Why I Don't Believe In The Septuagint - Dr. Peter Williams, PhD
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.ย. 2015
- This should raise some eyebrows for advocates of the Septuagint bible such as details that bring into question validating the entire book due to quotes from the new testament as the book was only the books of Law and was not called the LXX or the Septuagint . A live presentation by Dr. Peter Williams.
![[MIRRORED] LISA - ROCKSTAR 🎸 MV version #LISA #BLACKPINK #ROCKSTAR](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-U58DuCCtZk/mqdefault.jpg)
Here are a couple of questions out of curiosity. Did the Jewish scribes responsible for the Masoretic Text accept Jesus as the Messiah or did they hate him? Did these scribes agree with the New Testament writings, or did they reject it? I have used the KJV for most of my life, but I have discovered things in it that bring confusion rather than clarity. The Septuagint does not do that. If these scribes were against the Church would it be reasonable that they might change certain verses to discredit Christ? I personally believe that had to have happened. Any thoughts on this. Anyone?
That's exactly what happened, they set out to discredit him, and they continue to do so today.
Idk. These jews were willing to die for the preservation of their book. You think they'd corrupt their own writings?
@@thefellowheirs Which Jews are you talking about, the ones that accepted Christ or the ones that rejected him. Remember the first Christians were Jews, and they died to spread Christianity, and continue to die today, so dying for "their" book is not exclusive to Jews, and dying for a book is different than dying for Christ, one gives eternal life, the other gives you nothing, since it's a book and is therefore in animate object and without life. People have died for many things, causes, and other mortal beings, but none of those categories gives eternal life, so dying for Christ is the only thing worth dying for.
@@latinboyyy305 it doesn't matter does it? If they're jews who reject Christ but believe in the OT. And would die for the OT. Why would they corrupt their own word of God? I understand if they were involved in the NT but the tanakh being preserved through the masoretic text process would involve jews. And these jews were handling their text with extreme care.
I agree everyone has died for their book. Muslims too. But would a Muslim corrupt the Quran to spite Jesus? Or would they just reject Jesus?
That's how I'm viewing this masoretic text conversation. Devout jews rejecting Christ and willing to die for their OT doesn't sound like they'd corrupt it just to spite Christ.
They'd just reject Him wouldn't they?
@@thefellowheirs why yes, I do think they corrupted their own writings. One thousand years before these writings certain Jewish Scribes and Pharisees gave false testimony at an illegal hearing under the cover of darkness to condemn an innocent man who just happened to be the promised Messiah. Falsely accusing someone is the same as lying and if you read the prophesies about Jesus in the Masoretic and then compare them to the Septuagint, they are different. I believe these scribes who re-wrote the Hebrew Bible knew full well who Jesus claimed to be, they had access to the New Testament writings of the miracles He performed, miracles that no other man has ever done yet they refused to believe even though the prophesies lined up with everything accomplished in Christ, so they tweaked certain passages to create doubt and confusion of just who Jesus was. They even went as far as calling angels sons of God in the book of Job when the Septuagint had always said angels of God. Our KJV and all western Bibles since the writing of the Masoretic Text call angels' sons of God which is a complete contradiction to Hebrews 1:5. I sincerely believe these scribes wanted people to believe Jesus was an angel and not the Son of God. They were aware of Gabriel's visit to Mary, and they couldn't deny the miracles Jesus performed, to many eyewitnesses so in their minds he had to be an angel. Now half of the Church believes that somehow fallen angels can transform themselves into humans, have sex with the daughters of men and create a race of hybrid giants. That is nothing more than a fable created to destroy the Deity of Christ. If angels can create life, then why did Jesus have to come and die on a cross, why not just use a sinless angel as the perfect sacrifice? Yes, I believe parts of the Masoretic Text is corrupt.
For those of you who are confused:
His point is that it would be best and most beneficial to understand "the Septuagint" not as a single-volume translation work done by "70 (or 72) elders," but instead as a wide collection of Greek translations/ and manuscripts that were in use and circlated before, around, and after the time of Jesus that were trying do justice to the original Hebrew text of the already-canonized Hebrew Bible (Old Testament)... Because that is how the New Testament writers would have understood "the Septuagint" back then.
What he fails to mention is that Origen in his Hexapla separates the Septuagint (LXX) translation from the translations by Theodotian, Aquila and Symmachus. I'm surprised he hadn't mentioned that, and makes me suspicious of him trying to push a propaganda
@Chris Mathew Origen admitted that the septuagint manuscript that he had was corrupted. Even the Catholic Church admits in one of their bibles.
@@thomasglass9491Where did Origen say that his copy of the Septuagint was corrupt?
@@thomasglass9491 - How did Origen know his copy was corrupt, what did he compare it with?
It took 54 minutes to say that there were different Greek translations, not just one.
Are there any bible versions of older than the septuagint ?
@@truthhitman7473 The oldest existing versions/copies of the old testament, are:
The Masoretic Hebrew text:
-Aleppo Codex, 10th century AD, missing the first 5 books
-Leningrad Codex, 11th century AD Full bible, with some commentary also, and in pristine condition
Septuagint:
Codex Vaticanus, 4th Century AD(full bible, Old and New testament, and Apocrypha)
Codex Sinaiticus, 4th Century(Incomplete Old & New testament, incomplete Apocrypha)
Codex Alexandrinus, 5th century(full bible in pretty good condition)
There are other manuscripts, some going back to the first century, but these are the oldest complete, or almost complete manuscripts.
Dead Sea Scroll:
Scrolls from the 3rd or 4th century bc-1st century bc, written in Paleo-Hebrew, Aramaic Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and a few in Nabbatean Aramaic, and Arabic.
They have copies, or multiple copies representing every book of the old testament except Esther, but the vast majority of it is in fragments. Even the best preserved scrolls have missing portions. These are the oldest manuscripts. There are some rare finds that have certain individual bible passages dating back to the old temple period(950bc-600bc), like the "Silver scroll."
@@histguy101 As I understand it, when the Dead Sea Scrolls were decyphered it was found that in many places where it disagreed with the Masoretic Text it agreed with the LXX. The conclusion was that the LXX drew from older manuscript(s) and has subsequently gained greater confidence in its reliability and closeness to the original.
@@truthhitman7473 Exactly the important question that Peter did not answer.
It is noted within the Talmud/Mishnah that the Masoretic Text was altered via conflicting texts, contradictions, and multiple, competing rabbis intentionally altering scriptures *thus corrupting it)* and admitted to, though Jews also used the Septuagint (translated from Square Hebrew in the mid third century BC) and older than the MT.
That was a lot of breath talking about the name, like that mattered. The reality is the New Testament writers quoted the Greek Old Testament version almost completely exclusively.
I’m 30 minutes into a 60 min demonstration and he hasn’t given one reason why the Greek version of the Old Testament is a bad source, even though the New Testament writers quoted it
God Bless you for speaking the TRUTH !!!
There is 93% overlap between the New Testament & the Greek Septuagint and only 68% between the New Testament and the Masoretic text.
Christ knows what he was quoting, the Septuagint!!!!! 👍
So people referred to the Greek translation of the OT as the translation of the 70 elders or differently than "Septuagint" as we refer to it today. ok, what does referring to the translation have to do with the quality of the actual translation?I am at 28:07 and have still not heard why he "does not believe in the Septuagint". . .
Something clicked for me at about the 15 minute mark: the LXX is a translation, just like the ESV or the NAS. Jesus and the apostles give these types of translations credence by extensively quoting a translation rather than always going back to the Hebrew.
The Jews Greek Bible (septuigent) was found in the dead sea scrolls and is also found in the NT itself.
@Brother Nick Origen admitted that the septuagint manuscript that he had was corrupted. Even the Catholic Church admits in one of their bibles, that New Testament verses were add it to the septuagint.
The evidence shows that the septuagint was made AD. So the findings of the septuagint in the dead sea scrolls doesn’t mean nothing.
@@thomasglass9491 not true. Origen only compared one against the other of I believe 4. They all had tiny differences. Just like all manuscripts of the NT
@Brother Nick That's not what Origen said. He said that the manuscripts that he used for hexepla were corrupted and he didn't change the errors and then th catholic church admits in their Bible that Origen's septuagint has eliminated Old Testament verses and add New Testament to it.
Check the facts.
"Jews" is short for "Judeans" and refers to primarily the Jerusalem Temple Sinai Covenant based Theocrats of Jerusalem. The Greek speakers went to war with them. To imagine that they are one and the same or identical is naive.
@@WoundedEgo sorry. Koine Greek was the common language in that region. Few Jews cound speak Aramaic. The Septuagint was what Jesus read from in the synagogue for most wouldn't be able to understand Aramaic. I can prove it
I was more confused after listening to the video.
Your being confused by the title of the video because what Dr. Williams polemic is about is the inclusion of the Apocrypha. The Greek translation of the Torah and Prophets is fine. Dr. Williams considers the inclusion of the Apocrypha as deceptive.
@Bill Rundell
1. There is no evidence that the septuagint was made in the BC era.
2. The copy that we have right now is from Origen and he admit that it was corrupted, even the Catholic Church admits that has New Testament verses inserted in the septuagint.
3. The findings of the septuagint in the dead sea scrolls are all dated 1st century BC to 1st century AD.
Check the evidence! The septuagint is a forgery!
Because he is Lying! Septuagint is the Authority!!! Christians had it & STILL have it !!!
@@dalemackenzie2187
There is 93% overlap between the New Testament & the Greek Septuagint and only 68% between the New Testament and the Masoretic text.
Christians know the tricks of the Jews my friend 👍
The long discourse on the name of the book gets to be silly very fast. As if the book wasn't a real thing that was used by Christians for the past two-thousand years, starting with the authors of some of the most authoritative texts in the Bible. I kept wondering what motive Williams had which he wasn't admitting motivated him.
Academics don't necessarily look for truth, they just like to show how clever they are at presenting a good argument.
I'm not sure how this presentation is helpful. I'm not even sure what Dr. Williams is really trying to argue because it seems mostly semantics. It never really gave me a good reason not to take the Amos translation as more authoritative, for instance. The argument for using Greek Old Testament translations against the Hebrew (at least in some instances) is that this is the text the Apostles argue from and that, therefore, it must be more reflective of the original Hebrew wording. The early Greek Hebrew Bible seems to have been translated from a different line of Hebrew manuscripts. The speaker just bowls over the difficulties of his position from a Christian perspective.
He ignores that Aquila specifically made his translation to refute the Early Church and early Christian claimed the Jews were manipulating key Messianic texts in their Scriptures. So, we're left with an argument based on rejecting the testimony of our Brothers in Christ in favor of an unbelieving Pharisee. The fact is that the New Testament quotes from what we now call "LXX" readings nearly all the time when those conflict with the Masoretic Text. His Acts 15 argument to me just seems weird. Why reject the LXX reading that is obviously very close to what James said in favor of this weird hypothesis? This isn't to say I support uncritically picking up a copy of the LXX to replace the Hebrew, but the LXX is an independent witness of what the original Hebrew said.
He claims that the LXX supporters are simplistic by calling it simplistic, but his whole presentation was an extremely simplistic reduction of the debate. He never even mentions what Jerome's opponents thought on these matters. He never addresses that Josephus and Philo, who had Hebrew manuscripts, seem to side with LXX readings often. I mean, this was an hour presentation, so I'm not expecting every difficulty to be worked out here, but the initial presentation is bad.
Whenever anyone uses wikipedia as a souce, it throws serious doubts upon the credibility of the speaker. I'm just saying...
Lawrence Stanley Wikipedia usually had refrences to do your own research don't be lazy and throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Lol. Check out Williams CV -- he's bona fide. He's simply pasting wikipedia entries to save time. He has a mastery of this topic, so he can read the wiki entry and know if it's worthy or not. He's earned his scholarship the hard way.
Are there any bible versions of older than the septuagint ?
Wikipedia is more reliable than most school text books.
Wikipedia is more reliable than the septuagint.
*Septuagint:* 2,300 years old
*Masoretic:* 1,000 years old
*Septuagint:* quoted frequently by the apostles
*Masoretic:* missing prophecies of Jesus
*Septuagint:* accepted by all Christians for 2,000 years
*Masoretic:* missing 10 entire books, some of them containing unambiguous prophecies of Jesus
*Septuagint:* translated by the people of God
*Masoretic:* altered and corrupted by the people who rejected Him when He came to earth in human form
Septuagint was not as accurate as we wish, the Zadokite priesthood left the Hebrew temple and went to Qumron, one reason being the invading false priesthood translated Hebrew to the Greek.
The original Hebrew is our best resource,and unfortunately the Vatican had control of John the Baptist library ,the Dead Sea scrolls (not essence), for 20 years before releasing it through the lens of Judiaism
Yah bless you
Oh, it's that simple is it?
@Original Sinner 1. There is no evidence that the septuagint was made in the BC era.
2. The copy that we have right now is from Origen and he admit that it was corrupted, even the Catholic Church admits that has New Testament verses inserted in the septuagint.
3. The findings of the septuagint in the dead sea scrolls are all dated 1st century BC to 1st century AD.
Check the evidence! The septuagint is a forgery!
For a jew that believes in the OT why would corrupting their book have anything to do with Jesus?
Very talkative....so, what original Hebrew version does it exist & based upon the current English version?
Peter says that there was dissatisfaction with the current Greek translation(s) of the OT, so other translations were made. 2 examples are Aquilla and Symacchus.
Why was there dissatisfaction with the current Greek translation(s)?
Who was dissatisfied?
Since both Aquilla and Symacchus were Jewish translations in the 2nd century, then the reason for their dissatisfaction was because the LXX supported Christian claims.
Peter gave no indication of other translations before Christ. So, unless I am shown otherwise, I don't see any dissatisfaction with the translation before Christ.
Peter's excellent explanation of Amos 9 and Psalm 2 gives him a lot of credibility with me, but his conclusion about LXX is very weak, at least from this talk.
Cracks me up when Christians say I don't believe in ______.
Like fundamentalists will say I dont believe in alchohol.. this guy doesn't believe in the septuigant. With wikepdia and not any real factual reasons to support this opinion..
Anyway, it's a strange expression because these things exist whether people use them or not😅🤣
The New Testament quotes over 300 lines from the septuigant and 33 from the Masoretic text.
So the Church Fathers and Jesus must have been mistaken, according to Dr Williams.
Also, they read what protestants consider the apocryphal books, one of which Jesus Himself directly quotes, in the Sermon on the Mount. Orthodox Christians still use these books today because they are part of the canon, and have been for some time. Finally, the Septuigant is far more accurate than the Masoretic text. This is an outdated and frankly silly argument from protestant textual critics.
@Infinite Adriannn uh... I guess you haven't compared them. Because it is insane how much it is quoted.
@Infinite Adriannn that is interesting since any biblical scholar or even just an exegetical studies major would disagree. Also, it's really petty to combat something that is vastly superior in accuracy; and is widely accepted by the early Church and still so for Orthodox Christians today. Protestants are somehow stuck on some nonsensical dispute over septuigant text. With no logical reason.
The Masoretic text doesn’t support he New Testament as well as the Septuagint does. Plus Greek was the universal language at the time of the Apostles...so which Bible do you think they used when spreading the Gospel?!
I don't think you quite listened to the lecture closely enough.
Also, Jerome said he translated the Vulgate out of Hebrew because it supported the Messianic prophecies better. Masoretic texts come later btw.
@@geoffrobinson Jerome also said the Apostles didn't quote from the Septuagint and that the Septuagint had many mistakes. He also said the origin text was held by the Jews of his time which is a child's simple view of things. The Jews after Christianity wanted to completely separate themselves from Christianity as much as possible. We have some Ancient Church Fathers writing that a Jew was changing the Septuagint because the Christians were using it to great effect. And the masoretic text has some plain mistakes just look at Deut. 32:8 in the Hebrew then look at the Deut.32:8 in the LXX, or the Dead Sea Scrolls. Its a passage about the Babel event, now tell me did Israel exist at the time? Of course not, and this removes much from the supernatural world view of the scriptures. Now I like the Masoretic text, but I know its not perfect, and neither is the Septuagint. But I know God said he will preserve His word. And He has kept that promise. Both translations and the Dead Sea Scrolls are valid for study. Jerome's Latin Vulgate and the Greek Septuagint are just different as day and night. The Reformation started because people started to read the Greek and Latin together and found major differences. So don't throw away the Septuagint just because Jews in the 4th century didn't like it, and a Christian agreed.
@@geoffrobinson Jerome was obviously wrong. Like, terribly wrong. He quoted the few passages of the proto-Masoretic that are better supported by the NT and ignored the dozens that are better attested in the LXX.
@@nate296 we don't have the proto-Masoretic. How is he "obviously" wrong?
@@geoffrobinson Jerome's argument was that the New Testament is more reliant on the Hebrew than the Greek and then proceeded to give the few readings that backed his point. In dozens of other cases, the New Testament prefers LXX readings. And it's not just limited to direct quotations either. For instance, Stephen in Acts quotes the LXX number (75) for the number of Hebrews that went down into Egypt at the time of the famine as opposed to the Masoretic (70). As for us not having the proto-Masoretic, we have an independent witness to the proto-Masoretic in the Latin Vulgate and it was substantially similar to what the Masoretic is today.
Whatever the truth of the tradition of "the seventy", what has come down to us under that name should be taken as a witness to the original biblical text. Reference to "The Hebrew" usually refers to the post-Christian Masoretic text, which should not be taken as perfectly reliable, especially where New Testament quotations vary from it. We should take the NT quotations as authoritative. These may refer to correct renderings in other texts, which have been incorporated in the "LXX". Just my thoughts as a layman.
Eu também penso a mesma coisa. Concordo plenamente com você.
You speak the TRUTH 💯
After listening to this man, I still prefer to read the Septuagint.
Bring it out!!!
Too much talk. Septuagint can be defined in two or three sentences. It took him half an hour with incomplete definition. Failed to mention that it was the first translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek some two hundred years before Christianity.
No, he said that the 70 scribes translated only the first part of the Bible.
Andrew That was the first part. Pharisees ignore history. He seems to side with them. Over time, the Scriptures in Hebrew was translated to Greek. During 1st century CE, the writers of the NT had Hebrew copy of Scriptures, that lined up more closely with the Greek counterpart or copy. No copy is perfect as some errors are bound to happen. The fact is that the Greek copy (Septuagint in its entirety) is more accurate than post 1st century Masoretic text when compared to the oldest manuscripts of the Scriptures, the Dead Sea Scrolls. It’s true that some Greek versions of Scripture has additional text not found compared to older copies. Such as the end of Job 42. The Odes of Solomom (Roman, made up and added much later).
His point that there were more than one edition of books is well taken-but doesn’t prove much of anything as far as it’s worth/non-worth.
His point about the Hebrew base is interesting and has merit, but it also doesn’t seem to acknowledge the basic framework that there was a reason for these later works by Theodotian/Aquila/etc. What caused a push for different translations to be done? The idea that it was so pathetically bad that accuracy required it is rubbish. Why? Why were the later editions done by Jews and no Christians made an effort to do one? The Jews had a reason to redo things-Christianity was using the LXX a lot and to great effect. And the Jews reaction pushed for new translations under the guise of inaccuracy. They had to dismiss it and degrade it to defend Judiaism from attack.
His presentation seemed a little biased. Unfortunately if you look at the dead sea scrolls online and compare between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text you'll find the dead sea scrolls align more often with the Septuagint.
"Totally false" is a bit strong. More like overstating the case.
The Proto-MT is dominant but a Hebrew version aligning with the Septuagint is also prominent.
trenparsifal No, it’s older Hebrew. Some ancient Hebrew and Aramaic. Proto can also mean pre. It is an assumption, but the Masoretic text in many places contradict the DSS text. In fact, the book of Names (Shemot) or Exodus contains more text in the DSS than the Masoretic text and can be found in the Samaritan text. Septuagint does in fact line up more with DSS, but not always. No one who is sane claims that any copy of Scripture is flawless. However, the Greek copy of the Hebrew matters because it is evidence that people have been copying texts of the Scriptures more than any writings in the world.
@@pm5206
So your saying paleo Hebrew. It’s interesting that here in the states there is a religious group known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or Mormons as their more commonly known as who claim a branch of the Jews left Jerusalem roughly during Jeremiah the Prophets time and came to America and until the last fees years it was thought of as bull. However they have been finding writings in paleo Hebrew all across the states and many of the Indian tribes in the states are claiming that many of the sites were written by their ancestors. Interesting!!
"...Isaiah in your language..." - LOL!
25:00 this is where Dr. Williams points out they were different books in early Septuaginta than there are today.
Thanks
I thought the Peter had excellent explanations for Psalm 2 quoted in Rev, and Amos 9 quoted by James.
Overall a good presentation, but I think it was too bias. True the Septuagint is an ambiguous title, which can be classified as OG (original Greek), it's quotations in the NT and the fact that it's used 9/10 to the MT, is very important. You must acknowledge that even variances in different Hebrew manuscripts were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls so in conclusion, you must acknowledge that even back then there were differences, so it's basically Hebrew against "The Hebrew" (translated and represented and "preserved" in Greek). So him saying that the Septuagint is ambiguous, is very true, but the fact that many differences were in the Hebrew/Aramaic scriptures found at Qumran is proof that saying Hebrew, to classify a set of scriptures is just, or if not more ambiguous, and using his logic, which discredits and doesn't trust the LXX, would mean we can't trust the Hebrew either.
Thanks for the summary! Couldn't take his petty picking apart of spelling and semantics any longer!
As noted in another reply here, the DSS agreed more times with the LXX than the MT. And the conclusion was that there were 3 (I think) main language types in existence, which actually is logical given all the different people groups and languages kicking around in what was then a centre of the civilised world. However, on the down side, when an atheist or agnostic states we cannot possibly know the real words of God because of transmission errors and differences over the ages, it is hard to counter the basics of their protestations.
@William Lamb: you nailed it. And (inadvertantly or not) thereby proven he has a biased agenda! Neat!
There was almost exclusive use of Greek in all synagogue inscriptions everywhere in the world.
Outside Judea, close to 100% of the diaspora synagogue inscriptions are in Greek. In Judea, where the default language is Aramaic, and 80% of synagogue inscriptions are in Greek.
Archaeological disciveries have also found that only 12% of Judean synagogue inscriptions were in Hebrew.
The evidence over time shows that the Septuagint was considered on par with the Hebrew during even the 2nd century BC through the time of Christ and beyond.
Continued...Chronicles is quoted by Eupolemos in the middle of the 2nd century BCE, and Job by Pseudo-Aristeas in the beginning of the 1st century BCE.
Septuagint fragments found at Qumran (Lev.), the Nahal Hever (Habbakuk, near Ein Gedi), dated 50 BC, Deut. fragments dates 2nd century BC.
Prosuche (forerunner to the synagogue) foundation stones in Egypt are dated 120 to 240 BC. If you gather in a church or synagogue, its origins are found in Hellenistic Egypt as they are foreign to temple-only thought. The synagogue ultimately spread to Israel along with the Septuagint (Theodotus inscription, in Greek, a synagogue in Jerusalem, 1st century AD).
Basically, with all the proven primary source documented evidence including the NT itself, this guy is simply making up lies. Typical theologian.
This talk should be titled why we should not just look for books called the Septuagint in a way of finding the original text . This video just makes the point that everything in books called the Septuagint is canonical and every translation of the canon is not in the Septuagint or original I believe.
Some of you reading this believe that no translation can be inspired. Did Jesus quote from a BC Septuagint, a Greek translation from the Hebrew old testament which some of you assert? Was the Septuagint a perfect translation?
The ancient Hebrew text was copied and translated into Greek. Which is why the “NT” quotes passages from the ancient Hebrew text and not the modern traditional Masoretic text. This is a problem for people who defend the Pharisees messing with sacred Scripture.
Paul Beduhn Many parts of the NT were actually written in Hebrew first and then translated. The writings of the Catholic church actually confirms this.
@@MM-pl6zi "Many parts of the NT were actually written in Hebrew first" Any proof for this. It is arguable for a Proto-Matthew (that might be something like the hypothetial Q) but it can't be true for either Luke/Acts or Paul's letters or Apocalypse (which has a very much think in Hebrew, write it down in Greek vibe to it).
Delia, so true.
1. That's why there's been a popish push to replace the KJB with the most corrected Mss ever seen.
2. Papists are forced to argue no translation is error free because their 2 False Witnesses Vaticanus & Sinaiticus are riddled with scribal errors and corrections in the margins not to mention whole books of the Apocrypha so corrupt not even Rome wants them.
@@buick107 your compulsive anti-Catholicism blinds you not only to the facts of the question in hand but even to what Delia was actually saying.
as for that: no translation is perfect but not being perfect doesn't make it wrong. yes, the NT quotations confirm that the quoted bits are true, even of not always justifiable translations.
How, Mr Pope-hater, do you square your anti-LXX comments with these NT quotations?
I find that the Septuagint has a very shady history that cannot be verified.
Study the origin and changes of Hebrew over time, especially after the Babylonian captivity. LXX is not perfect but it is hard to argue that the Captivity in Babylon had no effect. Egyptian Jews kept traditions, history and understanding far better despite the fact that they used Greek for the LXX.
Good grief…but, he who is not against us is on our side.
XXL in the description. That's a typo it should be LXX.
5 years later, first person to notice. Ha ha. Thanks.
@@Run2ChristLive
There is 93% overlap between the New Testament & the Greek Septuagint and only 68% between the New Testament and the Masoretic text.
Christ knows what he was quoting, the Septuagint!!!!! 👍
The XXL is the version that includes the apocrypha 😊
To me, it's almost like saying we shouldn't say "The New Testament" because there is no "it" there is a "them"-an Alexandrian text family and a Byzantine text family, etc.
Well the name new testament is synonymous with new covenant denoting the periods each testament covers, that being, covenental Israel and then the end of that with Christ bringing the new and better covenant.
Let’s not call the N.T the N.T! The writers wouldn’t have known their letters by that name...S.M.H🤭
The entire argument was ridiculous. It goes from "it's a bit of a misnomer," which really means nothing, to "lets basically throw it out completely." Terrible scholarship.
Nathan Evans honestly I do understand what he is saying but he is quite wordy. A lot of things he could have left out.
@@thenewgolddigger1015
There is 93% overlap between the New Testament & the Greek Septuagint and only 68% between the New Testament and the Masoretic text.
Christ knows what he was quoting, the Septuagint!!!!! 👍
I believe it is the Gospel proclamation of "the righteousness of Christ alone" that interprets and gives validity to the Bible above any linguistic translation of the Bible. both the New and the Old Covenant group of writings.
James may have been in favor of the Gentiles getting on the bandwagon but we know that this took the form of their becoming Jews. James was "of the circumcision" (as Paul describes in the Book of Galatians). But whether James actually believed that the Gentiles should have been circumcised or not is almost incidental. James' church in Jerusalem, by at least Acts 16 (post Council of Jerusalem) was overrun by the priests and the Pharisees who started coming in around about Acts 6 (after the money ran out and their socialist commune began to crumble).
Jesus said, "Beware the leaven of the Pharisees", but James never heard that warning. (Jesus' brothers didn't believe in Him (John 7:5).) The Jerusalem church, under James' bishopric, became a defacto sect of Judaism.
Comparing Psalm 2:9 with Revelation 2:26-27 (about 14:50 or so). The reading from Psalm is a decree, a promise from God to God. This reads as though God is speaking to Himself. This is a decree from God to the Messiah. Christians view this as God is speaking to Jesus. The Messiah (or Jesus) will "break them with a rod of iron and dash them into pieces".
In Revelation, Jesus Himself is talking to the Church at Thyatira (vs18) and is promising his followers a similar but different decree. I don't see his comparing the two different conversations as a valid argument.
FACTS !!!
There is 93% overlap between the New Testament & the Greek Septuagint and only 68% between the New Testament and the Masoretic text.
Christ knows what he was quoting, the Septuagint!!!!! 👍
So it's not about 'the Septuagint' but about what books are nowadays falsely put into it as Septuagint. So the canon of what we today buy as Septuagint is a catholic canon that added books according to the false church doctrine to the greek translation of the Old Testament.
The title of this presentation is like clickbait. I was never told by my professors and have never picked up from any scholarship I've ever come across that the New Testament writers went to what they called a "Septuagint" and that it matches what we now call a "Septuagint." To conclude as he does that there is no "it" to call the Septuagint--well, I get the logic. But the logic really does carry through to where we could just as easily say there is not an "it" when it comes to the Bible because "it" also is an assembly of various manuscripts, not to mention a various assembly of books that varies according to tradition. So, which is it going to be?
+Nathan this lecture he gives on the term septuagint is much clearer "On the Invention and Problem of the term Septuagint - Peter Williams - ETS 2016
" th-cam.com/video/xhmMKwl3KeE/w-d-xo.html And he is consistent, he says he prefers the term scripture to bible.
The Septuagint is the original not a translation
This man has a fixation on the nomenclature of the Septuagint. Spent soooo much time about the name "Septuagint" and how it probably came about. In Jesus's time, it was simply called scriptures, or writings, or written or the law, etc. - regardless whether they're quoted from Masoretic, or Septuagint, or whatever translation. I think Jesus and the apostles quoted more times from Septuagint than from Masoretic. None of the two has exclusive claim to infallibility, both has probable errors and compliment each other's deficiency.
Example: [Acts 7:14] compare with [Exodus 1:5]
version Maseretic text 1008Year
How do you know Jesus read from the Septuagint? Who said? Do you know when the Septuagint was created?
And why would Jesus read and quote in Greek? When he was a Jew that spoke Hebrew and Aramaic in those times? Weird you’d think Jesus read the Septuagint to the Jews.
@@JoshuaMSOG7 Because the gospels match the LXX in the quotations more than 80% of the time. And in some verses of the pauline epistles if we change the quotation by the hebrew massoretic the argument dont work. Paula, a disciple o Jerome note that already in the IV century. Even Jerome cannoy refute that Paul was using and depending the LXX as his source.
@@Jeronimo_de_Estridao Its a poor argument due to the fact the LXX has the apocrypha books and if that was scripture and as much importance it would be mentioned. Due to the fact Jesus always talked about “ What does the scripture say” he referred to the entire Tanakh. Does that include the apocrypha? The LXX?
@@JoshuaMSOG7
Well, "Jesus" did quote from the Apocrypha.
justin martir, tertulian, origen and other writers in the span of 100-200 AD did critisize extensively the "misinterpratations of the jews" as they said. and they all talked about a "septuagint translation" that's different from the jewish tradition of those times (which later will be called masoretic because it was edited and preserved by the masoretes from about 700-900AD). so, even if we dont have the authentic septuagint, we have an edited version from the first christians, used and transmitted in the years 30-100AD and the later generations of christians with their official collection from 250-300 AD onwards. in the other hand we have a polemic version of those same texts, rejecting some "not so important books" in very later times , and preserved from enemies of christianity. our only attestation of writings before christ is the dead sea scrolls, in many of them the text agrees with the septuagint. secondly we have the apostles and the new testament relying 90% in a version that looks like the septuagint. so, lets say we dont have the authentic text from any of the 2 traditions. we remain still with the choice between what we have. and the right choice if we want to be honest, is the "septuagint".
It doesnt mean anything that they are the oldest especially when you consider any text aligning with kjv would've been destroyed on purpose not preserved
And if they found a second century gnostic or Arian cult scroll it too would be the oldest ever but it would still be false in doctrine that's the trick satan has pulled
Why does everyone hate the kjv
Why does everyone hate biblical Christianity
Because of the disapproval of the world that alone would be enough to convince most babys in Christ that it's the narrow path
@@jgvtc559 i dont see believing orthodox and catholics hating god and the christ. also, what you mean "gnostic" text? the same people i mentioned above, those saints, made the definitions of what gnostisim and heresies are for us, and they accept a certain text. to imply respecting greater people than me makes me hate any christia group is false as far as i know(and i should know me)
. also what destruction of the text that the kjv is based upon? the kjv was written in 1611 by king james mainly using the textus receptus , and especially in the new testament it really looks like the byzantine text that we use in total here in greece. it is a beautiful english version and it has correct doctrine, that doesnt falsify the longer traditional versions..
@nikos tizitzi 1. There is no evidence that the septuagint was made in the BC era.
2. The copy that we have right now is from Origen and he admit that it was corrupted, even the Catholic Church admits that has New Testament verses inserted in the septuagint.
3. The findings of the septuagint in the dead sea scrolls are all dated 1st century BC to 1st century AD.
Check the evidence! The septuagint is a forgery!
@@nikostzitzi4056 There was no such thing as a Textus Receptus when the KJV was first published, in 1611 and there is no such thing as a Textus Receptus manuscript. The Textus Receptus wasn't compiled until 1894 (i.e. 283 years later) by Scrivener, who looked for _printed editions_ (not actual manuscripts) of the Greek & Hebrew texts supporting the KJV translation, from which he then created the Textus Receptus.
Septuagint is actually the Temple period portable Old Testament.
Made by Jews from Israel for Jews.
The Masoretic text is the post Temple portable version, revised in Europe.
Both were made outside of the Holy Land, but the Septuagint was made by Israelites who traveled just to write it while the Temple stood and carried out its sacrificial duties by the Levite Priests.
The Masoretic text is a post Temple period translation when the Jews had scattered, the sacrificial system and Levite Priesthood was gone and the non-inspired Babylonian Talmud law book took supremacy in the Jewish culture.
Let me give you a explanation why you got the LXX in the NT. Originaly it was written in hebrew, so the verses need to be translated. Those verses who quote OT needed also to be translated, but already translation was existed, so they used the LXX. To the speacker of this video: the word in biblical hebrew of nation transformed in the roman time to gentile(talmud, mishna hebrew and even modarn hebrew), the same woth the word of forener who transformed to convert. The fact that the word gentile in greek is ethnos(by the way gentile is nation in latin) shows that the NT was in some form of jesus life time hebrew who apears in mishna and other jewish books of that time. There is many phrases there who existing in that time hebrew like do not smite any yotha do not smite any tag, hebrew: על קוצו של יוד, על קוצו של תג. More: טול קיסם מבין שינייך טול קורה מבין עינייך
דע מאין באתה ודע לאן אתה הולך טיול מי אתה עומד לתת את הדין. אל תעשה לחברך מה ששנוא עלייך ועל זאת תלויה כל התורה
How are the collective of Septuagint books from various Hebrew text, various translators, and various times in history are SO dramatically different from the Bible that you do believe in? Is the Canonical Bible, based on BHS/BHQ and NA28 that much more authentic? BTW BHS does use G (Septuagint) in the critical apparatus which does align in some cases with Samaritan Pent. My point is that a proper textual criticism could try to rule out obvious later additions, mods, mistakes, etc. and G can be just another source in the textual apparatus…which it is. Therefore no one manuscript, or a category of manuscripts can be 100% authentic for you to believe in.
Obviously you are correct that some books in the Ralf’s Septuaginta should not be categorized as Old Testament or Hebrew Bible.
for future generations
Thanks for wasting three minutes of my life, Because that’s all I could take.
Williams seems to call את an "object marker," but it would be better called a preposition. Spanish is similar in using a before what we call in English direct objects sometimes. (Instead of hitting Bill , one hits TO bill). So Hebrew has a preposition to indicate "direct object is coming".
A "preposition" to indicate a direct object is called: (direct) object marker.
When I studied Hebrew at Uni, אֵת (eth) was called a direct object marker. If it was to be given a name, אֵת (eth) would be called a particle, not a preposition...
The Septuagint predates the masoretic by eight hundred to two thousand years
Original Septuagint was only Genesis to Deuteronomy....
No one has that original copy.
The Lxx Septuagint was compiled by unknown Hellenists apostate s.
Origen later assembled the " old testament" very different than original hebrew Tanakh Bible.
+motorhead don't assume that the Septuagint was ever in tanach order (and tanach does denote order)
Modern scholarship agrees that the whole Septugiant including the prophets was written between the 3rd and 1st century bc. The authors of the gospels used the Septugiant.
Jesus is the Messiah. You can't stop him. You Jews have no right to say anything since you have persecuted and killed the prophets that came before Jesus. Then you rejected the Messiah. Don't act like you're saints.
Maria Salome The Pharisees is the correct word to use. Jew means all of Judah. That would be incorrect.
That’s not true because the Hebrew copies of the Scriptures contained over 39 books. Enoch, Jubilees for example are considered books, but to be set aside (Chitzonim). The book of Sirach in the Greek was originally written in Hebrew. The Talmud even contains portions of the text from Sirach. The Pharisees removed all references to angels interacting with the priests, Levi being the first of the Levitical priesthood, the 364 day calendar, Temple liturgy, removal of the testament of the 12 tribes. The Greek copies of the Scriptures was from the Hebrew copies, which are more accurate since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The languages don’t matter as much as the text.
@@pm5206 no....the men of the great assembly in 350 bce cannonised the Hebrew Scripture s which is the Tanakh used today. There were no "Pharisee s" back then.
Hillel 2 set up Hebrew calendar still used today and is the most accurate in the world as per NASA.
There are books that were not included that rabbis then considered not Ruach Hakodesh .
Hundreds in fact.
Chazal did edit as did sages like Ezra.
Greek hellinist s are not to be included as Philo was banned as an apostates.
The Mishna Talmud bavli is in Aramaic..
Rabbi Berel Wein history lessons Orthodox Rabbi Golden Standard
Please explain Shem! Go to Hebrews and the “other” view of Jesus’ high Priest status? The Masoretic text was corrupted, fact! We can’t get around it.
You should definitely let Jesus know that hes wrong in Luke 4:18 then since he quoted Isaiah 61:1 from the LXX, not the hebrew masoretic text, im sure he’ll consider the correction
LOL did it ever occur to you that the translators of modern Bibles rendered Isaiah 61:1 from the Greek text i.e the LXX and so when you see the greek in Luke 4:18 it matches the translated greek of Isaiah that in English it then is the same? Rather than Jesus quoting the LXX in a few instances this explanation is much more plausible.
Do you like Dj screw? I know you do
@@Run2ChristLivei am referring to the hebrew Masoretic texts, not “modern bible English translations”. Do u know how textual criticism works? The hebrew leaves out verses that Jesus quotes, that the LXX preserves, caught up?
@@guitaoist Yes very familiar thanks.
And where did the LXX get it from, the clear blue sky? No they got it from the Hebrew and translated it into GREEK. JESUS was not speaking Greek to his audience, so he was NOT quoting the LXX. I think you need to read that first comment again.
@@Run2ChristLive to clarify, we all know the original Tanach was hebrew, not Greek, the LXX was copied from original hebrew to greek yes, but my point is that the masoretic text does not represent the “original” hebrew by any means, so we have to look at the LXX for clarification. Which is why no hebrew text anywhere today says the same thing as it did in Jesuss day, so we look to older resources aka the Septuagint to see what it really says in those instances. And the fact is Luke 4:18 aligns with the LXX Isaiah 61:1, not the hebrew texts in circulation among synagogues.
I want to believe Peter. Any text that claims a legend such as 70 translators producing the same word for word document makes me recoil
That's only a version that came out later. Some church fathers said it was revised every day by all translators, and they tried to find the best rendering during the 72 days of work. (It was 72 people working btw).
You keep a better original when there are more copies.
There is 93% overlap between the New Testament & the Greek Septuagint and only 68% between the New Testament and the Masoretic text.
Christ knows what he was quoting, the Septuagint!!!!! 👍
So don’t accept the Septuagint because there were various forms some more than others so we should say “them not it”...... isn’t that also true about the Bible? So should we Refer to the Bible as the Bibles and then not it?
I don't have PhD, I believe in God. I see how people don't understand simple things. Everything has been rewritten hundreds of times. The past does not matter! Today Jesus opens his Father to us. Nobody knew the Jesus's Father in Old testament period! All the bloodthirsty gods of the Old Testament obeyed Jesus! Today the only holy spirit opens and teach us. And nothing can change or rewrite this truth. Think about that! This is matter! People spend so much time and energy to argue about what is true or false in past. But only need focus on the Jesus, and He will teach by holy spirit. John 14:26 '' ... the Holy Spirit - he will teach you everything and will remind you of everything I have told you.' John 14:26
"Quote" & "quotation: are misused by Williams. The NT NEVER quotes the Hebrew OT, because of the definition of the word "quote." A quote must be exact to be a quote. If John said: "Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water," but Then Bill says, let me quote what John said, John said: "Jack and Jill went up the hill to get a bucket of water," Bill has misquoted John. The change of one word or punctuation negates a claim of a quotation. A quote must be EXACT. Thus one may not use English to quote Spanish, nor Greek to quote Hebrew. What we have in the NT is the Holy Spirit giving us in Greek the gist of the Hebrew OT. So stop using quote & quotation for what CANNOT be a quote. Also, any Greek presentation of the Old Testament written after the NT may well be affected by the NT. IF the NT cites (not quotes) an OT passage in Greek, then later Christians who presented a Greek OT would be likely to prefer the NT words to any Septuagint words. Thus one cannot establish the source of a NT citation (not quote) based on a later Greek OT.
As for the 4 gospels...speak for herself when ya say..." we struggle over the meaning of these 4 gospels....." you may..." doesn't mean..." we all...." your limitations about God,s word....are not mine....." Dr..." what the hell ...ever....!!!!! Dan.2:22 ;Jn.14:26;15:26&16:13...Jer.33:3 Isa.1:10-20(V18);55:7,8Jer 29:13....
I like peter but he was extreamy incoherent and bias in this lecture. His quotations were ectrealy selective. He should also check our bible translations where the scholors have corrected hebrew text based in lxx
If you want to know if "it" is what it's supporters claim, compare the book order of the Hebrew, Septuagint and the OT in any Bible.
Now ask yourself why a supposedly BC Septuagint follows the AD Church OT book order instead of the BC Hebrew book order?
There is only one answer!
I think I follow what you are saying but the Septuagint is old testament only, it does not have the NT to follow it's book order. Do you mean it (XXL) follows a Bible order of books which came after A.D thus making it's claim of being written in B.C times come into doubt?
The book order is not the translation. Apart from the few "multi-volume books" (Torah, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles) there is no "one true book order", though there are some logical sequences, e.g. Torah-Joshua-Judges-Samuel-Kings, or Jeremiah-Lamentations (in which however MT and LXX do not really differ).
The LXX book order and the Church's book oder match (regarding the Old Testament) because either: the LXX still had no fixed book order and hence the Christians established it or the LXX already had a book order, in which case the Christians merely adopted it. That book order is more thematic, the MT's book order (Torah-Prophets-Writings) is chronological in order of recognition as Scripture. There is no Divine imperative that the MT's book order has to be followed. Nor will you find a book order approved of in the New Testament. You will however find allusions to the three chronological groups.
In the end: what difference does it make if we place Chronicles or Ezra-Nehemia among the Historial books (which in the MT mostly are part of the Prophets) or Daniel among the Prophets - as the LXX has it - or with the MT among the Writings?
@@buick107 It's not choosing between me and Jesus. I'm not actually claiming importance while Jesus was not speaking on this. It is you putting words into his mouth, calling them 'parameters'. So you are operating with two false alternatives while ignoring everything I wrote to engage in your conspiracy theory.
@@str.77 You attempt to dismiss Jesus' 2 clear witnesses with...
conspiracy theory?
@@buick107 His claim that the LXX sequence of books contradicts the LXX'S BC origin is a conspiracy theory. I mostly was thinking of the silly "Rhyme with dome" allusion. Right now, U can't find it anymore.
This guy is spending a LOT of time on semantics. It better have a huge payoff at some point.
Sheesh! That was the long way around saying, "The Septuagint is not a single translation". It was a pretty good presentation, tho. I had to slow it down to 0.75 to hear the words he was using.
I think that we should look at the earliest Septuagint when we go to translate the Pentateuch
Well the Pentateuch was originally written in Hebrew…so why translate a translation? Better to consult the original language as the primary source.
@@christo-chaney
Absolutely NOT !!!
There is 93% overlap between the New Testament & the Greek Septuagint and only 68% between the New Testament and the Masoretic text.
Christ knows what he was quoting! 👍
@@SpartanLeonidas1821 which Septuagint manuscript? There are at least 4 of them that I can recall & they’re all written after the New Testament. Why consult a translation but ignore the source language?
@@christo-chaney Because the early Church Fathers confirmed that the Jews began changing the texts that prophesied about the coming if Jesus & we have PROOF of this !!! Modern discoveries CONFIRM the early Church Fathers claims!
Jesus in the NT quotes almost exclusively from the Septuagint!! That’s my Authority as a Christian.
Again:
There is 93% overlap between the New Testament & the Greek Septuagint and only 68% between the New Testament and the Masoretic text.
Christ knows what he was quoting, the Septuagint!!!!! God Bless 🙏
@@SpartanLeonidas1821 you’re telling me that the Jews changed every single manuscript (likely in the millions of copies) to hide evidence of Jesus? Zero proof of that. What evidence did the church fathers provide to show? If the Hebrew text is so corrupted then why do so many Christian Bibles use it as the basis for their translations? The companies providing the most prints of Masoretic Hebrew Bibles are Christian!
What is the true word of God? If any.
In english, any Kjv...nasb...lexham will do...avoid things like the passion, new living.
I honestly don't know what this guy is het up about--
All he said was the not to be named compilation of "books" is not truly what has been claimed and he also said, "I believe there were Greek translations of the Hebrew before the New Testament."
So, he and most here do not know the letter of Aristeas was not written before Jesus Christ lived and that the Sinaiticus was written by Constantine Simonedes in 1840-41 and stolen by Constantin Tischendorf in 1844. Obviously it wasn't written in the 4th Century as claimed.
We have lied to and we know it is by Satan's church of Rome, Roman Catholicism and the antichrist Papacy!
Jesus said "do not be decieved"
EXACTLY !!!
There is 93% overlap between the New Testament & the Greek Septuagint and only 68% between the New Testament and the Masoretic text.
Christ knows what he was quoting, the Septuagint!!!!! 👍
Interesting Jesus quoted from the Septuagint…..always check for truth.
FACTS !!!! 💯
There is 93% overlap between the New Testament & the Greek Septuagint and only 68% between the New Testament and the Masoretic text.
Christ knows what he was quoting, the Septuagint!!!!! 👍
Since this LXX...is LATE 2nd Century....they or it would be citing Paul...Paul being a 1st century writer....st al
Dr. Michael Brown, who is a Messianic Jew and an Ancient Near East Languages scholar refutes everything that this guy is saying about the pronunciation of YHWH. He says that people are translating YHWH with the vowel pointings that the Masoretes added to keep anyone from saying YHWH's name and to instead pronounce "Adonai". They don't realize that by saying Yahuah, people are inadvertently pronouncing a corrupted name.
Aloha M M,
thanks for the info. Lord Yeshua of Nazareth taught us to address the Most High: Father. In this regard, if you address the man who sired you by his name he'd be insulted. It would ve good to have the name that the ancients used to name Him, but (Quote):
"All who shall call upon the name of the Lord will be saved," Yet "no other name of the Lord "has been given under the heavens, by which men are saved," except that of God, who is Jesus Christ, the Son of God, to whom even the demons are subject as well as evil spirits and the whole apostasy through the invocation of the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, is cast out from men, and wherever anyone of those who beleeve in Him and do His will shall call upon Him, He is present, fulfilling the petitions of those who call upon Him with a pure heart. (end of quoted.) Around 180 A.D., St. Irenaeus of Lyons, a Greek-speaker and writer wrote that, also quoting, in "The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching."
Brilliant analysis !
There are a lot of inconsistencies with the Roman Septuagint LXX which just don't add up.
If the whole of Christianity is based on it, it begs the question.... Why ? ....
PLUS - Why cant Christianity explain the much older DSS preferring to use the LXX and much later [1000 yrs later] Masoretic Texts which only cover the 24 books of Jewish old testament ?
Something is not right here particularly when we are told the Hebrew originals of the LXX are "all lost" and we now have just the Greek, when we have always had the OT in Hebrew !!
You jew?
❤️ fascinating
CHRIST HIMSELF quoted from the GREEK Septuagint !!!
Need any other Authority?
There is 93% overlap between the New Testament & the Greek Septuagint and only 68% between the New Testament and the Masoretic text.
Nice try at Tricking people though! 😃
IF you study the Lord Jesus Christ and his words, you will know the Septuagint is superior when understanding the OT.
BIG FACTS !!! 💯 May God Bless you for speaking the TRUTH
There is 93% overlap between the New Testament & the Greek Septuagint and only 68% between the New Testament and the Masoretic text.
Christ knows what he was quoting, the Septuagint!!!!! 👍
@@SpartanLeonidas1821How about getting your "facts" right!?!
The Old Testament is quoted 283 times in the New Testament. As mentioned 11mins into the lecture, those quotes differ from the Septuagint about 185 times (65%). Hardly a ringing endorsement of it. Departures from the Masoretic text (which didn't exist at the time) are 10% worse, at 212 (75%), which only goes to show that the writers of the New Testament didn't rely exclusively on the Septuagint as we now have it or on the Hebrew text used by the Masoretes. Quotations directly from the Hebrew text include Matthew 4:15-16, John 19:37, & 1 Corinthians 15:54.
the KJV was corrupted. Did you know Luther wanted to remove Hebrews James Jude and Revelation while adding words to several Bible verses. He also omitted seven books from the OT. When asked why he responded because I will it to be so.
Flavius Josephus (1st century) clearly said that they valued the texts UNTIL king Artaxerxes.
The stated reason why Jerome was in a panic to create an authoritative Latin version was, that Rome was being flooded with translations and each was built on a different Greek translation! I have long argued that the term "the Bible" is also bogus, and for the same or at least similar reasons.
Jerome was WRONG !!!!
Why i don't believe in the bible that christ himself actually used...🤷♂️
Right... cause he carried it around in his man bag... no. Its the Greek nt language obviously parallels Greek Lxx ot cause its the same language.
Rule them in Greek is not Shepard.
How dare you provide us detailed information. Seriously- I enjoyed the video.
This guy is just making stuff up.
Men written the Bible or the Almighty God ?? ... Men create the Universe or They (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) ? Angels and Humans Hold the Universe or They (Father, Son and Holy Spirit)?
Has anything escaped God's attention?
So, only the Elect Born Again Christians (Romans 8:28-30) believe absolutely that the Bible is written from the Almighty God =John 10:1-38 .... 26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, [e]as I said to you. 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30 I and My Father are one.”
The Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Ancient Greek these are the reference languages that we must learn and take lessons.
THEY ARE DECEIVED
I do appreciate this because it answered my question about the Septuagint, but I think he turned a 10 min conversation into a 55 min lecture unnecessarily. You only start to understand what he’s talking about in the last 10 minutes and the rest is just things he’s thought about not very well explained, I don’t know if it’s a British thing to hear yourself talk or he wants to sound more important so he adds many words. (Lol I feel I added to much already)
There is 93% overlap between the New Testament & the Greek Septuagint and only 68% between the New Testament and the Masoretic text.
Christ knows what he was quoting, the Septuagint!!!!! 👍
Most theologians are actually very impressed with Dr. Peter Williams work - especially his criticisms on the Septuagint.
That's concerning
His criticisms of the Septuagint are not very good for someone with a doctorate
@@user-dj3is2qh2u They don’t have to be in his circles. People are really want to believe what I want to believe and he doesn’t have to defend it hard
Im sorry, but this man is simply Lying!
There is 93% overlap between the New Testament & the Greek Septuagint and only 68% between the New Testament and the Masoretic text.
Christ knows what he was quoting, the Septuagint!!!!! 👍
@@user-dj3is2qh2u FACTS !!! 💯
There is 93% overlap between the New Testament & the Greek Septuagint and only 68% between the New Testament and the Masoretic text.
Christ knows what he was quoting, the Septuagint!!!!! 👍
What are these people playing at, it's obvious The Septuagint is far superior and used by Jesus. Bad people these are!
LOL please read the pinned comment to this video.
Septuagint is truth, Masoretic is corrupt, that's just the facts.
Thank you for presenting the Popish position.
@@buick107 That's actually not the "Popish position" - The Vulgate is translated from thre Hebrew. All the officially used modern translations (e.g. English) are translated from the Hebrew, though the LXX is taken into account.
@@str.77
1. The popish position is any defense of the Septuagint with it's corrupt Catholic Apocrypha.
2. Remember, don't automatically copy and paste your advisors.
You MUST PROOF READ FIRST!
People who say the MT wasn't made until 10th cent CE don't understand it was just the nikkudot, the pronunciation tradition was created to preserve how to read it orally. The consonantal text was not created or changed at that time, it existed centuries before. Sorry, but the Jewish adherence and respect for the letter text far surpasses the gentile adherence or respect for the Hebrew text. It seems pretty evident that the early Christians had no qualms with altering the OT text when desired, like adding Paul's words into the OT in order to "prove" he was quoting it. Now we are so far removed from it that we see it just as it was intended by those early gentile Christians. This is also evidenced by early statements about the divine inspiration for the "perfect Greek language" version, lol.
This is all rather complex. To put it all simpler. This volume did not come into existence until close to 200 years after Christ. The Sep was influenced by the NT- not the other way around.
At 9:35 the book "When G_D Spoke Greek" there are 3 sets of 666 at the top, and at the bottom there are 3 sets of 666. G_D has never spoken Greek. People have understood Him in Greek. G_D's language is a language Too Holy for man to speak. Only The Holy Spirit can reveal Truth if we have let Him into our heart. In prayer it is The Holy Spirit that intercedes on our behalf. It is important to keep in mind that the Romans were pagan. The Romans murdered Jesus. The Roman's murdered seekers of Truth. The Romans collected all the Knowledge that came from G_D. The Romans held on to their pagan roots. The Romans revealed only what their schemes revealed, and they hid what their schemes desired. You have heard it said "He who holds the past controls the future." The schemes are still at work. G_D has a plan. Satan has done everything within his power to cause division to keep seekers from discovering Truth. The earth is encased with many countries and many languages. Satan's schemes divided us to destroy Truth, so that we may believe his lies. Now he schemes with a united plan, known as the New World Order, to deceive the whole of the nations to bow to his son the anti Christ. His mark is 666.
Patricia Ribaric Jesus is God, and Jesus spoke Greek.
I believe that Mesoretic or the Hebrew bible is still more powerful..coz it tells the truth and I found out that there are things that was change ..in the history.
Mitch Tyndall why did he speak greek?
Mitch Tyndall Jesus probably knew some commercial Greek, as did those who lived around Him, but He clearly would not have preached to Palestinian Jews in Greek when their own language was Hebrew or possibly Hebrew Aramaic. He was conveying very important concepts of life and death importance. Speaking with a strong and accurate vocabulary and syntax would have been vitally important. Btw, I do believe the Septuagint is credible, but that the apostles would have been quoting what the Septuagint was translated from.
Paul Beduhn I believe the Septuagint is credible, but I do not believe a Greek speaker could ever qualify to be the Hebrew Messiah.
40:40
The name IS YA'OH
Septuagint was used before Christ came -- it was the Scriptures Jesus used and Christians until the council of Nicea in 325 AD. This text was quoted EXTENSIVELY by the unified early Christians from 100 AD until 325 AD.
Masoretic text was made by the people who wanted to discredit the deity of Jesus -- they made the Masoretic text in about 1000 AD. There were very dubious moves to corrupt the Hebrew Scriptures early on in about 365 AD by using VOWELS, which THE ORIGINAL HEBREW BIBLE NEVER HAD.
heya heya
Can I get sources for these? That "Jesus used the Septuagint" and "Masoretic text was made by the people who wanted to discredit the deity of Jesus"
Thanks. God Bless.
I want proof, sources, something, but no one can give it to me.
Is there evidence of this other than just someone saying "This and this happened"?
@james taylor I don't know about any other "distortions" but that the Masoretes changed VIRGIN to YOUNG WOMAN is nonsense. The Hebrew word in Isaiah can be understood as either - and the two are not mutually exclusive. Consider the German word "Jungfrau", literally "youngwoman" but infact meaning "virgin". The LXX understood the Hebrew word as VIRGIN and used the Greek term that specifically means VIRGIN and not a broader word meaning YOUNG WOMAN The Masoretic Text didn't have to make any choice because they didn't have to translate. The Masoretic Text doesn't exclude the meaning "virgin" at all. It is not the Masoretes that distorted anything (oh, and BTW, the Masoretic Text in Isaiah is confirmed by one of the first Dead Sea Scrolls) but rather modern interpreters who take issue with the meaning "virgin".
@@anthony.waggoner "Almah, which means young woman, not virgin" - wrong. It can mean both young woman and virgin.
The apostles and Gospel writers and Paul ALL quoted from the Septuagint! About 300 times. Therefore, because the N.T. is the inspired Word of God, I accept the LXX as the inspired Word of God.
I should add that Jesus Christ also quoted the Septuagint.
Doesn’t the earliest manuscripts of the Septuagint only date back to the 4th century or so CE? Over 290 years before the NT was first written?
Dare to change, you proud human, the Old and New Testament (written in the Hebrew and ancient Greek text) and you are dead= 2Samuel 6:6-7, Acts 5:1-11, Revelation 22:18-19. God written His original Books in purpose all the generations read the correct Word of God. (Mathew 5:17-19, Mark 13:31, Luke 16:17, 21:33, Revelation 20:11). God protects His Book. Don't be fool and you fight the Word of God=Jesus= Luke 20:17 The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? 18 Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
The preface of the Septuagint marketed today points out that the stories
surrounding the B.C. (before Christ) creation of the Septuagint (LXX)
and the existence of a Greek Old Testament are based on fables. All of
the Septuagint manuscripts cited in its concordance were written after
A.D. 200 and represent Origen’s Hexapla, in kind. The Encyclopedia of
Religion and Ethics elaborates, calling “the letter of the pseudo-
Aristeas, a manifest forgery and the fragments of Aristobulus highly
suspect.” It also points out many of the LXX’s Gnostic and Platonic
readings.
The fable of the Septuagint arose from the counterfeit letter of pseudo-
Aristeas. It said that seventy-two scholars were called, around 250 B.C.,
by Ptolemy, king of Egypt, to create a Greek Old Testament. This
Egyptian ruler supposedly asked them a number of questions related to
pagan philosophy and pagan theology. If they could answer these
questions, they could be on the Septuagint “committee.” The fable
further states that six Jews from each of the twelve tribes were
involved. The word Septuagint means seventy, however, not seventy-
two. The Septuagint (LXX) cannot be the word of God for several
reasons:
1. Only the tribe of Levi was permitted by God to write the
scriptures (1 Chron. 16:4).
2. Any Jew living in or returning to Egypt was in direct
disobedience to God’s command in Deuteronomy 17:16. “But he
shall not... cause the people to return to Egypt... forasmuch as the
LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way
It contains apocryphal books such as Tobit, The Prayer of
Manasses, 2 Esdras, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2
Maccabees; there are also additions to Esther and Daniel. Jesus
never quoted the Apocrypha and the Jews rejected it also.
(Corrupt manuscripts followed by the NIV and NASB contain
these false books within the Old Testament text itself!)
4. Origen’s six-column Old Testament, the Hexapla, parallels O.T.
versions by Theodotian, Symmachus, and Aquilla. All three were
Gnostic occultists.
The NIV’s three letters could be changed to OOO,
“Old Origen’s oracles
So how do you explain the NT quotations from the OT that agree with the Septuagint rather than any known Hebrew text?
This guy is exstremely ignorant on the septuigent. All primary source documented and archaeological history.
He's an expert in early Syriac translation, the president of Tyndale House, and member of the ESV translation committee. Who are you?
Brother Nick can't spell Septuagint, but he calls an expert in textual criticism a dummy and "exstremely ignorant". Amazing arrogance...
YAHWE : يهوا
Man he really explained this like garbage
Short story, the masoretic didn’t exist during the New Testament
THe Odes of Solomon ARE NOT in the Septuagint, I am looking at my Septuagint and the Odes are notthere , so either you are using a versiom that has it so you can the 'knock' all versios of the Septuagint, or you are lying . I go with the lier lier pantrs on fire
Yep. The Odes were added later, after the Septuagint (Greek copy of Scripture) as we commonly know was written. The Odes of Solomon are likely from the RCC. 3rd to 4th century was the approximate date of composition
For those who say that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, you are reading the wrong translation! Research where your translation comes from and you will find you should rely on the KJV. You will not find Jesus quoting from the Septuagint in the KJV.
Michelle It appears He is quoting it in Luke 4:18-19. Your concordance will direct you to Isaiah 61:1,2. When you read it, you will see the difference between the MT and LXX.
kjv is the most corrupted bible
Michelle Well, take a look at any time Jesus quotes the Old Testament in the gospels. There are three possibilities: either the quote is the same in LXX and MT. Let's leave out those. If they are not the same, then Jesus will either quote the LXX or the MT. To find out which you'd have to look at the Greek NT text not the KJV. If the Greek Gospel were to follow the LXX but the KJV weren't, then the KJV would be guilty of mistranslating the Gospel.
(TBH, I don't know if such cases exist but I'm laying down the logical way to go about it.)
That never means that Jesus necessarily quoted from the LXX but merely that the Gospel writer used the LXX for these quotations because he wrote in Greek.
@Paul Beduhn The MT was "a text that was translated from the Greek and back to Hebrew a millennium or more later, after Christ." but rather a text that was always in the Hebrew and was passed down through the generations. the Dead Sea Scrolls that it was around even in the years BC - but so were other versions, on one of which the LXX was based.
"would not try and remove any thing that they could to nullify Jesus as the Messiah?" No, they wouldn't because in doing so they would tamper with their own Scripture. Sure the Rabbis rejected Jesus but that was not all they were about. They rejected Jesus because they thought he wasn't the true Messiah. And yes, after 135 they downplayed any messianic element in Judaism. But to think they would change their Bible text is just plain silly. That would have been cutting off their arm to spite the hand.
@Paul Beduhn The length of the ancestry of Abram has nothing to do with Jubilees (as presented in the Bible) as the cycle of sabbath years and jubilees only began once Israel entered the Land
This guy has not the slightest education
This guy has 3 degrees. One of those is a P.h.D from Cambridge.
Brother Nick, Based on the several comments of yours I have read here, you have got to be the stupidest person I have ever come across in the TH-cam comments section and WOW is that saying a lot...A LOT.
Hey Peter, get yourself a KJB and stick to it!!
it will all become clearer for you....and your listeners
Praise the Lord