I'm a little over halfway through the video at this point, but isn't it possible that the LXX was simply translated using older Hebrew manuscripts that we no longer have and so that's why the NT quotes agree more with the LXX? In this case it would be the later Hebrew copies that were mistranslated. I mean even the DSS version of Exodus agrees with the LXX and Stephen in the book of Acts that 75 people came into Egypt instead of 70.
This guy is an idiot! Its not a misstranslation it's an intentional and systematic change made by rabbi akiva to make there own Bible and take Jesus out of the time frame of messiahship
Who is to say that the Septuagint translation wasn't taken from the correct and inspired Hebrew sources? and that the error is in the translations the Jews and skeptics hold to? And what if the Masoretes misplaced the diacritical markings on words like "אדם", the Masoretes in fact contributed to the Hebrew bible long long after the Septuagint was made. So what if this was done maliciously to separate Rabbanic Judaism from this so-called Jewish Heresy (Christianity) and discredit the works of the apostles, in order to paint an image of illiterate men who were liars which would discredit their message? They tried to do it to Christ when he rose from the dead by charging the guards to lie, so I don't see why they wouldn't be just as malicious here. The apostles regarded the Septuagint as scripture, I think that should be the vintage point from where we assess truth from error.
Just to clarify, King Ptolemy of Egypt did not have a copy Hebrew Tanakh to translate. The Hebrew Tanakh was kept under guard and only the High priest could authorize a translation. The translators were certainly not Greek but Hebrew . The Hebrew was translated by Hebrew scribes provided by the High Priest because the Hebrew scrolls were never to be touched or defiled by Greeks! Furthermore the paleo Hebrew was written not only without Vowels but also without Vowel points! Making Hebrew impossible to translate without prior knowledge of the text further bolstering the point that only trained Hebrew scribes could translate the Septuagint. Also an older Hebrew text Tanakh is the Samaritan Pentateuch . The Samaritan Pentateuch has 6000 variances when compared to the modern Masoretic translation but only 2000 variances when compared to the Septuagint. How do we know the Septuagint is reliable? Because we have thousands of quotes from thousands of ancient documents attributed to the 1st, 2nd,3rd, 4th centuries quoting from the Septuagint with a high degree of accuracy . Even Roman Emperor Julian in the fourth century quoted directly from the Septuagint.
On Isaiah 7:14 I find textual criticism fascinating and have taken a deep dove into it. This particular verse was a point of contention with the RSV translation back in the 1950s. My understanding is that the Hebrew word does mean young woman, but also can be read as young maiden. There was no Hebrew word for virgin. At that time a young maiden might be expected to be a virgin so that could be why it wasn't specified. The Greeks did have a word for virgin. So it's not quite clear cut but the translators could have been providing more clarity as in other examples you mentioned. A dynamic equivalence. Also, the Masoretic text is itself a translation from the older Hebrew and is much younger than at least the Pentateuch, or the first 5 books of the Septuagint.
In the Hebrew, the young woman is apparently Isaiah’s. See Isaiah 8:4. In any case, it is a specific young woman that Isaiah and Ahaz know. She is already pregnant. Nothing in the text supports a virgin birth. That would have been a unique miracle in the Hebrew Bible, but the birth is treated as an everyday birth of a normal child.
the diference between MT and LXX is well described but the interpretation is extremely missleading. Just to summarize at 25:19 henrew is oroginal language but you do not have the original text in MT. MT origin is cca 11 ad. Also, after Christ rabbi Akiva (who by the way believed Bar Kochba is the Messiah) started to collate the hebrew OT in such a way to disapprove Christianiy. Aquila translation was done for the same purpose and also translated from Aliva collation. So there is diception and dishonesty in the same way as always was from the pharisees / rabbis. The LXX is translation of the Old Hebrew original text not corrupted MT text. (sorry for my spelling, english is not my native language).
I was under the understanding that the Masoretic text was translated about 6th century ad and was completed about the 10th century ad. Jesus and the disciples used the original OT text from which the Septuagint was translated; and that the NT writings more closely follow the original OT text which was the one they had. This seems to be confirmed by dead sea scrolls.
So you’re saying the Holy Spirit was confused and inspired (God breathed) passages into the New Testament from the Old Testament incorrectly? The correct conclusion is that when the Holy Spirit chose to word a verse in a specific way it showed what was the true definition. Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint as opposed to the Hebrew Bible over 90% of the time showing that it was a superior text.
There are over 400 instances where the Square Hebrew and LXX within the Dead Sea Scrolls agree against the Masoretic Text. And mamy instances where the vastly older Paleo Hebrew portions in the DSS and the Square Hebrew agree against the Masoretic Text. The MT actually left out a whole line of text from a Psalm that the Square Hebrew and LXX preserved. The so-called masters of vowel memorization thus not only forgot vowels but consonants, in another place in the Psalms the Masoretes put in the wrong word whereas the Square Hebrew and LXX preserved the true word, and in one place in Isaiah the block-headed Masoretes left out consonants. Even several of the Paleo Hebrew portions within the DSS don't agree with the MT. When all 3 are against the MT, the MT is finished: "By the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established. The LXX for 1 and 2 Samuel are backed up in 3 Dead Sea Scrolls, 1 and 2 Samuel are outside of the Pentateuch. Psalm 40:6, a proof text for the Incarnation: The MT: "Thou has dug out my ears". Septuagint: "A body thou hast prepared for me".
Overall good information, but I have one comment. The term "Hebrew bible" is very open eneded. There is not one Hebrew text. For example, there is a big difference between the Hebrew text in the 4th century which Jerome used and the Hebrew text in the 3rd BC which the LXX translators used (the LXX Vorlage). So the competition is not between the Hebrew original and a Greek translation, but rather a newer Hebrew copy vs. the older Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX. Both are Hebrew texts and both do not match, as the Samaritan Pentateuch and Dead Sea Scrolls prove. In many places the LXX has been more faithful to the older Hebrew text than Jerome's Hebrew copy and the Leningrad Codex. Both Jerome's Hebrew text and the Masoretic text contain scribal edits and errors which the LXX Vorlage did not have. This makes the LXX an invaluable tool when reconstructing the original text and no less authoritative than the "Hebrew Bible".
Thank you for this video! What I tend to hypothesize is that the Septuagint is a correct and highly accurate translation of the ORIGINAL Hebrew text, but that the differences in the Hebrew texts that we have access to at the present time are the result of slight changes during the centuries following the ~ 250 B.C. translation into Greek (the Septuagint).
it's erroneous to just assume that the septuagint simply translated those passages incorrectly. it's more likely that they translated from a hebrew text that was much older than the masoretic text you're comparing it to
I wish those who believed in the absolute inerrancy of the Bible would take the time to study these things. I am a believer, but I also realize that scripture is filtered through man. We need to stop making an idol out of the Bible...
Amen. We are in the same boat. If God spoke to Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham Isaac and Jacob, Moses, Aaron and all the other prophets then why would he not speak directly to us now. Humbled in heart and truly searching his Truth and wisdom. I've told many people cultural Christians the Bible is tainted by the hands of man. It is not the Word of God, creation is. What Bible did Adam and Able use? God spoke to them. God can and will speak to us if we are true to the heart to discern for us what manipulated and what is his revelation. Example John 5:7-8. I've read the Bible several times and one night that scripture jumped at me. Felt out of place, like an instinctual "something is off here. Started researching this scripture and found it was actually added later and is a highly debated scripture used to argue a Catholics doctrine for the trinity called "The Johannine Comma". We must let God the Holy Spirit guides us and listen in the heart. The Spirit reveals itself we just have to stand still.
@@tabasco7915 When 1947 arrived: a young boy found in a cave, jars that had scrolls containing Scriptures, and other writings! The Book of Isaiah, was TRANSLATED from those 2,000 year old Scrolls. It MATCHED word for word, K.J.V. Bible! Good place to start!! I would be EXTREMELY careful, when people start discrediting GOD'S WORD!!! ✝️✝️✝️
@@saveme2169 KJV us by FAR BEST TRANSLATION; Most other Bible's are interpretations, which is very dangerous! Compare Dead Sea Scrolls, Book of Isaiah, and K.J.V. Bible, and 2,000 years matched King James Bible! God bless ✝️✝️✝️
I found out that Jerome when translating from the Greek and Hebrew into the Latin Vulgate considered "almah" to mean "hidden virgin." Perhaps that is why few modern Bibles use "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14. While it is probably true that Matthew is quoting the LXX in 1:22-23, you really wouldn't see the difference in the MT using an Engish Bible unless you read it in the aparatus. Exceptions that use "young woman" are Good News, NET, & JBS Tanankh 1917 Bibles. Of the 4 examples given of Amos 9:12, Isaiah 7:14, Psalm 40: 6-8, and Psalm 116:10, the MT agrees with the Dead Sea Scrolls, with the exception of Ps. 40:6-8, which is not extant. However, it seems that there is a variation between how the MT is translated in the KJV and the NIV in the case of psalm 116:10. Since Paul quotes the KJV version of the psalm perfectly, perhaps the NIV is wrong? I think in this verse, the LXX, DSS, and MT all essentially agree but are varied due to subjective interpretations. They say that the DSS confirms the LXX, but apparently not in every case.
That's true, Thanasis. There seems to be a concerted attack on it of late but the Church has always been comfortable with it. We still are. The Lord used it for Jews in the diaspora. The NT was also written in Greek and the majority of its authors were Jewish. It was not written in Hebrew.
What happened to the Origen and the Hexapla? You are very talented to explain a matter in an understanding way! Thank you! Would you know which genealogy is correct in Genesis 10:13-14? The mention in the LXX about the Chasmoniim (Hasmonean’s) makes a huge difference in history. The Hasmonian’s claim to be of Levite lineage (but could never prove - nothing in scripture), if the LXX is correct then they were Hamites. That is very problematic as the rededicated the 2nd temple & based on that historical event Hanukkah is based. Cool if you or someone would know anything to add to my research 🙂
Generally here: www.google.com/search?client=ms-google-coop&q=list+of+verses+of+septuagint+differ+from+masoretic+text&cx=partner-pub-7572086101883340:3721825637
Look at videos: Wheat & Tares, the BLOODSHED , before K.J.V. Bible was printed; To day it went through the fire, is an understatement! Was homeless 6 years ago, kept my FAITH IN GOD THROUGH K.J.V. Bible, and God honoured my FAITH; Scripture: I honour MY WORD, ABOVE MY NAME!!! Judge from there my friend!! ✝️ Have my own apartment, healthy bank account,🤑🤑🤑, and in the process of opening my business!! By the way; I AM 66 years young!!!! God bless
The insertion of Greek theology and ideology into the new testament was not and accident or problem with mistranslation but to establish the foundation for the church and its doctrine it injected titles and offices no where to be found in Israelite culture such as bishop deacons evangelist and the word Christ was no translation for the word Messiah !
what if God knew what He doing using the LXX for the 1st 15 centuries of common literacy and it wasn't a big cosmic accident that God just "forgot" to give a copy of the "Hebrew" for the first 12 centuries of Christianity because maybe Jesus _really did mean_ "Beware of the scribes" and maybe Jesus wasn't kidding when He told everyone to "search the scriptures for in them you think you have eternal life and they are they which testify of me" and the ONLY scriptures anyone in His audience, that they could actually read (except the pharisees who knew "letters" but had not the word of God in them John 8) were the very Greek scriptures that had such precise vowels and grammar that the meaning of the word was affixed by vocalization, the scriptures that Paul and the apostles would use to "reason (with the WHOLE GREEK SPEAKING WORLD- since Hebrew had been a dead language for 4 centuries) that Jesus is the Christ" (Acts 17:1-3) because _those_ were the scriptures waiting for Paul and the apostles in every synagogue from Spain to Ethiopia where men had been speaking Greek for 400y _before_ Jesus got here ....as if God actually meant what He told Zephaniah (3:9), Abraham (Gen 18:18 & 22:18), and Dan in the Greek 7:6 where God says He will give the Greek empire LANGUAGE??? Because maybe God knows what He is doing and He *_meant to do what He did???_*
As far as i know Original Hebrew text which gave rise to septuagint is lost , Masoretic text came after septuagint by 1200 years , and there r tiny alterations in the MT thats why i go with the septuagint
The big question remains when one says "Hebrew Text" just where is this quotation coming from? Since prior to the discovery of the dead sea scrolls we had no surviving copies of Hebrew texts older than the 9th century, those quotes are doubtlessly coming from the Masoretic Text. So we must needs look at what has so far been discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls. When resolving contradictions between the Masoretic Text (MT) and the Septuagint (LXX) and one sees that the Samarian Pentitude, the dead sea scroll pieces AND surviving copies of New Testament books agree with the LXX and NOT the MT, plus the fact that the Christian Church was converting many Jews and taking power away from the authors of the MT, it seems rather uninspired to use the "Hebrew Text" as surely the correct version. People will, and have, done many things to retain power up to and INCLUDING perverting the word of God. Just my take on the matter
Isaiah 7 and 8 provides one of many ways to be almost certain the Hebrew came first. In Isaiah 7 and 8 there is a boy born of a young woman. There is nothing miraculous about the boy or the birth, including into his young life in chapter 8. But in the Greek the young woman is a virgin and not yet pregnant, despite the context not supporting that. There is no other virgin in the Torah, so that would be an astounding miracle. Yet she and her son are treated as normal people in the text. The birth is a sign to Ahaz. Signs are visible and usually not (never?) miraculous. Lack of sex is not visible, so *a virgin birth cannot be a sign;* the boy’s early years are the sign. (thanks to Rabbi T Singer for the points on signs - I verify these things; I don’t just pick someone to believe).
he sounds more philosophical and scholarly than spiritual, no way any Christian will believe the new testament writers were wrong in using the Septuagint over the Hebrew, Paul and the early church fathers allude the fact the Jews made changes the Hebrew scriptures because the Septuagint was being used to prove Jesus Christ was the messiah of prophecy
@@tabasco7915 i wouldn't say that, I use the masoretic text scriptures also but reference the Septuagint, they are maybe 90% in harmony some Septuagint scriptures may be off from the original Hebrew and some Masoretic Text scriptures may be off from the original Hebrew, I do believe the original Hebrew was inspired scripture, Masoretic text and the Septuagint may have some scripture inaccurate due to copying errors or more sinister reasons but it's clear the new testament quotes from the Septuagint and not Masoretic text ,
I presume the Septuagint was translated by learned Jews. The Jews seemingly had little problem with it till Jesus. Surely we have to trust that his Apostles were faithfully reporting what Jesus taught them. I have no doubt they were reporting the words of Jesus as he taught them - from the Greek. Jesus is Lord of the Bible. I think he knows what he is saying. Were there any references to Jesus in this video?
One thing; there is strong evidence that most of the new testament was written originally in Hebrew/Aramaic. Not Greek as many assumed. The septuagint is also a very suspicious translation. Evidence shows that it was perhaps written very late (after the new testament) and not early as many thought. This may be reason why the new testament and the septuagint seem to synchronize so much. This explains why both Luke and the Septuagint have the extra Cainan. I understand the original Luke didn't have the extra Cainan.
There's actually quite a bit of evidence that the LXX is pre-NT. Vocabulary, manuscript dates, historical citations, historical references, and more all point to it being pre-Christ.
"Whenever the "original Hebrew texts" were written...or whenever"....LOL! Very "academic". There is no "Torah" older than LXX. It's an entirely Alexandrian bit of pastiche fanfic.
@@johnuitdeflesch3593becouse the oldest manuscript of the masoretic text is from 10th century and the masoretic text was compiled by rabbi akiba after the old hebrew text was destroyed. Akiba was strongly against Jesus Christ the Messiah (he believed Bar Kochba is the Messiah btw). So you have to be carefull when comparing LXX and MT.
The New Testament has more provenance than both of them combined and the Septuagint has more provenance than the Hebrew plus the Hebrew was completely rewritten in 900 A.D. so imagine all of sudden everything the new testament writers quote from the Septuagint is different in the Hebrew now. That would never be done on purpose. Not that the name of Jesus hasn't been completely mangled by the Hebrew scholars and the Latinization. The Textus Receptus has the most provenance period. It's a copy of All the copies that circulated the world in every language and there were 1000s of copies that all mostly aligned. That's clear. I wonder why you didn't bring up the text where it says dogs lick my wounds and lions circle me or something to that affect in the Hebrew but the Septuagint says something about spikes in His hands. I wish I could remember it correctly off hand but in Hebrew it makes zero sense. Textual criticism is a tool to cause more and more disbelief.
Hey Jeremy; you keep using word as legend would have it; Daniel was living when Greek Translation was copied! He predicted through God, world empires rise & fall, including Alexander The Great! 2,000 years passed, Dead Sea Scrolls and King James Version of Isaiah MATCHED Word FIR Word! YOU are being deceptive in your presentation🙄🙄🙄
I'm a little over halfway through the video at this point, but isn't it possible that the LXX was simply translated using older Hebrew manuscripts that we no longer have and so that's why the NT quotes agree more with the LXX? In this case it would be the later Hebrew copies that were mistranslated.
I mean even the DSS version of Exodus agrees with the LXX and Stephen in the book of Acts that 75 people came into Egypt instead of 70.
This guy is an idiot! Its not a misstranslation it's an intentional and systematic change made by rabbi akiva to make there own Bible and take Jesus out of the time frame of messiahship
Who is to say that the Septuagint translation wasn't taken from the correct and inspired Hebrew sources? and that the error is in the translations the Jews and skeptics hold to? And what if the Masoretes misplaced the diacritical markings on words like "אדם", the Masoretes in fact contributed to the Hebrew bible long long after the Septuagint was made. So what if this was done maliciously to separate Rabbanic Judaism from this so-called Jewish Heresy (Christianity) and discredit the works of the apostles, in order to paint an image of illiterate men who were liars which would discredit their message? They tried to do it to Christ when he rose from the dead by charging the guards to lie, so I don't see why they wouldn't be just as malicious here. The apostles regarded the Septuagint as scripture, I think that should be the vintage point from where we assess truth from error.
Just to clarify, King Ptolemy of Egypt did not have a copy Hebrew Tanakh to translate. The Hebrew Tanakh was kept under guard and only the High priest could authorize a translation. The translators were certainly not Greek but Hebrew . The Hebrew was translated by Hebrew scribes provided by the High Priest because the Hebrew scrolls were never to be touched or defiled by Greeks!
Furthermore the paleo Hebrew was written not only without Vowels but also without Vowel points! Making Hebrew impossible to translate without prior knowledge of the text further bolstering the point that only trained Hebrew scribes could translate the Septuagint.
Also an older Hebrew text Tanakh is the Samaritan Pentateuch . The Samaritan Pentateuch has 6000 variances when compared to the modern Masoretic translation but only 2000 variances when compared to the Septuagint.
How do we know the Septuagint is reliable? Because we have thousands of quotes from thousands of ancient documents attributed to the 1st, 2nd,3rd, 4th centuries quoting from the Septuagint with a high degree of accuracy .
Even Roman Emperor Julian in the fourth century quoted directly from the Septuagint.
On Isaiah 7:14
I find textual criticism fascinating and have taken a deep dove into it. This particular verse was a point of contention with the RSV translation back in the 1950s.
My understanding is that the Hebrew word does mean young woman, but also can be read as young maiden.
There was no Hebrew word for virgin. At that time a young maiden might be expected to be a virgin so that could be why it wasn't specified. The Greeks did have a word for virgin.
So it's not quite clear cut but the translators could have been providing more clarity as in other examples you mentioned. A dynamic equivalence.
Also, the Masoretic text is itself a translation from the older Hebrew and is much younger than at least the Pentateuch, or the first 5 books of the Septuagint.
In the Hebrew, the young woman is apparently Isaiah’s. See Isaiah 8:4. In any case, it is a specific young woman that Isaiah and Ahaz know. She is already pregnant.
Nothing in the text supports a virgin birth. That would have been a unique miracle in the Hebrew Bible, but the birth is treated as an everyday birth of a normal child.
the diference between MT and LXX is well described but the interpretation is extremely missleading. Just to summarize at 25:19 henrew is oroginal language but you do not have the original text in MT. MT origin is cca 11 ad. Also, after Christ rabbi Akiva (who by the way believed Bar Kochba is the Messiah) started to collate the hebrew OT in such a way to disapprove Christianiy. Aquila translation was done for the same purpose and also translated from Aliva collation. So there is diception and dishonesty in the same way as always was from the pharisees / rabbis. The LXX is translation of the Old Hebrew original text not corrupted MT text. (sorry for my spelling, english is not my native language).
I was under the understanding that the Masoretic text was translated about 6th century ad and was completed about the 10th century ad. Jesus and the disciples used the original OT text from which the Septuagint was translated; and that the NT writings more closely follow the original OT text which was the one they had. This seems to be confirmed by dead sea scrolls.
Outstanding presentation. Few people are aware of the usefulness and problems of the Septuagint. This is an informative video.
So you’re saying the Holy Spirit was confused and inspired (God breathed) passages into the New Testament from the Old Testament incorrectly? The correct conclusion is that when the Holy Spirit chose to word a verse in a specific way it showed what was the true definition. Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint as opposed to the Hebrew Bible over 90% of the time showing that it was a superior text.
Αμήν
There are over 400 instances where the Square Hebrew and LXX within the Dead Sea Scrolls agree against the Masoretic Text. And mamy instances where the vastly older Paleo Hebrew portions in the DSS and the Square Hebrew agree against the Masoretic Text.
The MT actually left out a whole line of text from a Psalm that the Square Hebrew and LXX preserved. The so-called masters of vowel memorization thus not only forgot vowels but consonants, in another place in the Psalms the Masoretes put in the wrong word whereas the Square Hebrew and LXX preserved the true word, and in one place in Isaiah the block-headed Masoretes left out consonants.
Even several of the Paleo Hebrew portions within the DSS don't agree with the MT. When all 3 are against the MT, the MT is finished: "By the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established.
The LXX for 1 and 2 Samuel are backed up in 3 Dead Sea Scrolls, 1 and 2 Samuel are outside of the Pentateuch.
Psalm 40:6, a proof text for the Incarnation:
The MT: "Thou has dug out my ears".
Septuagint: "A body thou hast prepared for me".
Pro trick : watch series on Flixzone. Been using them for watching lots of of movies these days.
@Leonardo Beau Definitely, I've been watching on Flixzone for years myself :D
@Leonardo Beau yea, I have been watching on flixzone for years myself :D
Overall good information, but I have one comment. The term "Hebrew bible" is very open eneded. There is not one Hebrew text. For example, there is a big difference between the Hebrew text in the 4th century which Jerome used and the Hebrew text in the 3rd BC which the LXX translators used (the LXX Vorlage). So the competition is not between the Hebrew original and a Greek translation, but rather a newer Hebrew copy vs. the older Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX. Both are Hebrew texts and both do not match, as the Samaritan Pentateuch and Dead Sea Scrolls prove. In many places the LXX has been more faithful to the older Hebrew text than Jerome's Hebrew copy and the Leningrad Codex. Both Jerome's Hebrew text and the Masoretic text contain scribal edits and errors which the LXX Vorlage did not have. This makes the LXX an invaluable tool when reconstructing the original text and no less authoritative than the "Hebrew Bible".
Thank you for this video! What I tend to hypothesize is that the Septuagint is a correct and highly accurate translation of the ORIGINAL Hebrew text, but that the differences in the Hebrew texts that we have access to at the present time are the result of slight changes during the centuries following the ~ 250 B.C. translation into Greek (the Septuagint).
Most likely because the Masoretic texts are modern and obviously used to oppose the new testament.
@@chuckdeuces911 📖🙂
it's erroneous to just assume that the septuagint simply translated those passages incorrectly. it's more likely that they translated from a hebrew text that was much older than the masoretic text you're comparing it to
I wish those who believed in the absolute inerrancy of the Bible would take the time to study these things. I am a believer, but I also realize that scripture is filtered through man. We need to stop making an idol out of the Bible...
Amen. We are in the same boat. If God spoke to Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham Isaac and Jacob, Moses, Aaron and all the other prophets then why would he not speak directly to us now. Humbled in heart and truly searching his Truth and wisdom. I've told many people cultural Christians the Bible is tainted by the hands of man. It is not the Word of God, creation is. What Bible did Adam and Able use? God spoke to them. God can and will speak to us if we are true to the heart to discern for us what manipulated and what is his revelation.
Example John 5:7-8. I've read the Bible several times and one night that scripture jumped at me. Felt out of place, like an instinctual "something is off here. Started researching this scripture and found it was actually added later and is a highly debated scripture used to argue a Catholics doctrine for the trinity called "The Johannine Comma". We must let God the Holy Spirit guides us and listen in the heart. The Spirit reveals itself we just have to stand still.
@@kl3mm3r86 Hello, which bible do you read?
So just how do we know what to believe?
@@tabasco7915 When 1947 arrived: a young boy found in a cave, jars that had scrolls containing Scriptures, and other writings! The Book of Isaiah, was TRANSLATED from those 2,000 year old Scrolls. It MATCHED word for word, K.J.V. Bible! Good place to start!! I would be EXTREMELY careful, when people start discrediting GOD'S WORD!!! ✝️✝️✝️
@@saveme2169 KJV us by FAR BEST TRANSLATION; Most other Bible's are interpretations, which is very dangerous! Compare Dead Sea Scrolls, Book of Isaiah, and K.J.V. Bible, and 2,000 years matched King James Bible! God bless ✝️✝️✝️
Just wondering if you have any thoughts on the earliest discovered Jewish LXX fragments that contain the divine name, the tetragrammaton? Thanks
I found out that Jerome when translating from the Greek and Hebrew into the Latin Vulgate considered "almah" to mean "hidden virgin." Perhaps that is why few modern Bibles use "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14. While it is probably true that Matthew is quoting the LXX in 1:22-23, you really wouldn't see the difference in the MT using an Engish Bible unless you read it in the aparatus. Exceptions that use "young woman" are Good News, NET, & JBS Tanankh 1917 Bibles.
Of the 4 examples given of Amos 9:12, Isaiah 7:14, Psalm 40: 6-8, and Psalm 116:10, the MT agrees with the Dead Sea Scrolls, with the exception of Ps. 40:6-8, which is not extant.
However, it seems that there is a variation between how the MT is translated in the KJV and the NIV in the case of psalm 116:10. Since Paul quotes the KJV version of the psalm perfectly, perhaps the NIV is wrong? I think in this verse, the LXX, DSS, and MT all essentially agree but are varied due to subjective interpretations.
They say that the DSS confirms the LXX, but apparently not in every case.
Thanks for that,,,,,,peace to you !!
early christians were using LXX ,and the church fathers too
That's true, Thanasis. There seems to be a concerted attack on it of late but the Church has always been comfortable with it. We still are. The Lord used it for Jews in the diaspora. The NT was also written in Greek and the majority of its authors were Jewish. It was not written in Hebrew.
@@eddyfye6311 Aewsome !! and thank you for that,,,, are you Orthodox ? been checking them out .....peace be unto you !!!
What happened to the Origen and the Hexapla?
You are very talented to explain a matter in an understanding way! Thank you!
Would you know which genealogy is correct in Genesis 10:13-14? The mention in the LXX about the Chasmoniim (Hasmonean’s) makes a huge difference in history. The Hasmonian’s claim to be of Levite lineage (but could never prove - nothing in scripture), if the LXX is correct then they were Hamites. That is very problematic as the rededicated the 2nd temple & based on that historical event Hanukkah is based.
Cool if you or someone would know anything to add to my research 🙂
Do you have a list of verses that have translation issues? Would love to see them. Very fascinating!
Generally here: www.google.com/search?client=ms-google-coop&q=list+of+verses+of+septuagint+differ+from+masoretic+text&cx=partner-pub-7572086101883340:3721825637
Look at videos: Wheat & Tares, the BLOODSHED , before K.J.V. Bible was printed; To day it went through the fire, is an understatement! Was homeless 6 years ago, kept my FAITH IN GOD THROUGH K.J.V. Bible, and God honoured my FAITH; Scripture: I honour MY WORD, ABOVE MY NAME!!! Judge from there my friend!! ✝️ Have my own apartment, healthy bank account,🤑🤑🤑, and in the process of opening my business!! By the way; I AM 66 years young!!!! God bless
The insertion of Greek theology and ideology into the new testament was not and accident or problem with mistranslation but to establish the foundation for the church and its doctrine it injected titles and offices no where to be found in Israelite culture such as bishop deacons evangelist and the word Christ was no translation for the word Messiah !
And what, if the septuagint is based on a different hebrew text then the masoretic one?
what if God knew what He doing using the LXX for the 1st 15 centuries of common literacy and it wasn't a big cosmic accident that God just "forgot" to give a copy of the "Hebrew" for the first 12 centuries of Christianity because maybe Jesus _really did mean_ "Beware of the scribes" and maybe Jesus wasn't kidding when He told everyone to "search the scriptures for in them you think you have eternal life and they are they which testify of me" and the ONLY scriptures anyone in His audience, that they could actually read (except the pharisees who knew "letters" but had not the word of God in them John 8) were the very Greek scriptures that had such precise vowels and grammar that the meaning of the word was affixed by vocalization, the scriptures that Paul and the apostles would use to "reason (with the WHOLE GREEK SPEAKING WORLD- since Hebrew had been a dead language for 4 centuries) that Jesus is the Christ" (Acts 17:1-3) because _those_ were the scriptures waiting for Paul and the apostles in every synagogue from Spain to Ethiopia where men had been speaking Greek for 400y _before_ Jesus got here ....as if God actually meant what He told Zephaniah (3:9), Abraham (Gen 18:18 & 22:18), and Dan in the Greek 7:6 where God says He will give the Greek empire LANGUAGE??? Because maybe God knows what He is doing and He *_meant to do what He did???_*
inTruthbyGrace what do you mean “Dan in the Greek 7:6”?
Otherwise, your comment makes a lot of sense to me.
As far as i know Original Hebrew text which gave rise to septuagint is lost , Masoretic text came after septuagint by 1200 years , and there r tiny alterations in the MT thats why i go with the septuagint
It definitely is - the masoretic was chosen as the primary Jewish manuscripts because it undermined Jesus Christ as the Messiah
@@inTruthbyGrace "Dan in the Greek 7:6" *what*
both Jews of late antiquity and Apostolic Church knew that the sons of God were celestial beings.
The big question remains when one says "Hebrew Text" just where is this quotation coming from? Since prior to the discovery of the dead sea scrolls we had no surviving copies of Hebrew texts older than the 9th century, those quotes are doubtlessly coming from the Masoretic Text. So we must needs look at what has so far been discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls. When resolving contradictions between the Masoretic Text (MT) and the Septuagint (LXX) and one sees that the Samarian Pentitude, the dead sea scroll pieces AND surviving copies of New Testament books agree with the LXX and NOT the MT, plus the fact that the Christian Church was converting many Jews and taking power away from the authors of the MT, it seems rather uninspired to use the "Hebrew Text" as surely the correct version. People will, and have, done many things to retain power up to and INCLUDING perverting the word of God. Just my take on the matter
Marvelous demonstration.
Isaiah 7 and 8 provides one of many ways to be almost certain the Hebrew came first.
In Isaiah 7 and 8 there is a boy born of a young woman. There is nothing miraculous about the boy or the birth, including into his young life in chapter 8. But in the Greek the young woman is a virgin and not yet pregnant, despite the context not supporting that. There is no other virgin in the Torah, so that would be an astounding miracle. Yet she and her son are treated as normal people in the text. The birth is a sign to Ahaz. Signs are visible and usually not (never?) miraculous. Lack of sex is not visible, so *a virgin birth cannot be a sign;* the boy’s early years are the sign. (thanks to Rabbi T Singer for the points on signs - I verify these things; I don’t just pick someone to believe).
Is this guy a beliver or no?
I'm wondering there same thing
Not a Christian for sure
he sounds more philosophical and scholarly than spiritual, no way any Christian will believe the new testament writers were wrong in using the Septuagint over the Hebrew, Paul and the early church fathers allude the fact the Jews made changes the Hebrew scriptures because the Septuagint was being used to prove Jesus Christ was the messiah of prophecy
@@ronester1 So what about the large portion of the church today who are following the Masoretic text? Are they following a false narrative?
@@tabasco7915 i wouldn't say that, I use the masoretic text scriptures also but reference the Septuagint, they are maybe 90% in harmony some Septuagint scriptures may be off from the original Hebrew and some Masoretic Text scriptures may be off from the original Hebrew, I do believe the original Hebrew was inspired scripture, Masoretic text and the Septuagint may have some scripture inaccurate due to copying errors or more sinister reasons but it's clear the new testament quotes from the Septuagint and not Masoretic text ,
οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ is in the LXX in Genesis as the sons of God though.
Do you like Enoch 👀 because the angels of God a factually correct when reading it through the lenses of context
I think the most important detail about the translation is that the letter of Aristeas is psuedopigrapha
I presume the Septuagint was translated by learned Jews. The Jews seemingly had little problem with it till Jesus. Surely we have to trust that his Apostles were faithfully reporting what Jesus taught them. I have no doubt they were reporting the words of Jesus as he taught them - from the Greek. Jesus is Lord of the Bible. I think he knows what he is saying. Were there any references to Jesus in this video?
One thing; there is strong evidence that most of the new testament was written originally in Hebrew/Aramaic. Not Greek as many assumed. The septuagint is also a very suspicious translation. Evidence shows that it was perhaps written very late (after the new testament) and not early as many thought. This may be reason why the new testament and the septuagint seem to synchronize so much. This explains why both Luke and the Septuagint have the extra Cainan. I understand the original Luke didn't have the extra Cainan.
I have heard that the older copies of the LXX also don't have the extra Cainan
There's actually quite a bit of evidence that the LXX is pre-NT. Vocabulary, manuscript dates, historical citations, historical references, and more all point to it being pre-Christ.
You should be able to convert it back into Hebrew and it be legable since this is how it was to have been transmitted.
There are some small issues .
"Whenever the "original Hebrew texts" were written...or whenever"....LOL! Very "academic". There is no "Torah" older than LXX. It's an entirely Alexandrian bit of pastiche fanfic.
comparing the Septuagint to something written a thousand years later is just bad textual criticism
exactly
Why?
@@johnuitdeflesch3593becouse the oldest manuscript of the masoretic text is from 10th century and the masoretic text was compiled by rabbi akiba after the old hebrew text was destroyed. Akiba was strongly against Jesus Christ the Messiah (he believed Bar Kochba is the Messiah btw). So you have to be carefull when comparing LXX and MT.
@@joeangular that still doesn’t explain why it’s “bad textual criticism”.
@@johnuitdeflesch3593well, it is comparing apples with oranges.
The New Testament has more provenance than both of them combined and the Septuagint has more provenance than the Hebrew plus the Hebrew was completely rewritten in 900 A.D. so imagine all of sudden everything the new testament writers quote from the Septuagint is different in the Hebrew now. That would never be done on purpose. Not that the name of Jesus hasn't been completely mangled by the Hebrew scholars and the Latinization. The Textus Receptus has the most provenance period. It's a copy of All the copies that circulated the world in every language and there were 1000s of copies that all mostly aligned. That's clear. I wonder why you didn't bring up the text where it says dogs lick my wounds and lions circle me or something to that affect in the Hebrew but the Septuagint says something about spikes in His hands. I wish I could remember it correctly off hand but in Hebrew it makes zero sense. Textual criticism is a tool to cause more and more disbelief.
Hey Jeremy; you keep using word as legend would have it; Daniel was living when Greek Translation was copied! He predicted through God, world empires rise & fall, including Alexander The Great! 2,000 years passed, Dead Sea Scrolls and King James Version of Isaiah MATCHED Word FIR Word! YOU are being deceptive in your presentation🙄🙄🙄