I absolutely love the Septuagint, I read from it along with the Mesoretic text and the Greek new Testament. In many parts, the new Testament quotes the exact words of the Septuagint. The one I recently worked on is: Paul's quotation looks exactly the same as the Septuagint👇 Tanakh Psalm 19:4: בְּכָל־הָאָ֨רֶץ יָ֘צָ֤א קַוָּ֗ם וּבִקְצֵ֣ה תֵ֭בֵל מִלֵּיהֶ֑ם לַ֝שֶּׁ֗מֶשׁ שָֽׂם־אֹ֥הֶל בָּהֶֽם׃ Septuagint 👇 Psalm 19:4: εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν ἐξῆλθεν ὁ φθόγγος αὐτῶν καὶ εἰς τὰ πέρατα τῆς οἰκουμένης τὰ ῥήματα αὐτῶν.. Greek New Testament 👇 Romans 10:18: εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν ἐξῆλθεν ὁ φθόγγος αὐτῶν, καὶ εἰς τὰ πέρατα τῆς οἰκουμένης τὰ ῥήματα αὐτῶν. My translation,👉 "their voice went out into all the earth and their utterances into the ends of the inhabited land"
Paul's quotation looks exactly the same as the Septuagint because the Origin wrote the Septuagint sometime before 240 AD. Paul's quotation looks exactly the same as the Septuagint because Origin copied Paul's 48 Greek words from Romans 3:13-18 directly into the text of Psalm 14. Origin even admits this. The Septuagint is nothing more then one of the columns of Origins Hexapla (six ply). The modern versions of the Septuagint and nothing more then the blending of codecs Vaticanus, Siniaticus and Alexandrinus. Catholic all. Don't be fooled.
It should be noted that the Latin Vulgate follows the Old Testament of the Greek Septuagint. Why is this? Because the authors of Scripture most often quote from the Septuagint and not the Hebrew Scriptures. In fact, there are often times when the Apostles agree with the Septuagint against what we know as the Hebrew Masoretic text.
That is false. Saint Jerome used contemporary Hebrew manuscript of his days. Except for the apocrypha majority of the vulgate is is more similar to the Masoretic Text
@@jenex5608 what is false in what I stated? Jerome used some Hebrew texts for the Psalms, sure he had command of Greek, Latin and Hebrew. The Septuagint (LXX) translation is far more ancient than the Masoretic Text . . . the Septuagint is far more accurate as well. It is a more faithful representation of the original Hebrew Scriptures.
@@1907jdee even tho I ain't a Christian tho I believe in Messiah you're right. The Masoretic text have been corrupted by either our ancestors or Proselytes who had authority like you can see in Maccabees. I.e. how the high priesthood was bought etc., so you can only speculate who had authority over scripture Canon (and I don't trust the Sanhedrin at all) it's either Hebrews or a mixed bag of brews and Proselytes/Herodians/Idumeans/Samaritans/Greeks&Romans etc.
My understanding is that Augustine pleaded with Jerome to use the Septuagint as the basis for the Vulgate but rather he chose to go with the Hebrew instead because of a strong Jewish influence. This is one of the reasons our current English OT is based on the Hebrew and not the Greek. Even when most of the NT references are to the Septuagint.
Thank you..so many books of the bible are being explained from the septuagint ..while we still carry our NIV versions...is it hard to get this version..
The new English translation claims to be closest to LXX.IFound discrepancies.Genesis 6:4 originally says angels.The net says nephilim.Which one do you suggest as being best English translation
It's not one of the most important. It is the most important translation of the Bible. The early Apostles quoted from the LXX. Does that tell you something? Yes it is the most important translation. More important than the masoretic translation. Older than the masoretic translation by 0ver one thousand years.
great job. Check out what Justin Martyr in 150 AD said in Dialogue with Trypho the Jew ch 70 to 72 about WHY their Hebrew no longer matched the greek. Hmmm... interesting.
Yuck. I genuinely have to pray for acceptance of militant, narcissistic, accusatory “Christian’s” who spend most of their life judging members of other denomination or religious belief all together. Again, yuck…
Because every time I read a new testament passage quoted from the old testament they never seem to word it the exact same as the new testament and understanding its because the apostles were all quoting from the LXX, I have then started my research in watching videos as to why and will buy this version very soon!
@@user-hf8zv7qw4lhope you see this So which bible is the first translation from Armaiac ? Do we have one just one first bible ? Because we get asked oh which bible is the true one ! I wanna answer and say this is the one the rest are all translations into diff languages
I have a question..I know that there is a myth which says that the 70 were locked in different cells and they worked seperately to make the translation. After that when they compared the different translations it was the same.. Is that true ? And if it is How is that possible ? How 70 people will make 70 translations and they will all be the same at the end.
@@lisargantz8224 Not at all ! Then it would not of contained such obvious errors and contridictions............ not to mention the shady history of how that version of that Bible came about........in doubt ? Why are today's Jews in shock as to Christian beliefs and concepts ? Investigate ,that's a start.
Think people that don't make sense. Think I heard a different story. 70 people did pick random books Other books not picked were ❤️🔥 burned you we all have to understand. This is all made by man Folklore Fairytales and Fiction Mythology from ancient times The Greek's and Roman Catholic Church. Put the KJV version together. This is not the historical words of the Most High people. Men just like you and me put the Bi 🐂 Bull together and that's a fact jack. We been made to believe to fallow blindly. That's a problem. At one believe it or die. And that was the law of the land at one time. They put this in the book. Obey your earthly master as you would Obey your heavenly master. Why would the Most High order you to obey someone else. Don't make sense. Why would I believe anything from this book. It's just words just liteture nothing special or divine Folklore Fairytales and Fiction Mythology People fallow blindly and think it's historical facts information was already available on the walls ancient Egyptian pyramids original storyline. Plagiarism copied rewrote people don't have a clue. JKV it's it's not the historical original Hebrew Bible anyway they changed it to control people. Most people didn't read anyway. All by disign. Greeks Romans wanted to be worshiped as God . Made the Most High in they image. Research everything for yourself. We been massacred and wiped off the fooled for thousands of years believing Folklore Fairytales and Fiction Mythology as the truth and the words of the Universe the Most High Creator. Just sharing information I ran across seeking knowledge
You are badly mistaken. There never were 72 scribes in or before 200BC, the entire tale of Aristeas is 100% fake. The Septuagint was a concoction by Origen and Eusebius approx 350AD and designed to draw people away from the fact that Jesus Christ was God Himself. Please for the sake of your soul look this up
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.
@@sleeexs There's far more evidence for Jesus existing than there is for Moses and more evidence for Jesus than for rabbi Yosi ben Halafta existing. Secondly, even the Talmud says Jesus Christ existed. I could go on but you seem content living in a fantasy.
But the museum of the Bible doesn’t have the legit documents. They had original stuff that they get got sued for and after that when they returned the artifacts they made fake scrolls.
@@lisargantz8224 It's happening! Just look up the confusion over divorce and remarriage. Some argue you can based on scripture and from cultures relevant and the time, some aren't you can't remarry after divorce. There is so much confusion and divide it's sad. All due to lack of clarity of what was actually meant. People are convinced they know one way or the other but so do the people on the other side of the argument. Translation and cultural practice changes caused the confusion.
The word Museum comes from Egypt, just like the text in the Septuagint. The library of Alexandria was an Annex building to the Museum and a store house of text. Egyptian scrolls, stolen and confiscated from temples along the Nile river, by Ptolemy 1 Solter.
@@OnoufriosDovletis the first museum "mouseion" was in Alexandria Egypt. So it is a Greek word yes, but it was in Egypt. It was also a storehouse of Egyptian texts.
@@andrek8317have you tried biblegateway. Also, I don't think it follows the septuagint. Look up Lexingham Septuagint, Brenton septuagint, or NET septuagint
I have watched this video and noticed the animated characters they have brown skin. My question is do the real Hebrews according to the Bible have brown skin?
Black or ruddy? They are two different things. Ruddy means reddish, not black. Hebrews were not black. The Greeks, Persians, Romans, Assyrians all agree they were White. Stop butchering the bible.
@@georgelucas8815 Neither, both Septuigant and Masoretic need to be read to fill in the gaps. However, in my research I am leaning more towards the Septuagint as it is less corrupt (aka altered on purpose)...
The Septuagint is in fact a thought-for-thought translation, insofar as it doesn’t try to use the literal word for word ideas expressed in Hebrew. Being a dynamic equivalence translation doesn’t diminish its value, but that is what it is.
Carlos Ramirez as a matter of fact, he was. His conquest into Egypt layed the foundation for Greeks in Egypt, Alexandria Egypt. Ptolemy 1 continued where Alexander left off. Later followed Ptolemy 2.
So this is the first bible ever translated from the Aramaic ? So we have a bible ONE. BIBLE. Are other languages are just translation so whne we are questioned on which. Bible is the right bible . This this is the one the rest all right to they are translation
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 of the Pentateuch portions in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Square Hebrew therein agree against the Masoretic Text. The LXX for 1 and 2 Samuel are backed up in 3 Dead Sea Scrolls against the MT. The Dead Sea Scrolls, Great Isaiah Scroll, agree with the LXX for Isaiah 9:6, not with the MT.
@@raymack8767 DSS agrees with LXX on Isaiah 9:6? DSS: For to us a child is born. To us a son is given; and the government will be on his shoulders. His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. LXX: For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him. MT: For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
@@yuypergollece6187 the doctrine doesnt change, in fact this backs UP de fact that the Angel of YHWH is Jesus before becoming a man, in judges 13:16-17, mano asked to him who was his name, the Angel responded "why do you ask my name which is peli? (marvelous in hebrew), and in isaiah the word great/marvelous councellor is also " peli ", this, confirming that the malak/angelos of YHWH/Kurios is Jesus, and on the LXX they probably omitted the other remaining text because they knew it was Jesus and probably thought that making emphasis on Just that part was the most important thing to translate
The video is misleading. The Septuagint is a translation into Greek of _only the first five books_ of the Hebrew scriptures. The other books of the Hebrew scriptures were translated later, but not by the "Seventy" elders. These additional Greek translations are _misnamed_ "septuagint", but their translators are unknown.
@@messianic_scam , there were seventy-two rabbis who translated the first five books of the Hebrew scriptures (the Torah) in about 250BCE, under the invitation of king Ptolemy in Alkexandria, and the translations were kept in his great library. The Latin word "septuagint" denotes this number of rabbinic translators. Only the Torah was translated by them. The other books of the Tenakh were translated into Greek by later rabbis, and their translation is considered to be of inferior quality compared to the highly educated "seventy" elders/rabbis who translated the Torah. You are evidently a very ignorant person. You can find the above in the jewish encyclopedia, as well as in Britannica. Wiki also has a great article on it.
I have great respect for Pastor, but he's a little off centered on the braids thing. Firstly, the Apostle was addressing issues with a particular body in Asia Minor who were more concerned with their lusts & temptations than their sanctification. Peter addressed many issues. Braids, lots, beautiful hairstyles & ornaments represented pride, beauty, & auspiciousness to Peter. He wanted the folk to focus on Holiness & not their appearances. Secondly, those original writings were translated, changed in some instances & placed in the Canon we call the Holy Bible. Changed to make those of African decent conform to European standards & servitude-while denying & renouncing their own heritage. I wear my hair in locs & have for over 20 years. It was the Lord Who told me to grow them. Did you know that Yehshua (Jesus) wore locs? Let us rise from European assimilation & yokes.
the Septuagint (LXX) does not reflect the Bible at the time of Jesus, which is seen from Josephus and others, to be no more than 22 (39 in the Protestant Canon). The oldest list of Books of the Old Testament as in the LXX, is found in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History iv. 26, which is from Bishop Melito, about 180 AD: "I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and I send them to you as written below. These are their names: Of Moses five, Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four of Kingdoms, two of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, Solomon's Proverbs also Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of the Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Twelve [minor prophets] in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books." Such are the words of Melito.” The only book that may be counted as "Apocrypha", is the mention of Wisdom. However, the Greek text, "Παροιμίαι ἡ καὶ Σοφία", can also be translated as "Proverbs even Wisdom", which it was referred to by many in the Early Church. The earliest Roman Catholic list of the OT Canon as in the LXX, is from "Pope Innocent", about 405 AD: “Which books really are received in the canon, this brief addition shows. These therefore are the things of which you desired to be informed. Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, and Joshua the son of Nun, and Judges, and the four books of Kings [1&2 Samuel, 1&2 Kings] together with Ruth, sixteen books of the Prophets, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus], and the Psalms. Also of the historical books, one book of Job, one of Tobit, one of Esther, one of Judith, two of Maccabees, two of Ezra [Ezra and Nehemiah], two of Chronicles” (Letter to Exsuperius, bishop of Toulouse) Only 5 of the additional books are in the copy of the LXX at this time. The Old Syriac Peshitta Version, of the 1st/2nd century AD, which was made from the Hebrew Old Testament at this time, did not have any of the additional books "“Thirdly, the earlier form [original] of the Peshitta, a daughter version of the Septuagint, seems to have omitted the additional books [apocrypha] and Chronicles. If it was of Christian origin, this would be a pointer to the restriction of the canonical list within the Church.” (P R Ackroyd and C F Evans; The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. I, pp.158-159 “In the OT the Syriac Vulgate, commonly called Peshitta, is a translation made direct from the Hebrew…the Hebrew underlying the Syriac is in almost all cases simply the Massoretic text.” (Encyclopedia Biblica, Vol. IV, p. 5025) “In the OT the Syriac Vulgate, commonly called Peshitta, is a translation made direct from the Hebrew…the Hebrew underlying the Syriac is in almost all cases simply the Massoretic text.” (Encyclopedia Biblica, Vol. IV, p. 5025) The editions of the LXX over the years added more books to the Old Testament, which were not part of the Original Hebrew Bible used by Jesus Christ, and His Disciples, nor by any of the Writers of the New Testament
We need not listen to the evaluations of academics in the 1950s, we have the dead sea scrolls to comb over and it seems that the septuagint is a closer and more accurate translation of the old testament than the masoretic text that the protestant canon and shamefully, some of the catholic bibles relies on.
@@johnisaacfelipe6357 The LXX is a translation; the MT is a text that is based on actual Hebrew manuscripts, and not a translation! The LXX can be good for understanding various readings in passages in the OT, but cannot be said to be more accurate than the MT. You say the LXX "is a closer and more accurate translation of the old testament", compared to what? The LXX has also been through a number of revisions, and was not used by Jerome for his Latin Vulgate, because he said it was unreliable, when he compared it to the Hebrew OT of his time.
So they translated based on their own understanding rather than doing it word for word.... If that wasn't the greatest mistake I don't know what was.... Everyone on this Earth can have a different understanding Of each different thing.... so for them to translate it based on their own understanding of what they thought the overall thought was, rather than word-for-word, They basically turned the word of God into their own understanding and they should have left it as it was word-for-word.... That is so frustrating to know.... They should have left the word of God as it was And translated it word-for-word... Then translating it into their own understanding was so uncalled for and it makes me so mad.... When you go back to the Aramaic Version of The Bible written In English you can see deeper into the word of God than ever, Them translating it into their own understanding It's just as bad as somebody worshiping the God of their own understanding, God is Not limited to your own understanding he far surpasses our understanding as it is written, So why should it be written to the limitation of man's own understanding rather than leaving it word-for-word as it is.... People will disagree but I don't care.... It should have been left alone for it is the word of God not to be limited by man's own understanding..... This makes me so mad
It is obvious that you only know one language. You probably have never even tried to study another language. It is completely misleading to always translate word for word. Languages change over time and have various idioms or expressions. When I was growing up, awesome was something special and appropriate for God. Today awesome is casually used and doesn't mean much more than o.k. Any older translation using awesome is most likely misunderstood by younger people today. What if I use English expressions such as "jump in the lake", " take a hike ", " if the shoe fits, wear it". If I am translating from English to another language, translating those expressions word for word won't work.
Look up "Why I Don't Believe In The Septuagint" (intentionally misleading title lol) by Dr. Peter Williams (a Septuagint scholar) to fill in some of the gaps, and glosses left by this short presentation.
The 72, ONLY wrote the first five books as you said, it is believed Origen wrote the rest. So the rest is not really the Septuagint!!!!! Did he change anything to make it go along with the NT? YES
@@raymack8767 Look it up in the Preface!!! The body of work commonly known as the Septuagint (or LXX) witnesses the earliest known version of the Jewish Scriptures in Greek. The pseudepigraphal Letter of Aristeas contains a legend of the miraculous completion of the translation of the Pentateuch by a committee of seventy-two translators. This legend provides the basis for the title we use today, through the Latin word for “seventy,” septuaginta, and the Roman numeral LXX. Brannan, R., Penner, K. M., Loken, I., Aubrey, M., & Hoogendyk, I. (Eds.). (2012). The Lexham English Septuagint. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press. That would mean the first five books of Moses!!!
@@willscholten1737 Problem is, the vast array of scrolls found in the DSS date anywhere from mid Third century BC until the 1st century AD. The LXX for 1 and 2 Samuel are backed up in 3 Dead Sea Scrolls, 1 and 2 Samuel are outside of the Pentateuch. Third, in spite of your Red Herring, given that the MT over 400 times in the DSS is ripped by the Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and Seotuagunt found therein and that they all agree with each other against the MT far more than they disagree, the starting point is to junk the MT.
@@willscholten1737 Those who went with the Masoretic Text over the LXX screwed up royally. 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 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. 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". Time caught up with the MT. Edit: [Roman] Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholics, and more and more protestants, are all embracing the Seotuagint like never before.
I read greek translation from 3-4 century witout any problem as Serbian. Greeks cant read half of this letters and Serbians never spoke greek language. Proof is that today only greeks speak Greek language and half of europe + Bulgaria (not Slavic tribe) speel Serbian(Slavic).
Septuagint removed Isaiah 2:22 and 37. The original Septuagint which 72 rabbi s were forced to translate into Greek was only Genesis to Deuteronomy. Septuagint does not match dead Sea scrolls . Only.the hebrew Tanakh Bible matches. Tenak Talk channel explains The original Septuagint Origen a early church father put together the LXX using Hexapla method. Ptolomey forced translation of Hebrew to Greek is a day of morning and a fast day on Hebrew calendar. There are now thousands of variant versions of the Christian bibles none match each other or the original koine Greek new testament or the original Hebrew Tanakh. The early church father s admitted modifying their own scripture such as 1John 5:7-8 and Mark 26,Mark 16:9-20 ,John 7:53,8:10 not in earliest original Koine Greek papyrus from 125ce to 300 CE+-. They also modified the Hebrew Scripture Tanakh such as Isaiah 7:14 " virgin " in future tense modification just one of hundreds There is only one version of the Hebrew Scripture Tanakh in history all match word for word in history. Yemenite Jews to Poland to America to Asia to Ethiopia all use the same Tanakh Torah. The Isaiah dead sea copper scroll being the most complete matches the Hebrew Scripture Tanakh used today. No Greek or Latin or English translation comes close. Verify all I stated .
Wromg. Those who went with the Masoretic Text over the LXX screwed up royally. 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.
@@raymack8767 except Origen the early church father out together the LXX using the Hexapla method. The original Septuagint 72 Rabbi s were forced to translate included only Genesis to Deuteronomy. Not the rest of the scripture s. Origen put together that LXX. So a church father has better knowledge of Jewish scripture than the Jewish rabbis? I think not. Isaiah 7:14 " the young woman has born a child" in present tense about King Hezekiah.. Not sure where you are getting your information from. Obviously not an academic source . Yet you mock the rabbis as "vowel masters"... And no one would be able to read Hebrew sefarah without knowing Talmud since all the keys for pronunciation and math for dates of Yom tov are in such. I note a flavor of anti Semetic conspiracies here .. Isaiah copper scroll from Qumram Dead sea scrolls matches the Tanakh ( masoretic) 99% . No LXx or Christian bibles come close to that. Kindly compare to Copper Isaiah Scroll (the most complete ) to your Greek translations I have .. I go with the original Hebrew authors not Roman church fathers Shalom
You are correct. The Septuagint is 100% fake. There is NO support whatsoever for Aristeas' claims. He made multiple claims which have long ago been falsified, and we have zero evidence of ANY Greek translations before Christ, except a fragment of Deuteronomy. The Septuagint is the work of Origen and Eusebius whose work was done mostly in Egypt where the Gnostic and Arian (Jesus wasn't God) heresies reigned supreme. They had the gall to put quotes of Christ from the Gospels into their work, making it look as though Christ was quoting from the Septuagint, something, regrettably, that all too many believe. In fact, Origen and Eusebius TOOK OUT some of Christ's words in their Septuagint, an offence which as you say they will answer for to Christ on the Day of Judgment
The Dead Sea Scrolls are pre-Septuagint. Here is the web site for the Dead Sea Scrolls held by the Israel Museum, Jerusalem. dss.collections.imj.org.il/ The links on this site are interactive with English translations. In addition, how do you know your local synagogue doesn't have a copy of a pre-Septuagint Hebrew text of the Torah?
+Truth Hitman The Dead Sea Scrolls are pre-Septuagint. Here is the web site for the Dead Sea Scrolls held by the Israel Museum, Jerusalem. dss.collections.imj.org.il/ The links on this site are interactive with English translations. In addition, how do you know your local synagogue doesn't have a copy of a pre-Septuagint Hebrew text of the Torah?
Lol typical Protestant propaganda "additional Hebrew texts;" I think you mean the deuterocanonical books, which are just as much a part of the Old Testament as any other books.
I absolutely love the Septuagint, I read from it along with the Mesoretic text and the Greek new Testament. In many parts, the new Testament quotes the exact words of the Septuagint. The one I recently worked on is:
Paul's quotation looks exactly the same as the Septuagint👇
Tanakh
Psalm 19:4:
בְּכָל־הָאָ֨רֶץ יָ֘צָ֤א קַוָּ֗ם וּבִקְצֵ֣ה תֵ֭בֵל מִלֵּיהֶ֑ם לַ֝שֶּׁ֗מֶשׁ שָֽׂם־אֹ֥הֶל בָּהֶֽם׃
Septuagint 👇
Psalm 19:4:
εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν ἐξῆλθεν ὁ φθόγγος αὐτῶν καὶ εἰς τὰ πέρατα τῆς οἰκουμένης τὰ ῥήματα αὐτῶν..
Greek New Testament 👇
Romans 10:18:
εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν ἐξῆλθεν ὁ φθόγγος αὐτῶν, καὶ εἰς τὰ πέρατα τῆς οἰκουμένης τὰ ῥήματα αὐτῶν.
My translation,👉 "their voice went out into all the earth and their utterances into the ends of the inhabited land"
How do I get this?
@@nickoanbramwell3422Lexham English Septuagint is a good option.
Are speaker of Greek and Hebrew?
Paul's quotation looks exactly the same as the Septuagint because the Origin wrote the Septuagint sometime before 240 AD. Paul's quotation looks exactly the same as the Septuagint because Origin copied Paul's 48 Greek words from Romans 3:13-18 directly into the text of Psalm 14. Origin even admits this. The Septuagint is nothing more then one of the columns of Origins Hexapla (six ply). The modern versions of the Septuagint and nothing more then the blending of codecs Vaticanus, Siniaticus and Alexandrinus. Catholic all. Don't be fooled.
It should be noted that the Latin Vulgate follows the Old Testament of the Greek Septuagint. Why is this? Because the authors of Scripture most often quote from the Septuagint and not the Hebrew Scriptures. In fact, there are often times when the Apostles agree with the Septuagint against what we know as the Hebrew Masoretic text.
That is false.
Saint Jerome used contemporary Hebrew manuscript of his days.
Except for the apocrypha majority of the vulgate is is more similar to the Masoretic Text
@@jenex5608 what is false in what I stated? Jerome used some Hebrew texts for the Psalms, sure he had command of Greek, Latin and Hebrew. The Septuagint (LXX) translation is far more ancient than the Masoretic Text . . . the Septuagint is far more accurate as well. It is a more faithful representation of the original Hebrew Scriptures.
@@1907jdee even tho I ain't a Christian tho I believe in Messiah you're right. The Masoretic text have been corrupted by either our ancestors or Proselytes who had authority like you can see in Maccabees. I.e. how the high priesthood was bought etc., so you can only speculate who had authority over scripture Canon (and I don't trust the Sanhedrin at all) it's either Hebrews or a mixed bag of brews and Proselytes/Herodians/Idumeans/Samaritans/Greeks&Romans etc.
My understanding is that Augustine pleaded with Jerome to use the Septuagint as the basis for the Vulgate but rather he chose to go with the Hebrew instead because of a strong Jewish influence. This is one of the reasons our current English OT is based on the Hebrew and not the Greek. Even when most of the NT references are to the Septuagint.
@@1907jdee
anything with Jesus in it is not more faithful and definitely the Jews had nothing to do with it 72 scholars yah right
Great video!!!!!
Such an interesting subject! I recently posted a review of a Septuagint and New Testament combined-the Biblia Graeca.
I see you in most videos that I watch regarding bible translations. Hello.
@@benedictalmarines721, hello! We must have similar interests!
Bravo!
Thank you..so many books of the bible are being explained from the septuagint ..while we still carry our NIV versions...is it hard to get this version..
The NIV is a horrible translation
2nd century BC!
B.C. is correct narrator mentioned B.C.E. which erases Christ i didn't appreciate that especially when referring to The Bible!
The new English translation claims to be closest to LXX.IFound discrepancies.Genesis 6:4 originally says angels.The net says nephilim.Which one do you suggest as being best English translation
It's not one of the most important. It is the most important translation of the Bible. The early Apostles quoted from the LXX. Does that tell you something? Yes it is the most important translation. More important than the masoretic translation. Older than the masoretic translation by 0ver one thousand years.
Not to mention the masoretes actively chose convenient translations against what they believed was christian heresy
great job. Check out what Justin Martyr in 150 AD said in Dialogue with Trypho the Jew ch 70 to 72 about WHY their Hebrew no longer matched the greek. Hmmm... interesting.
where do you get this history? What is your source?
@@lauratempestini5719 St. Justin Martyr was an early Church leader and debated Jews on why Jesus was the Christ
@@richlopez4466 Right.
Yuck. I genuinely have to pray for acceptance of militant, narcissistic, accusatory “Christian’s” who spend most of their life judging members of other denomination or religious belief all together. Again, yuck…
@@freeman7079 lol
Me: I bet the comments section is LIT...
Me: [Checks comments]
Me: Yep
Were there 72 copies of the Septuagint? What happened to them?
Dust dude, they are dust. The materials they are made from don’t last 2000 years. Which is why you needed people to continue to reproduce them.
Can you please tell me if the Dead Sea scrolls were written by Essenes or Zadokites?
Zadokites
Watch "the God Culture" he exposed the Essene lie
@@MrJole777 TGC Cult are the one to be exposed as big time liars
Great introduction. Thank you.
Does original Septuagint have chapters and verses?
Yeah. Google Septuagint Ellopos. It's a treasure!
Because every time I read a new testament passage quoted from the old testament they never seem to word it the exact same as the new testament and understanding its because the apostles were all quoting from the LXX, I have then started my research in watching videos as to why and will buy this version very soon!
So, then, would you say the septuagint is what we call the Bible today or is it an earlier translation only in Aramaic?
There is translation of Hebrew Bible to Aramaic. That's called Aramaic Peshitta. Syrians, Chaldean and Assyrian christians have this translation.
@@user-hf8zv7qw4lhope you see this
So which bible is the first translation from Armaiac ? Do we have one just one first bible ?
Because we get asked oh which bible is the true one ! I wanna answer and say this is the one the rest are all translations into diff languages
I have a question..I know that there is a myth which says that the 70 were locked in different cells and they worked seperately to make the translation. After that when they compared the different translations it was the same.. Is that true ? And if it is How is that possible ? How 70 people will make 70 translations and they will all be the same at the end.
God
@@lisargantz8224
Not at all !
Then it would not of contained such obvious errors and contridictions............ not to mention the shady history of how that version of that Bible came about........in doubt ?
Why are today's Jews in shock as to Christian beliefs and concepts ?
Investigate ,that's a start.
Think people that don't make sense. Think I heard a different story. 70 people did pick random books
Other books not picked were ❤️🔥 burned you we all have to understand. This is all made by man Folklore Fairytales and Fiction Mythology from ancient times The Greek's and Roman Catholic Church. Put the KJV version together. This is not the historical words of the Most High people. Men just like you and me put the Bi 🐂 Bull together and that's a fact jack. We been made to believe to fallow blindly. That's a problem. At one believe it or die. And that was the law of the land at one time. They put this in the book. Obey your earthly master as you would Obey your heavenly master. Why would the Most High order you to obey someone else. Don't make sense. Why would I believe anything from this book. It's just words just liteture nothing special or divine Folklore Fairytales and Fiction Mythology People fallow blindly and think it's historical facts information was already available on the walls ancient Egyptian pyramids original storyline. Plagiarism copied rewrote people don't have a clue. JKV it's it's not the historical original Hebrew Bible anyway they changed it to control people. Most people didn't read anyway. All by disign. Greeks Romans wanted to be worshiped as God . Made the Most High in they image. Research everything for yourself. We been massacred and wiped off the fooled for thousands of years believing Folklore Fairytales and Fiction Mythology as the truth and the words of the Universe the Most High Creator. Just sharing information I ran across seeking knowledge
cause it was a myth a lie how many lies been told you believe
I can read Ελληνικά even though I do not understand greek at all.
I've never tried to actually read Greek but just looking at it.. one can certainly see the derivations of many of our English words..
That’s cool.
Septuagint is the original bible. Many people like to deny that though. I read from the Septuagint and the Masoretic. I like the Septuagint better.
You are badly mistaken. There never were 72 scribes in or before 200BC, the entire tale of Aristeas is 100% fake. The Septuagint was a concoction by Origen and Eusebius approx 350AD and designed to draw people away from the fact that Jesus Christ was God Himself. Please for the sake of your soul look this up
@@anthonybennett5335 He didnt exist
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.
@@raymack8767 he didnt exist
@@sleeexs
There's far more evidence for Jesus existing than there is for Moses and more evidence for Jesus than for rabbi Yosi ben Halafta existing.
Secondly, even the Talmud says Jesus Christ existed.
I could go on but you seem content living in a fantasy.
But the museum of the Bible doesn’t have the legit documents. They had original stuff that they get got sued for and after that when they returned the artifacts they made fake scrolls.
Yea I love that song
I often wonder how much significance was lost in translation. There are many issues which have believers on one of two sides as to what was meant
God would never let that happen. He gives us just what we need
@@lisargantz8224 It's happening! Just look up the confusion over divorce and remarriage. Some argue you can based on scripture and from cultures relevant and the time, some aren't you can't remarry after divorce. There is so much confusion and divide it's sad. All due to lack of clarity of what was actually meant. People are convinced they know one way or the other but so do the people on the other side of the argument. Translation and cultural practice changes caused the confusion.
He said "B.C.E."! For shame, for shame!!
The word Museum comes from Egypt, just like the text in the Septuagint. The library of Alexandria was an Annex building to the Museum and a store house of text. Egyptian scrolls, stolen and confiscated from temples along the Nile river, by Ptolemy 1 Solter.
what do you mean the word Museum comes from Egypt? the word itself? It's a greek word coming from the Muses, goddesses of the arts.
@@OnoufriosDovletis the first museum "mouseion" was in Alexandria Egypt. So it is a Greek word yes, but it was in Egypt. It was also a storehouse of Egyptian texts.
@@punisher6 Alexandria was built by Greeks. It was a Greek city via colonization of the Mediterranean.
Why did you use BCE instead of BC ?
That video is banned in Fyrom :')
Amazing I learned Alexandria could have been 40% Hebrew at one time…
The Wycliffe New Testament agrees with the Septuagint exactly. That's my bible choice, Vaticanus/Vulgate.
I bound them together myself.
Is it possible to share the link of this version "The Wycliffe NT of the Bible? God bless.
@@andrek8317have you tried biblegateway. Also, I don't think it follows the septuagint. Look up Lexingham Septuagint, Brenton septuagint, or NET septuagint
I have watched this video and noticed the animated characters they have brown skin. My question is do the real Hebrews according to the Bible have brown skin?
The Dura Europas, the oldest cathedral circa mid 3rd century in Syria depicts all Euro White Israelites, some red heads. No dark skin.
Trevor Cameron according to the Bible they do have black or ruddy skin tone.
Black or ruddy? They are two different things. Ruddy means reddish, not black. Hebrews were not black. The Greeks, Persians, Romans, Assyrians all agree they were White. Stop butchering the bible.
Truth Seeker The real biblical israelites were people of color/black. They weren't white people.
Alvin delco I and the makers of this video know.
jeremy lore
The Israelites were forced to translate from Hebrew to Greek.
The Septuigant is not a thought for thought translation... 🤦🏾♂️ It's literally the best Greek word for word translation for an older Hebrew text.
Which one do you believe is the safest?
@@georgelucas8815
Neither, both Septuigant and Masoretic need to be read to fill in the gaps.
However, in my research I am leaning more towards the Septuagint as it is less corrupt (aka altered on purpose)...
@@gravityfallscanada Where are you leaning now in your research? I’m also on the same journey, seeking the truth of all these translations.
@@seanstults1271 me as well. Let me know. I use the kjv to find good precepts but I’ve been reading the Septuagint
The Septuagint is in fact a thought-for-thought translation, insofar as it doesn’t try to use the literal word for word ideas expressed in Hebrew. Being a dynamic equivalence translation doesn’t diminish its value, but that is what it is.
The septuagint that was written in 250 bc was destroyed in the fire and was retranslated many times over in the 1st and 2nd century.
wasnt Alexander the Great somehow involved in the making of the Septuagint?
Carlos Ramirez as a matter of fact, he was. His conquest into Egypt layed the foundation for Greeks in Egypt, Alexandria Egypt. Ptolemy 1 continued where Alexander left off. Later followed Ptolemy 2.
So this is the first bible ever translated from the Aramaic ?
So we have a bible ONE. BIBLE. Are other languages are just translation so whne we are questioned on which. Bible is the right bible . This this is the one the rest all right to they are translation
“The Septuagint is a thought for thought translation.” ... except for all the places that it is not...like in the Pentateuch
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 of the Pentateuch portions in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Square Hebrew therein agree against the Masoretic Text.
The LXX for 1 and 2 Samuel are backed up in 3 Dead Sea Scrolls against the MT.
The Dead Sea Scrolls, Great Isaiah Scroll, agree with the LXX for Isaiah 9:6, not with the MT.
@@raymack8767 DSS agrees with LXX on Isaiah 9:6?
DSS: For to us a child is born. To us a son is given; and the government will be on his shoulders. His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.
LXX: For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.
MT: For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
@@yuypergollece6187 the doctrine doesnt change, in fact this backs UP de fact that the Angel of YHWH is Jesus before becoming a man, in judges 13:16-17, mano asked to him who was his name, the Angel responded "why do you ask my name which is peli? (marvelous in hebrew), and in isaiah the word great/marvelous councellor is also
" peli ", this, confirming that the malak/angelos of YHWH/Kurios is Jesus, and on the LXX they probably omitted the other remaining text because they knew it was Jesus and probably thought that making emphasis on Just that part was the most important thing to translate
@@yuypergollece6187 you omitted words in LXX text.
@@acs1602
too much messianic in this feed
There are no Jews in the time of the Bible f the letter j is only 400 years old..
/facepalm
Its an english translation of the word יהודי
The jews didnt speak english
There is no j is Hebrew or Greek
That's correct the Greek people use the G or Gamma
What did they call Jerusalem?
Debbie Ward most things had a Y sound.
The i was made from the Y. The i then turned into the j with a hook.
Look into it
@@debbieward9732 It’s Ιερουσαλήμ Yeeroosalim. I think that’s how you pronounce it.
You mean 200 BC.
The video is misleading. The Septuagint is a translation into Greek of _only the first five books_ of the Hebrew scriptures. The other books of the Hebrew scriptures were translated later, but not by the "Seventy" elders. These additional Greek translations are _misnamed_ "septuagint", but their translators are unknown.
there was no seventy elder you take invented myth repeat it until you believe it
@@messianic_scam , there were seventy-two rabbis who translated the first five books of the Hebrew scriptures (the Torah) in about 250BCE, under the invitation of king Ptolemy in Alkexandria, and the translations were kept in his great library. The Latin word "septuagint" denotes this number of rabbinic translators.
Only the Torah was translated by them. The other books of the Tenakh were translated into Greek by later rabbis, and their translation is considered to be of inferior quality compared to the highly educated "seventy" elders/rabbis who translated the Torah.
You are evidently a very ignorant person. You can find the above in the jewish encyclopedia, as well as in Britannica. Wiki also has a great article on it.
Not a Jewish book, it is Israelites book.
I have great respect for Pastor, but he's a little off centered on the braids thing. Firstly, the Apostle was addressing issues with a particular body in Asia Minor who were more concerned with their lusts & temptations than their sanctification. Peter addressed many issues. Braids, lots, beautiful hairstyles & ornaments represented pride, beauty, & auspiciousness to Peter. He wanted the folk to focus on Holiness & not their appearances. Secondly, those original writings were translated, changed in some instances & placed in the Canon we call the Holy Bible. Changed to make those of African decent conform to European standards & servitude-while denying & renouncing their own heritage. I wear my hair in locs & have for over 20 years. It was the Lord Who told me to grow them. Did you know that Yehshua (Jesus) wore locs? Let us rise from European assimilation & yokes.
the Septuagint (LXX) does not reflect the Bible at the time of Jesus, which is seen from Josephus and others, to be no more than 22 (39 in the Protestant Canon).
The oldest list of Books of the Old Testament as in the LXX, is found in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History iv. 26, which is from Bishop Melito, about 180 AD:
"I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and I send them to you as written below. These are their names: Of Moses five, Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four of Kingdoms, two of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, Solomon's Proverbs also Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of the Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Twelve [minor prophets] in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books." Such are the words of Melito.”
The only book that may be counted as "Apocrypha", is the mention of Wisdom. However, the Greek text, "Παροιμίαι ἡ καὶ Σοφία", can also be translated as "Proverbs even Wisdom", which it was referred to by many in the Early Church.
The earliest Roman Catholic list of the OT Canon as in the LXX, is from "Pope Innocent", about 405 AD:
“Which books really are received in the canon, this brief addition shows. These therefore are the things of which you desired to be informed. Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, and Joshua the son of Nun, and Judges, and the four books of Kings [1&2 Samuel, 1&2 Kings] together with Ruth, sixteen books of the Prophets, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus], and the Psalms. Also of the historical books, one book of Job, one of Tobit, one of Esther, one of Judith, two of Maccabees, two of Ezra [Ezra and Nehemiah], two of Chronicles” (Letter to Exsuperius, bishop of Toulouse)
Only 5 of the additional books are in the copy of the LXX at this time.
The Old Syriac Peshitta Version, of the 1st/2nd century AD, which was made from the Hebrew Old Testament at this time, did not have any of the additional books
"“Thirdly, the earlier form [original] of the Peshitta, a daughter version of the Septuagint, seems to have omitted the additional books [apocrypha] and Chronicles. If it was of Christian origin, this would be a pointer to the restriction of the canonical list within the Church.” (P R Ackroyd and C F Evans; The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. I, pp.158-159
“In the OT the Syriac Vulgate, commonly called Peshitta, is a translation made direct from the Hebrew…the Hebrew underlying the Syriac is in almost all cases simply the Massoretic text.” (Encyclopedia Biblica, Vol. IV, p. 5025)
“In the OT the Syriac Vulgate, commonly called Peshitta, is a translation made direct from the Hebrew…the Hebrew underlying the Syriac is in almost all cases simply the Massoretic text.” (Encyclopedia Biblica, Vol. IV, p. 5025)
The editions of the LXX over the years added more books to the Old Testament, which were not part of the Original Hebrew Bible used by Jesus Christ, and His Disciples, nor by any of the Writers of the New Testament
We need not listen to the evaluations of academics in the 1950s, we have the dead sea scrolls to comb over and it seems that the septuagint is a closer and more accurate translation of the old testament than the masoretic text that the protestant canon and shamefully, some of the catholic bibles relies on.
@@johnisaacfelipe6357
The LXX is a translation; the MT is a text that is based on actual Hebrew manuscripts, and not a translation!
The LXX can be good for understanding various readings in passages in the OT, but cannot be said to be more accurate than the MT. You say the LXX "is a closer and more accurate translation of the old testament", compared to what? The LXX has also been through a number of revisions, and was not used by Jerome for his Latin Vulgate, because he said it was unreliable, when he compared it to the Hebrew OT of his time.
So they translated based on their own understanding rather than doing it word for word.... If that wasn't the greatest mistake I don't know what was.... Everyone on this Earth can have a different understanding Of each different thing.... so for them to translate it based on their own understanding of what they thought the overall thought was, rather than word-for-word, They basically turned the word of God into their own understanding and they should have left it as it was word-for-word.... That is so frustrating to know.... They should have left the word of God as it was And translated it word-for-word... Then translating it into their own understanding was so uncalled for and it makes me so mad.... When you go back to the Aramaic Version of The Bible written In English you can see deeper into the word of God than ever, Them translating it into their own understanding It's just as bad as somebody worshiping the God of their own understanding, God is Not limited to your own understanding he far surpasses our understanding as it is written, So why should it be written to the limitation of man's own understanding rather than leaving it word-for-word as it is.... People will disagree but I don't care.... It should have been left alone for it is the word of God not to be limited by man's own understanding..... This makes me so mad
It is obvious that you only know one language. You probably have never even tried to study another language. It is completely misleading to always translate word for word. Languages change over time and have various idioms or expressions. When I was growing up, awesome was something special and appropriate for God. Today awesome is casually used and doesn't mean much more than o.k. Any older translation using awesome is most likely misunderstood by younger people today. What if I use English expressions such as "jump in the lake", " take a hike ", " if the shoe fits, wear it". If I am translating from English to another language, translating those expressions word for word won't work.
Look up "Why I Don't Believe In The Septuagint" (intentionally misleading title lol) by Dr. Peter Williams (a Septuagint scholar) to fill in some of the gaps, and glosses left by this short presentation.
Wow, so that was written in Africa? Wow 🤩
The original septuagint was only the first 5 books of the bible and is long gone.
no it's a fnf song
Lol true
Don’t know who that is
The 72, ONLY wrote the first five books as you said, it is believed Origen wrote the rest. So the rest is not really the Septuagint!!!!!
Did he change anything to make it go along with the NT? YES
Couldn't have.
The LXX for 1 and 2 Samuel are backed up in 3 Dead Sea Scrolls against the MT.
@@raymack8767 Look it up in the Preface!!!
The body of work commonly known as the Septuagint (or LXX) witnesses the earliest known version of the Jewish Scriptures in Greek. The pseudepigraphal Letter of Aristeas contains a legend of the miraculous completion of the translation of the Pentateuch by a committee of seventy-two translators. This legend provides the basis for the title we use today, through the Latin word for “seventy,” septuaginta, and the Roman numeral LXX.
Brannan, R., Penner, K. M., Loken, I., Aubrey, M., & Hoogendyk, I. (Eds.). (2012). The Lexham English Septuagint. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.
That would mean the first five books of Moses!!!
@@willscholten1737 Problem is, the vast array of scrolls found in the DSS date anywhere from mid Third century BC until the 1st century AD.
The LXX for 1 and 2 Samuel are backed up in 3 Dead Sea Scrolls, 1 and 2 Samuel are outside of the Pentateuch.
Third, in spite of your Red Herring, given that the MT over 400 times in the DSS is ripped by the Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and Seotuagunt found therein and that they all agree with each other against the MT far more than they disagree, the starting point is to junk the MT.
@@willscholten1737 Those who went with the Masoretic Text over the LXX screwed up royally.
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 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.
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".
Time caught up with the MT. Edit: [Roman] Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholics, and more and more protestants, are all embracing the Seotuagint like never before.
@@raymack8767 So you are saying translations are more accurate than the original language??
Hebrew is Greek.
Dead sea scrolls date back to 200 bc not first century ad
I read greek translation from 3-4 century witout any problem as Serbian. Greeks cant read half of this letters and Serbians never spoke greek language. Proof is that today only greeks speak Greek language and half of europe + Bulgaria (not Slavic tribe) speel Serbian(Slavic).
Thats interesting as 2nd Book of Enoch was written in Slavonic.
Septuagint removed Isaiah 2:22 and 37.
The original Septuagint which 72 rabbi s were forced to translate into Greek was only Genesis to Deuteronomy.
Septuagint does not match dead Sea scrolls . Only.the hebrew Tanakh Bible matches.
Tenak Talk channel explains
The original Septuagint
Origen a early church father put together the LXX using Hexapla method.
Ptolomey forced translation of Hebrew to Greek is a day of morning and a fast day on Hebrew calendar.
There are now thousands of variant versions of the Christian bibles none match each other or the original koine Greek new testament or the original Hebrew Tanakh.
The early church father s admitted modifying their own scripture such as 1John 5:7-8 and Mark 26,Mark 16:9-20 ,John 7:53,8:10 not in earliest original Koine Greek papyrus from 125ce to 300 CE+-.
They also modified the Hebrew Scripture Tanakh such as Isaiah 7:14 " virgin " in future tense modification just one of hundreds
There is only one version of the Hebrew Scripture Tanakh in history all match word for word in history.
Yemenite Jews to Poland to America to Asia to Ethiopia all use the same Tanakh Torah.
The Isaiah dead sea copper scroll being the most complete matches the Hebrew Scripture Tanakh used today.
No Greek or Latin or English translation comes close.
Verify all I stated .
because the Septuagint was not translated from the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Leningrad Codex.
Hi mitz I agree tanak is the right translationss
@Matthew Aislabie i think you have to read until verse 9..☺️
Wromg. Those who went with the Masoretic Text over the LXX screwed up royally.
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.
@@raymack8767 except Origen the early church father out together the LXX using the Hexapla method.
The original Septuagint 72 Rabbi s were forced to translate included only Genesis to Deuteronomy.
Not the rest of the scripture s.
Origen put together that LXX.
So a church father has better knowledge of Jewish scripture than the Jewish rabbis?
I think not.
Isaiah 7:14 " the young woman has born a child" in present tense about King Hezekiah..
Not sure where you are getting your information from.
Obviously not an academic source .
Yet you mock the rabbis as "vowel masters"...
And no one would be able to read Hebrew sefarah without knowing Talmud since all the keys for pronunciation and math for dates of Yom tov are in such.
I note a flavor of anti Semetic conspiracies here ..
Isaiah copper scroll from Qumram Dead sea scrolls matches the Tanakh ( masoretic) 99% .
No LXx or Christian bibles come close to that.
Kindly compare to Copper Isaiah Scroll (the most complete ) to your Greek translations
I have ..
I go with the original Hebrew authors not Roman church fathers
Shalom
No such thing as a jew bce
There is.
The LXX is an AD translation and NOT a BC translation! One day you will answer God for these comments...
You are correct sir. This video lies. And they know it.
[Citation Needed]
You are correct. The Septuagint is 100% fake. There is NO support whatsoever for Aristeas' claims. He made multiple claims which have long ago been falsified, and we have zero evidence of ANY Greek translations before Christ, except a fragment of Deuteronomy. The Septuagint is the work of Origen and Eusebius whose work was done mostly in Egypt where the Gnostic and Arian (Jesus wasn't God) heresies reigned supreme. They had the gall to put quotes of Christ from the Gospels into their work, making it look as though Christ was quoting from the Septuagint, something, regrettably, that all too many believe. In fact, Origen and Eusebius TOOK OUT some of Christ's words in their Septuagint, an offence which as you say they will answer for to Christ on the Day of Judgment
@@anthonybennett5335 He didnt exist
Wrong.
Torah scroll portions from Deuteronomy, from a synagogue in Egypt, from the Septuagint, date to the mid 2nd century BC.
Jews don't call the Septuagint a "translation". They call it a "writing" because it is not an accurate "translation" of the original Hebrew.
The Dead Sea Scrolls are pre-Septuagint. Here is the web site for the Dead Sea Scrolls held by the Israel Museum, Jerusalem. dss.collections.imj.org.il/ The links on this site are interactive with English translations. In addition, how do you know your local synagogue doesn't have a copy of a pre-Septuagint Hebrew text of the Torah?
How would you know, since no Hebrew manuscript in existence is older than the Greek Septuagint ?
+Truth Hitman
The Dead Sea Scrolls are pre-Septuagint. Here is the web site for the Dead Sea Scrolls held by the Israel Museum, Jerusalem. dss.collections.imj.org.il/ The links on this site are interactive with English translations. In addition, how do you know your local synagogue doesn't have a copy of a pre-Septuagint Hebrew text of the Torah?
You have not provided concrete evidence to prove the Dead Sea Scrolls predate the Septuagint. Because it doesn't. That is fake information
+Truth Hitman
"A dog returns to its vomit...."
Lol typical Protestant propaganda "additional Hebrew texts;" I think you mean the deuterocanonical books, which are just as much a part of the Old Testament as any other books.