years after the LXX so i wonder which scriptures Apostles used and when i read the NT it seams to me that it lines up with the LXX but hey each to their own
...our LORD is not an impersonal God...
What a weak argument. I just became a believer in the Septuagint.
Check Sam Gipp/ LXX
Spend an hour here and you may change that opinion.
th-cam.com/play/PLhmAbEGx-AnRh2YgrQvayYlEItaAoISWA.html
Then you have become a Romanist, by default as the Septuagint proves the RCC argument that Rome is the one true church!
Revelation 18:3-4 King James Version (KJV)
3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
Obediah002 is this from the 1611 translation?
@@jamesancliffe, not sure exactly what you mean by your question but the KJV does not support the claims of those who support the Septuagint- Jesus did not quote the septuagint but in the use of the Alexandrian translations; they all were translated in and from Alexandrian source texts so they will confirm Jesus used Septuagint. The preserved text line, the Received Text line, the KJV does not. I personally believe the Septuagint is a fraudulent text in the line of the False Decretals of Rome.
Hell is not an embarrassing doctrine.
You do know that story was only the Books of Moses right
@@jjpetkusiii the KJV that says that says that Jesus has a tattoo on his thigh and that it will be visible in the last battle??
@@jjpetkusiii if you want the deepest understanding you need to know the original languages. The KJV is a great translation but it’s still a translation. You may not realize that the verse in question is a poem or a song because the rhyme is lost in translation. Let’s take monogenes which is used in two places in the Bible. It has been translated as Only Begotten but modern scholarship and discoveries have show it actually means something closer to Unique and one of a kind. That changes the meaning and is a more consistent translation especially when applied to Isaac who wasn’t the only son of Abraham.
@@jjpetkusiii ok so you are a troll who probably doesn’t even believe what you are saying
The reality of the LXX is not based upon some "letter". This is a lie that is repeated over and over again by the One World Bible Onlyists who support the KJV. These types of people refuse to debate the subject with anyone that actually knows the subject well. There is a simple question that must be answered. What Scripture did the Gentiles search? There is no evidence whatsoever that the Gentile nations that ultimately spread the Gospel throughout the world had to learn Hebrew to study the Scriptures. When Paul wrote to those in Rome.... he wasn't writing to a people that had converted to Judaism and learned the extraordinarily complex Hebrew language to know the Scriptures. God had already prepared this world to have the Scriptures in a common languages that both Jews and Gentiles could use TOGETHER. The NT has survived challenges to this very day in the Greek Language. The writers of the NT wrote in the Greek language. Josephus LEARNED Greek and later, first wrote extensive in Greek because of this very fact. It is extraordinarily reckless to preach this type of nonsense.
@@jjpetkusiii No authoritative Hebrew text can be found anywhere. The dubious history of the Hebrew text is clear. God's word hasn't passed away. It is contained in extant LXX manuscripts themselves. BTW..... What is going to happen to the KJV when this world "passes away"??? You KJVOnlyist charlatans can't think past the end of your noses. You all live in half truths and rudimentary constructs that mean nothing. King James is dead. Do you KJVOist even realize "KING" james is competing with King Jesus. You can't have but one. King James can't be your king while claiming Jesus at the same time. Remember when Jesus asked what inscription was found on Roman coin? Do you remember the answer? You're rendering to James what is only due James. Why should Jesus care one thing about the "King's English". It isn't His language. It is language of dubious men.
@@jjpetkusiii Yes they are. They are many Hebrew copies of the so called "apocrypha". You need to stop listening to someone and go find the information yourself.
mitzvos Golem I have heard Jewish apologists make this serious claim - that the "original" Septuagint contained only the Pentateuch, but how true is this? Moreover, this seems like a modern day allegation... in other words, for nearly 2000 years since Christ, how often has this allegation been raised by credible scholars of time past? Just trying to ascertain the truth of the matter.
If I remember right the "original" story Dr. Stringer references throughout the video mentions that they only translated the Pentateuch, but later on the rest of the books were added.
This is the best teaching I have found in a long time in regards to the Septuagent. Well done, Dr. Stringer!
I will be commenting some further details, but for now, the summary of Stringer is… “There is no such thing as an OT quotation in the NT”. 🤔🧐🙄
The New Testament references to specific passages in the Old Testament that match up exactly with the Septuagint aren’t quotes, they are new revelations from the Holy Spirit that just happen to be the same as the Septuagint, which is an evil text from Egypt.
That seems to be what he is saying, and my mind isn’t flexible enough for those mental gymnastics.
Stringer says "Aristeas is the only ancient reference to the Septuagint.” This is patently false. Philo, Josephus, Aristobolus, Ephiphanius all reference it. Aristobolus and Ephiphanius include details the Letter of Aristeus does not contain.
Let's consider the two theoretical timelines:
1. OT Hebrew text--Septuagint LXX--Greek New Testament. The Hebrew was finished roughly 435-400 BC (Malachi). The Septuagint was done around 250-200 BC in Alexandria Egypt. The Greek New Testament was written between 37-100 AD. What historical facts, dates, and markers harmonize with this layout? Alexander the Great lived from 356-323 BC. He took over the known world and spread the Greek language all over, including Israel. A translation date of 250-200 makes sense here. the Bible speaks of proselytes to Judaism (God-fearers, etc). The Pharisees made them, Pentecost had thousands of them--they existed all over the Roman Empire. Are we to imagine that they did so with no OT Scripture in their tongue? The cross of Jesus shows Pilate communicating to the masses through Hebrew (ethnic tongue), Latin (military tongue), and Greek (trade language). While the Romans were well-acquainted with Latin, many of their conquered people's were not. The Greek from Alexander's time predominated for a long while. Another leading question is this--would God in his sovereignty have not prepared *the entire region* for the coming of Christ with a translation of the OT into the common tongue?
2. OT Hebrew text--Greek New Testament--Septuagint LXX. The Hebrew was finished roughly 435-400 BC (Malachi). The Greek New Testament was written between 37-100 AD. The Septuagint was done around 250-200 *AD* in Alexandria Egypt. This suggested timeline leaves alot of questions. Why is it 500 years after the time of Alexander? How did the proselytizing happen with a vernacular OT? Where is the evidence for this timeline? There is historical evidence against it. Philo (30AD) and Josephus (70AD) both make mention of the Greek Septuagint. In fact there are multiple and varied quotes from a variety of sources--all pre-200AD making mention of the Septuagint.
What is being suggested in position two is that neither God nor man saw fit to have the OT put into the common language of the day until *centuries* after Christ's birth. The 2nd position claims that the LXX translators copied *certain* verses out of the Greek NT in order to harmonize them. This is absurd on its face for several reasons. 1. Why didn't they harmonize every quotation? Even within the same Biblical book (for example Hebrews) not every quotation matches the LXX. 2. It is a translation of the Hebrew. This was done by JEWS. Not Christians. Jewish people hated the NT. They idea that they harmonized with the NT is laughable.
Where did this idea come from? I don't know precisely where, but I do know for a fact that Peter Ruckman specifically spread the idea that the LXX was post-Jesus. He wrote an entire book on the subject.
early church father justin martyr lived from about 100 to 165 a.d and wrote right around 150 a.d
12:17
his writings here we're going to talk about are found in volume 1 of the antoniosine church fathers pages 278-279
12:26
justin martyr mentions ptolemy he mentions the library in alexandria egypt
12:31
he mentions 70 wise men from jerusalem that were sought after by the by the high priest and and came
12:39
to alexandria egypt he mentions miraculous agreement between the translators and he mentions that
12:45
ptolemy was struck with amazement and believed that the translation had been written by divine power
Link to video where text was derived is found here: th-cam.com/video/htkxlRgVMwU/w-d-xo.html
Stringer says: “Greek was forbidden in synagogues. No ancient copy of Greek has ever been found in a synagogue.” (27:35)
The link below shows a Greek inscription from a synagogue in *Jerusalem* around 100 BC from a Greek named synagogue leader.
(The very term “synagogue” is a Greek word!)
th-cam.com/video/tyEZ4mewdDs/w-d-xo.htmlsi=_6w70pELwR-17D1L Time stamp 21:00
if the LXX is so bad why did the protestant reformers copy from it instead of the masoretic text for Isaiah 7:14
@jjpetkusiii the answer to my question is the reformers used the LXX for Isaiah 7:14 because Matthew used the LXX for Isaiah 7:14 , Matthew didn't use the Masoretic Text, if you read the Masoretic Text Isaiah 7:14 it reads a" young woman" not a "virgin" the fact that a "virgin" would conceive is a foundational tenant for Christianity, this fact is found in the LXX not the Masoretic Text
@lavalleeverdun understood!! The problem for him is that chatgpt isn't inspired like the Septuagint so he still can't refute the facts, when he gets tired of being wrong and copying chatgpt he resorts to name calling and being wrong lol 😆 A clear sign he's losing bad and knows it!!
@jjpetkusiii this is more about Dr. Stringer's and your willful ignorance of the Greek Septuagint being the Old Testament used by the New Testament writers as the Lingua franca of the world at the time of the Apostles and being used by the translators of the infallible King James Version in the old testament in various places instead of the masoretic text
@jjpetkusiii There is no such thing as" the entire Old Testament in Biblical Hebrew" existing before the LXX and the Masoretic Text because" biblical Hebrew" is the Masoretic text. The original Hebrew was consonants only. Modern Hebrew had vowels added to the scriptures by the Masoretes in the 9th century AD. However, the Greek Septuagint, which was a translation from the original Hebrew Scriptures starting in early third century BC, existed before Christ during the time of Christ and the Apostle, throughout the early church before the Masoretic Text and the KJV and until this very day.
@jjpetkusiii the original Hebrew Holy Scripture, is preserved in Koine Greek and is read and spoken every single day. Hebrew vowels have everything to do with it, the Original Hebrew doesn't exist, the Hebrew we have today comes from the 9th century Masoretes after they added vowels. It's time for you to do some research instead of using chatGPT and relying on Dr. Stringers' misguided views
In my humble opinion. As I too study the word. Its complex using just one source. Even learning the meaning of one word I use other sources to get better understanding. I seek his word and try to understand with the Salt that I'm given. So far from what I'm understanding. That the Holy works of God himself needed everything in our history ancestry and blood to show the Grace of his love through his only Son. The ancient text provides the coming of the lamb of God. In english Jesus. Just like our times are waiting for the coming of God himself. Also without Sin the Sacrifice of his son would hold No truth or be any different from mans sacrifice of animals. That's why Jesus was born of a virgin and not of a man of flesh. Even the unclean are worthy of his love that why Sin remains and he shows of this through his Son when he washes the feet of Judas. Our free will to accept Jesus as our savior and Lord God is everlasting life.
To think we are worthy to understanding his secrets is far fetched. For if we did he wouldnt have sent his Son.
No don't compare versions for understanding, instead use the Traditional text/KJV and look at the words translated from for understanding. Thee Holy Spirit is in the very words in Traditional text line, the KJV but not in any of the modern versions which use the Dynamic Equivalence method of translation.
I wish James White would listen to Dr. Stringer!!
James white is wise in his own eyes
@@larrythrasher9713 Dr Stringer is a money chaser.
59891 Baumbach Flat
The story about the Septuagint is nothing more than a fairy tale for adults. To believe that the Pharaoh Ptolemy II of Egypt around 260 B.C. wanted to know all about the Jewish bible, the plagues and how all the Egyptians were killed just begins the insanity. In his so-called letter to Philocrates (PHILO? born in 25 BC) he requests 72 Jewish Scholars to come to Egypt and translate the O.T. into Greek without even knowing whether these JEWISH Scribes even spoke or knew how to speak or read or write in Greek. All of these scribes would have spoken and written in Hebrew. Then, after being warned by God over and over again in that Old Testament that they, as Jews, were not to return to Egypt under any circumstances, all 72 of these Jewish Scribes disobeyed God & returned to Egypt anyway, and all with the approval of their High priest. Yea Sure! Give me a break. Then all 72 scribes complete the task which probably would have taken years in just 72 days and they all match exactly, word for word! Alleluia! Praise the Lord! Then, for some unknown reason they call it the SEVENTY instead of the SEVENTY-TWO. That's the story.
Here is a note from Wikipedia concerning the letter to Aristeas: The narrative is "open to the gravest suspicion, and the letter abounds with improbabilities and is now generally regarded as more or less fabulous," observed The Classical Review 335/6 (August-September 1919:123), reporting H. St.J. Thackeray's The Letter of Aristeas, with an Appendix of the Ancient Evidence on the Origin of the LXX..
The reason why some of Jesus words match the Septuagint is because when the LXX was done in the 3rd century A.D. CENTURIES after Jesus died and was resurrected, they had the entire New Testament right in front of them to look at and they then went back into the O.T. and made it match the New Testament as they were completing it. The LXX IS the last column of Origin's Hexapla, and No extant (EXISTING) copy of the LXX exists before the 3rd century A.D.
Also ask yourself, If this were true, why would Ptolemy, the Pharaoh need all of these scholars, 72, to come to Egypt to complete it in the first place? Wouldn't he much more likely ask the high priest to have it translated into Greek and send him a copy when it was completed? He certainly didn't need 72 copies. Although he spoke Greek, everyone else in Egypt spoke Egyptian until the 6th century when they began speaking Arabic. Nothing but a FAIRY TALE FOR ADULTS, and this B.S. is taught in almost every Christian School.
This illustrates very well why the show called The Chosen is an absolute abomination
heretication.info
What happened?
Explain to the world all these atrocities committed by Christianity please..
I've come to realize like most of these Christian squabbles; it's not about the evidence, its about the heart. The bible has a lot to say about a prepared heart ready to receive the truth, and a hardened heart that won't.
Faith/heart response is pulled up when the facts don’t fit the position.
When I took Greek at an independent Baptist college in the 80's, they practically worshipped the Hebrew manuscripts there, put it on a very high pedestal, and considered Greek as the little brother. All these years later, I can see now that they did not have all of the English translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls at their disposal, some of the last manuscripts from St Catherine's monastery, discovered after a fire damaged a wall in 1972, weren't even published in English until 1999. So when I took college courses in the 80's, they were very reluctant to say what I have come to believe right now - the Masoretic Text, copies of which date only back to around 1000 AD, the Masorites were pharisees. The rabbis were pharisees. The LXX was so popular among Christians that the rabbis and pharisees doubled down on the Hebrew, and Jerome, in my opinion, was both a hero and a man. As a hero, Jerome opened up Hebrew to us. As a man, he was not perfect. Augustine was both a hero and a man, who clung to the LXX. They all made mistakes because these manuscripts are so complex. Now that the Dead Sea Scrolls from 200 BC have been translated, and they show that both Hebrew and Greek manuscripts were used at Qumran back then, I think we have to be honest enough to admit that the Word of God survived a lot of copies and translations but it's powerful in every voice no matter how it comes to us, but strongest of all when we have BOTH the Greek and the Hebrew scholarship side by side, not one over the other. If the Greek OT was good enough for Jesus and the apostles, it's good enough for me! I grew up hearing 1611 straight from heaven, well how about this instead - The B I B L E - yes that's the Book for me. I don't care if it's in English, Greek, or Martian, it's all good, the living Word that penetrates the heart.
Pray for, and know that discernment is with and abides in you...
Worry not bout Satan or the demons who plot against all.
First of all the LXX is not a loose translation
The only copy of the Hebrew/masoretic OT is from the 10th-11th century, no earlier copies remain. So all translations use this copy to get there text. Thats 1100 years after Christ, way more than 350AD of the LXX The Masoretic was compiled outside of the church by Jewish scholars wishing to erase Christ from the scriptures. Makes you wonder if this guy knows what he is talking about. If you read the Anti-Nicean fathers they all quote from the LXX. I would put my faith in Holy men who heard and were tought by the Apostles rather than scholars of today.
False
Which KJV edition is the correct one to use: 1611, 1769 or 1885?
Many KJV Onlyists are unaware that the Apocrypha remained in King James Bibles for centuries and was not officially removed until 1885 by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Not only did the King James Bible include the Apocrypha, but it also included numerous references to it in the margins [of books considered canonical], treating it the same as other Scripture:
● Matt. 6:7 references Ecclesiasticus 7:14
● Matt. 23:37 references 2 Esdras 1:30
● Matt. 27:43 references Wisdom 2:15-16
● Luke 6:31 references Tobit 4:16
● Luke 14:13 references Tobit 4:7
● John 10:22 references 1 Maccabees 4:59
● Rom. 9:21 references Wisdom 15:7
● Rom. 11:34 references Wisdom 9:13
● 2Cor. 9:7 references Ecclesiasticus 35:9
● Heb. 1:3 references Wisdom 7:26
● Heb. 11:35 references 2 Maccabees 7:7
“The Onlyists claim, ‘The King James translators knew the Apocrypha was not scripture, so they placed it BETWEEN the Old and New Testament...’ [James L. Melton, “Fables And Facts About The King James Bible”, Bible Baptist Church: Sharon, TN, 1996;
www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/fables.html, accessed July 7, 2015.]
"But if they knew it was not Scripture, then why include it at all? And if there was nothing wrong with it, why take it out later? In contrast, most of the MODERN versions [NIV, NKJV, RSV, etc...] criticized by the KJV-Onlyists do not contain the Apocrypha at all... and never did!”
There is no widely-accepted reason for the removal of the Apocrypha in the 1880s that has ever been officially issued by a mainline Protestant denomination.” [“English Bible History”.
www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history
@@raymack8767 the KJV with apocrypha is still printed. Cambridge sells one, I own it.
@@joeltunnah The point isn't that it's returned, but rather why ever remove it from the KJV?
Portions of the Deuterocanon are in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
They all are, if you can read the English of 1611. Stupid qn. Corrections in spellings, printings with the newer editions. The content is unchanged.
Alexandrian text would be AC as the MT. The LXx would be BC. Why jumble this all together? Or am I missing something intriguing?
There were two different streams of the Greek OT. They are choosing to use the later Alexandrian stream from Gnostic Origin.
It's a strawman.
@@jjpetkusiii
Only the Torah was translated by the LXX. Other books came later.
@@jjpetkusiii
The NT quotes the Greek text.
Pastor, why have you deified the Masoretic translation? Where’s your authority for that? The LXX is the oldest translation from Hebrew to a European language. It’s closer, timeline-wise, than any other, to the original Hebrew texts. Pastor, why are you concealing the fact that there are no extant Hebrew Scriptures that pre-date Christ. In other words, the argument you use against the LXX would work even better against the Masoretic translation and the KJV.
i should leave it alone but i can't help my self i only watched to 8min . please sr stop discrediting scripture on the basis of a mans poor arguments. the seputigant is not lose its the more in-depth . you ask why I read it ( why its better) because i can show it to you. i can show you ever old testament scripture in the new testament that has missing words in the masaretic are there in the septuagint. i can show you how the maseretic scripture is wrong by using the maseretic it self. but how the septuagint is right. and the apocrypha did you know that intel 1850 when the KJV was rewritten. the apocrypha was in the KJV. go read the early church writers 3rd 4th century they all use the septuagint and justin myarter can show where and when and why the maseretic has been altered
26:07
of course 72/70 learned scribes could memorise the torah in hebrew and then translate into greek
Do you speak more than one language? Probably not. Even starting with the same Hebrew, there is not only one way to translate into Greek, especially poetry and expressions.
I am a TR man. We believe that God preserved some readings in the Latin Vulgate. Why couldn't God preserve some readings, therefore, in the LXX???
This is not good no scriptural lineups/Quotations to see what Mashiach said? this is why i created my page
Am I the only one that understands that Jesus and the Apostles did not have the King James Bible? And since the KJV is a translation into English, it can vary from one translator to another from different decades in time. This KJO position is ripe with ignorance!
The issue is not the KJV, it is the greek/hebrew texts that make up the KJV.
Hey KJBRC, I challenge you to present a clear Biblical gospel message without mentioning the KJV. If you can’t do it you are preaching a different gospel!
The translation you prefer is a secondary issue, not primary
8162 Elroy Pines
at 10:11 this was a forced translation by Hellenistic apostate heretics. It was only the first five books being Genesis to Deuteronomy. It states this in any lxx.
This man very good accurate.
Only your theory
@@Piflaser no...a known fact agreed upon by all scholars and rabbis..
@@MitzvosGolem1 Their theory too, I know
@@Piflaser oh...sorry I forget..
No one knows who wrote the New Testament since it was an oral tradition.
There are hundreds of variant versions of Christian Bibles..
So anything goes..
You are correct.
Dr Bart Ehrman exposes this.
Christopher Hitchens also.
@@MitzvosGolem1 It is the same problem with the OT!
Well I am sooo confused... Is he using tons of sarcasm? It makes it confusing
look at his reptilian tongue flickering incessantly
You lost me at Palestine!! In the time of Christ there was no such place as Palestine.
The Roman invaders renamed the land after the ancient Philistines well after the time of Christ.
I think you may be lost because you don't know all of your history. With regards to the name Palestine, Herodotus would disagree with you. The maps of Herodotus would disagree with you as well. Herodotus refers to Israel as Palestine in 500 bc.
The king James New Testament isn’t wrong. However, the argument is that the Old Testament ( masoretic ) is what is wrong. If you cross reference the New Testament to the Septuagint it’s far more accurate.
To which Septuagint? The current edition? Is that what existed at or before the time of Christ? Those are the questions most people are not willing to confront.
Christopher Yetzer
Well any LXX still has way more direct quotes associated to it and the New Testament than any masoretic version. So I would argue that any version is still a more accurate version of what the New Testament authors used as their Torah.
Christopher Yetzer there is no version of the Old Testament that can be attributed to the time of Christ with certainty. However, I’ll follow the book that more directly quotes the New Testament, and that’s the LXX
@@texastrojan3343 From my own research (meaning not perfect, but an honest effort) I found 277 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament. 28 matched Hebrew and did not match the LXX (10%), 79 matched LXX and not Hebrew (29%), 83 did not match either (30%), 61 were not a literal quote (22%), and 101 agreed to some extent with both (36%). With the amount of variants, I just do not support the "The Apostles quoted from the LXX" narrative, as if they were carrying around the LXX in their pocket and memorized it from front to back. To me there are still too many questions. Why quote from it just 30% of the time? Why are there so many differences in the sources quoted? Are we sure that what exists today is the LXX they had? I am sure you also aware with the current theory of textual criticism which says the harder reader is to be preferred or in other words if it is too accurate it is probably changed to be that accurate. If that theory is used with Greek New Testament manuscripts, why can it not apply to quotes from the New Testament. Just a few thoughts. Have a great day !
Psalm 22v7 is it lion or to pierced or dig. Jesus said about these preachers they strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. Ecclesiastes chapter 7 v 16 is ideal verse for this circular argumentative teachings,not preaching.
The KJV may well be the best source for NEW TESTAMENT but the SEPTUAGINT is the real version it the OT.
It makes one think....the truest, most accurate Bible is written ENTIRELY in GREEK (Maybe some Aramaric), and is not easy to come by
My conclusion as well. The orthodox church actually uses the Septuagint old testament and byzantine text for new testament. They have right
Christ is Himself Thee word of God; why would He use Septuagint!/? This is such a flawed argument, it has to be no more than a straw man, it's too absurd to accept. Think about it Jesus used Septuagint so we must too; LOL!
Ironic how Christians claim God is sovereign over all things but somehow God cannot preserve his own words/book. Even though the sole author, God is too weak to keep man from corrupting his word(s). Yet these Christians STILL hold God is sovereign over all things.
How can they not see it? Answer, many don't want to. It strokes their egos to claim they can better translate....many do it for the praise of men (oh you're so learned, so smart, etc.) though they claim they just want to be accurate....hardly.
Jesus warned about false preachers deceiving people and the NT is full of such warnings. These things are allowed to happen try us.
I wonder why all these people cling to an Anglican translation of the scriptures, and yet they reject the efficacy of the sacraments, the three-fold order of deacons, presbyters and bishops, and the feasts and fasts of the liturgical year, etc of the Anglican Church?
@@lavalleeverdun I did once and it was a waste of time. Have you noticed that somehow he/she/it instantly get two likes for every comment, no matter how banal?
found it:
th-cam.com/video/DortMrLQxws/w-d-xo.html
The Septuagint was most probably read 2000 years ago.
BULL
There was no "J" in any langauge in the time of moses.
God=Yahuah
His son=Yahusa
I used to think "why use the Septuagint?... Wouldn't you just read the original Hebrew for a Hebrew work?"...I had no idea. Especially that the Masoretic texts were written after 900 ad. The Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus is a more accurate translation of the Bible than the Masoretic texts and it's not verbatim. I feel it's a bad assumption to take broken pieces of the Dead Sea Scrolls and find a few words that match and call it 100% accurate. The NIV has matching words and it's a TERRIBLE translation. This is what they have done ..get the main points right, but mess the little details that divert the perspective entirely. People think revelation is future because of this....and it's not...and easily provable. But I'll leave that there. But if you need evidence that Judaism pulls scripture unnecessarily one way and Christians the other in a biased manner...just read all the versions of Dan 9:24-xx prophecy.. they have that translation all jacked up.. The Septuagint is in fact.. The most accurate..not 100%..but most accurate.
The Septuagint is a FRAUD
Polemics,barely any content... Unfamiliar with the details on the LXX and the history of the LXX.
New testament writers quoted the septuagint. It isn't a stretch they also read the septuagint. If they read the septuagint they also read the apocrypha. They also quoted the book of Enoch and the assumption of Moses. If they quoted these writings they also read these writings and considered them authoritative. Today the church claims the bible is the verbally inspired and inerrant word of God yet reject the very texts that they are based on as not inspired. Talk about irony........🤣
This is one of the guys that gives Christianity a bad name. Him and his audience. Talk about preaching to the choir.
I wonder if he would debate a real scholar. Probably not.
He is a Baptist preacher with Doctorates from a Baptist college. He's an expert at being a Baptist.
@jjpetkusiii Are you claimed the kjv is?
@jjpetkusiii I don't think so. Lots of translational issues with the kjv bible. I'll stick with my authorized LXX
@jjpetkusiii No, I'm not misinformed. I've spent numerous hours studying this subject and not just accepted what I was told.
Sarcasm in a preacher never is very becoming. Even if he is correct, and I'm not convinced he is, his message would be hard to receive from such a strident messenger. I don't speak the English spoken in the 17th century, and I'm very thankful to have a Bible in my own language.
It is better to consider Septuagint (which early church fathers agreed on) instead of KJV which derived from MT which indeed was said canonical by the people who doesn't have Holy Spirit... The so called Jews does not have Holy Spirit....hence they don't have the authority to say which is canonical.... And as far as there is no proof for council of Jamnia.
Let me guess...he's a KJV-onlist so he doesn't like the LXX. 🤷 Who woulda thunk'd it.
Westcott and Hort
He's not as positive about the Septuagint as I was expecting him to be.