I'm not sure if you realise this even though it should be obvious to any Christian in the world but the talmud is not a reputable source for historical information. According to that book Jesus was not the messiah.
In Luke's gospel when he gives the genealogy of Jesus he states (3:36) that Cainan was the son of Arphaxad. This is not in the Masoretic text so where did he get it from if not the septuagint?
1.) Exodus 1:5 in the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) Square Hebrew agrees with the Septuagint against the MT that all the souls from Jacob were 75, not 70 which the MT claims. 2.) The older Square Hebrew from the DSS agrees with the Septuagint against the MT for Deut. 32:8-9 in using Sons/angels of God and not sons of Israel. 3.) The Square Hebrew in the DSS for Deuteronomy 32:43 lines up with the Septuagint against the MT. 4.) The Septuagint for 1 and 2 Samuel are backed up by 3 DSS and the MT is known among scholars as botching 1 and 2 Samuel badly. 5.) The MT wrongly has Saul becoming King at age one and ruling for two years. 6.) The MT actually left out an entire line from a Psalm that the Square Hebrew and the Septuagint preserved, thus the so-called masters of vowel memorization not only forgot vowels but also consonants. 7.) Psalm 40:6: a messianic proof text for the Incarnation: The MT: Thou hast dug out my ears. The Septuagint: A body thou hast prepared for me. 8.) Concerning another messianic psalm, Psalm 22:16/17, the DSS Square Hebrew and lines up with the Septuagint against the MT. 9.) Baruch, Sirach, Tobit, and Psalm 151 are written in Hebrew in the DSS. 10.) ▪︎The chronologies of Genesis 5, 11 of the Paleo Hebrew and the Septuagint line up against the MT. ▪︎Literary sources before 100 AD line up with the LXX not the MT on this: Josephus and Philo (30/70 AD) did not use the Septuagint to come to their conclusion that lines up with the Septuagint. ▪︎Eupolemus, the Jewish 2nd century BC historian's chronology, comes close to aligning with the Paleo Hebrew and Septuagint and not the MT. ▪︎Jewish Demetrius the Chronicler's (3rd century BC) chronology comes very close to the Paleo Hebrew and Septuagint and against the MT. ▪︎biblearchaeology.org/research/biblical-chronologies/4349-mt-sp-or-lxx-deciphering-a-chronological-and-textual-conundrum-in-genesis-5 Since synagogues around the Mediterranean used Septuagint and Square Hebrew, even in Palestine, Greek was the lingua franca, Jesus grew up near Sepphoris where Hebrew and Greek were both spoken and where Joseph could ply his trade, Christ quoted the scriptures, spoke to the Syrophoenician woman, and Mark/Luke were written to Romans/Greeks, some will be hard-pressed to prove Jesus used only Hebrew. Concerning key messianic scriptures, Catholics, Copts, Orthodox, and Protestants see that the leaven of the rabbis and then the Masoretes seemed to target scriptures that point to Jesus Christ. The Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint all agree with each other against the MT far more than they disagree, thus the starting point is to sideline the MT. There are dozens and dozens of instances where the, Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint agree against the MT: By the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses let every word be established. Deut. 19:15; 2 Cor. 13:1. And if they argue against the LXX, how do they get around the Square Hebrew in the DSS for these scriptures?
@@raymack8767 #5 - This is a misinterpretation of the Hebrew idiom "a son of x years in his reigning" which does not always refer to a person's age. Chronologically speaking, Josephus uses sources which contradict each other, sometimes supporting the MT and sometimes LXX. The book of Jubilees found in the DSS supports a short chronology. Given that most of the DSS supports the MT over the LXX, I believe it would be a mistake to "sideline" it. The LXX has numerous variants and a lot of missing verses compared to the MT which has remained fairly stable for the last 2,000 years. Both traditions have their place.
@@nealcorbett1149 The overwhelming weight which is including both centuries before and after the DSS and the Paleo Hebrew in the DSS supports the longer chronology and rebuts the work of the Christ deniers who tinkered with the chronology as those before in the 2nd and 3rd century had no reason to. And the Talmud and Mishnah torpedo the scribes and Masoretes post 100 AD showing the attemots by them at the beginning showed corruption and contradictions among them.
@@nealcorbett1149 The DSS has over 400 instances where the Square and Paleo Hebrew agree with the Septuagint over the M;. I just listed a few The major point that matters are the references to Christ that the Christ deniers of the MT, who targeted certain Scriptures removed, listed in 3, 7, and 8, where the DSS backs up the Septuagint. So at the very least the MT will have to be redone using the far older Dead Sea Scrolls.
@@raymack8767 The majority of the long chronology is dependent on Genesis 5 & 11 (~1466 years) of which only Gen 5:13 has been found in the DSS (as far as I know) and most of that verse has been "filled in" from the MT. So I don't know WHERE you are getting this "overwhelming weight" from. If you could provide some credible sources, I'd be interested.
Jerome wrote the revised Late n Vulgate. It was not based on the traditional text. There was a pure Latin text in use. Jerome admitted his version was a perversion.
St Jerome was also the originator of the word, Rapture, divested from the Latin Vulgate, which the Protestant church still clings despondently unto this day; until the Midnight Cry of Matthau 25, and then~! they, the lead preachers, publishers, writers will have to pen a letter of Retraction for this word, AND Trinity, as these are not found in the King James, as well as a humble apology. GTGTG
@@keithwhitlock7021 what do you mean “revised Latin”? Obviously there were other Latin translations floating around out there and as would be expected they probably differed from one another. Also, what do you mean he did not translate his vulgate from the “traditional text?” Please tell me you don’t mean the Byzantine family of minuscules ( the “majority” manuscripts) that didn’t exist yet. And when did Jerome admit his version was a perversion?!?
Can you then explain why many quotations from the New Testament of the OT (I believe the TR to be accurate BTW) do not match the Masoretic text's translation of the OT? For example, Deut 32:43 doesn't have "let all of God's angels worship him" as testified by the Book of Hebrews. There are several many such issues when it comes to the Masoretic text. What text do you think the Apostles were using when quoting the OT? If you say Masoretic, I would ask you why is there such a huge difference? Finally, I believe your point of view about the Septuagint comes from your already existing bias for the KJV. Your heart wants to be grounded on 1 Bible translation and thus you find it very hard to accept the fact that the KJV's OT was translated from the Masoretic text and not the Septuagint. I'm still studying this and would not claim to be an authority on the subject. However, I would like to hear your point of view regarding the questions I raised.
That Hebrews "quote" you mentioned is not convincing, do you have any others that are fairly obvious maybe an entire verse that the new testament writer SAYS is a quote? Some say the Septuagint simply copied the greek new testament and so far that is what I see.
ChildOL Hebrews 10:5, "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:" KJV /Masoretic text Psalms 40:6, "Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; ”mine ears hast thou opened:” burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required." Septuagint Psalms 40:6, "Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body thou hast prepared me: whole-burnt offerning and sacrifice for sin thou didst not require." The last Bible quote is from the Septuagint. The Masoretic Hebrew text in the King James Bible says mine ears hast thou opened, not a body you have prepared for me. Major difference! There are other examples like this. Some people think the Jews deliberately changed these verses to make the readers doubt Jesus.
@@dbutube22 1. Didn't have to be in the Psalm, God just inspired the writer to put it there. 2. When someone's ear is opened, God is preparing thier body.
It is all complicated and needs research! But if you see "Truth Is Christ" website by Brandon Peterson he shows the mathematical perfection in the Masoretic text used in the King James Bible. The modern versions switched to the Septuagint /Kittles revision of the Biblica Hebraica as he was hired by Hitler to corrupt the Bible making it more useful to support Nazism.
but don't we know that the Septuagint is older than the 900 AD Masoretic whether or not it was BC, and that would make it less susceptible to Jew adulterations.
@@Mishakol1290 BC Septuagint: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_Rylands_458 Papyrus Rylands 458 is a copy of the Pentateuch in a *Greek* version of the Hebrew Bible known as the *Septuagint* . It is a papyrus manuscript in roll form. The manuscript has been assigned palaeographically toward the middle of the 2nd century *BCE* , and before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls it was the oldest known manuscript of the Greek Bible. The manuscript has survived in a very fragmentary condition.
Remember the Jesuits were the ones who made paleography and that authors can use the same text style of writing back then, that’s how forgeries can be made
@BibleFire Probably, but the evidence shows that the septuagint added verses from the New Testament to the Old Testament with the purpose to say that Jesus or the apostles quote the septuagint. Also they try to “fix” verses like Genesis 11:12. They added the apocrypha as God’s word. I trust the MT!
Wow. The skullduggery has been in full effect for a long time. Looks like that mystery of iniquity tryna change God's word. Scary. And angering. Blessings.
1st century Jewish historians, Josephus and Philo, and also 2nd century Church fathers like Irenaeus and Justin the Martyr, all agree that the Greek Septuagint started to be translated during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphius. So, should we just completely ignore what they have to say? By the way, when the gospel went forth, what Bible did the disciples give to the churches? Well, 90% of the world was speaking Greek. So, did the disciples give them a Greek translation of the Bible? Or did the disciples give them.... What? Hebrew copies?
The short answer is: Yes, completely ignore what they have to say. For a more complete explanation, here's a link: www.chick.com/Information/article?id=What-Is-The-Septuagint So, you think the disciples went out and dispersed bibles?
We can't know the exact words, or even language Jesus used. What I thought we did know, is that most NT quotes line better up with what is known as the septuagint. Either this means that the writers of the NT scrolls later invented a new set of OT scrolls to line up with what they wrote, or some greek version of the OT scrolls were in use by the intended audience. Most likely there were different versions of the hebrew at that time as well. All the different versions are sufficiently in agreement though. I would almost expect the masoretic scribes to ignore any sources that better support the gospel, and the Christian's to prefer the ones that support it, even though I think both groups did everything in good faith. The texts are in large part in agreement. And the fact that they are different points to something hugely important in itself; human language and concepts and even ways of thinking change over time. To attempt to perfectly preserve a text is to guarantee it's meaning will change as the people change over time. To better preserve the meaning, changes are required. However, some meanings change in such ways as to make us see new things that even the original authors and readers didn't. That is revelation.
@@MortenBendiksen well that was a lot of logic in your post. Is that allowed? Sarcasm off - I do believe before Christ's time the Septuagint existed. I myself have switched from the Masoretuc to the Septuagint based Bible.
@@nashvillain171 so you take the word of a man who's lived two thousand years later then take the word of Christians who lived during the time of the Apostles?
Please read the section subtitled The translation of the Old Testament out of the Hebrew into Greek of the KJV 11-page preface titled The Translators to the Reader that’s been missing from the KJV along with the Apocrypha since about 1890 AD . pdf online.
i wont to get away from it the Septuagint no wounder the son of the most high said this Matthew 23:13-39 King James Version (KJV) 13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in
I love your videos and I have learned a great deal from you. I have watched this series all the way through and as usual, you have compelling analysis. My question is this. Other sites claim that New Testament quotes of the Old Testament - even quotes in the KJV - follow the Septuagint more than Masoretic What are your thoughts?.
Fun fact about Ptolemy Philadelphus II - he was far from being a good king or an observer of Mosaic law; he married his own sister and declared the two of them Theoi Adelphoi and Theoi Soteres, “Sibling Gods” and “Savior Gods.” You can find mention of him in Daniel chapter 11, when it speaks of ‘giving him the daughter of women, corrupting her’ and how she wouldn’t retain her power, that’s Ptolemy II Philadelphus’ daughter, Berenice, who he gave in marriage to Antiochus II Theos - both the Ptolemaic and the Seleucid dynasties had a nasty habit of declaring themselves to be gods
The issues you bring up in regards to the apocrypha are valid, the problem is you don’t want to admit 1st century Jews believed and were exposed to these writings, because it somehow damages Christianity. It doesn’t. I think part of the issue is a misunderstanding of what it means to be inspired scripture.
The oldest witnesses to the LXX include 2nd century BC fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957), and 1st century BC fragments of Genesis, Exodus,Levitcus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Minor Prophets (Rahlfs nos. 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and 943).
Have you considered that fanatical folks "attached" fables to truth? This causes many to assume the truth to be a part of those "fables". The Septuagint was not used by Jerome's (440 A.D.) "Latin Vulgate". He preferred Masoretic texts. No set of MS are completely reliable. ~Steven of Montreal
According to the Translators to the Reader document, in some King James Bibles (Cambridge, LCBP, Trinitarian Bible Society, &c.), the _seventy_, or the Septuagint, was also the basis for the commentaries of the "Church Fathers"!
+a King James shield Agree, the KJV Translators to the Readers describe the Septuagint: "This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, *commonly so called*" "was not so sound and so perfect" "the Seventy were Interpreters, they were not Prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men *they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the Original, and sometimes to take from it*" ...
Greeks invaded israel 330bc. They translated all mythic documents from everywhere. Not middle east? Wrong You cant find stuff because you dont want to find stuff
When he looks at the subject through King James only glasses, this video is the result. I was once a "Authorized" only reader till I saw the numerous discrepancies between the Old and New testaments in the Masoretic based Bibles.
How about the discrepancy with the Septuagint where it says Metheusalah died 14 yrs after the flood, when only Noah, his wife and children were in the ark. Not to mention the Septuagint adds 100s of years to people's lives, and has them producing children in their hundreds(age).
@@abubbamundt100 - How about all the events the Bible says happened in the 300 yrs (MT) between the Flood and the birth of Abraham? Isn't the LXX timeline more logical?
you do realize the New Testament was written in Greek not Hebrew, it means the churches and people Paul wrote to in a language they both spoke and read, if the ancient world was like you say and the Jews of the Diaspora spoke Hebrew then why didn't Paul write to them in Hebrew or Aramaic? Simple, because just as today the world speaks English the world in the time of the Apostles was speaking and reading Greek not Hebrew or Aramaic, at that time Hebrew and Aramaic was only used in temple or synagogues around Jerusalem but further away the Jews and Gentiles spoke and read Greek. This would only make sense that Christianity would be able to spread as fast it did using a common language.
Only listened to part 1 so far, but he sounds like a defence attorney. ‘There is this problem with this source so we should reject all of it”. I just want the information, good as well as bad, without so much evaluation. The seeming lack of objectivity makes me double that we have all the information and doubt the conclusion so far. I hope to be proved wrong by the next parts.
Question for Brother Daniels: In Act 7 Stephen seems to mix up some of his "facts". Is this related to a different OT version he was quoting from? Have you addressed this in your series? Peace to you, and thank you for your videos!
@@Revolver9 No, they weren't "rounding down" to the nearest hundred. It is evident that the children of Israel were "sojourners in Egypt" 430 years and that they were "evil entreated in Egypt" 400 years. There's no inconsistencies in the scriptures and God didn't "round the numbers" please read the text. It's very plain.
Is it true that Jesus and paul and other quotes from the old testament was from the Septuagint. Ok if its not from BC ,how do you explain the Septuagint version quotes in new testament.
What is your proof that the NT ever quotes an extant Greek OT, let alone the LXX? There is nothing but fragments claimed to be Septuagint before the NT. And so far as I know, none of them ever call themselves the Septuagint. What is your proof that when the 4th century AD Greek Old Testaments (which never call themselves "Septuagint") agree with a NT wording, the 4th Century codices are not themselves quoting from the NT, preferring the gist of the OT given by the Holy Spirit in Greek to any other Greek OT?
This whole thing about the _seventy_, or the Septuagint, doesn't make any sense at all, no matter where you look: your own research (like David Daniels did in this vlog), common sense, or even the Translators to the Reader document that a lot of people are pulling things out of context to attack the King James Bible, because, there are just way too many bullet holes in this BC Septuagint story, including the ones brought up in this video: 1: In the Book of Jonah, Jonah was a Jew who apparently hated Gentiles (he would be kind of like a Calvinist in some ways), and in Ezra they were told in chapter 9:12 "Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, *nor* *seek* *their* *peace* *or* *their* *wealth* *for* *ever*: that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever." So, if the Jews in the Old Testament times were not supposed to make friends with Gentiles like that, then why would they, as Hebrew speakers, even give a care about the Greek language? 2: Jesus Christ is recorded as talking about jots and tittles in Matthew 5:18, and Luke 16:17 (Even in some of the new versions)! I thought jots and tittles had something to do with the *Hebrew* language, not Greek! 3: The New Testament uses the Aramaic word for Father (Abba) in Mk. 14:36, Romans 8:15, and Galatians 4:6! I thought Aramaic was a *Sister* language to Hebrew, according to the footnotes of the new versions that I have! and 4: In the Pentateuch, only the Levitical priests were given the responsibility of taking care of the Scriptures. So if 70 or 72 Jews took part in translating the Old Testament from Hebrew to Greek, then the vast majority of the Jewish people are in trouble with the Lord! God bless.
Isaiah 28:9-13 9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. 10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: 11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. 12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. 13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
1 Corinthians 3:18-20 KJV Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. [19] For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. [20] And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
Hello David, Firstly I want to say thank God for you and other King James advocates for bringing the very important issue of bible translations to the public. I frankly had no idea that there was so much involved. After much research (reading other people's research) and even contacting a priest of the Orthodox Church, I am fully settled with the King James being the best translation of the New Testament. Until recently, the KJV new testament was the only one the Orthodox Church would recommend it's English speakers to use. One Orthodox scholar when so far as to say, that if there was no original Greek in existence today, that one could be accurately be reconstructed using the King James. A very strong endorsement . The evidence, in my mind, for the King James being the best translation is overwhelming and well researched. It is approached by many different scholars from many different angles. But the arguments for Masoretic vs the Septuagint are not nearly as convincing. Of course Jesus and the apostles would not have been using the Greek Septuagint. they would have been using the original Hebrew Septuagint. (if one existed) The fact that there were many conflicting stories about the origin of Septuagint could also be interpreted as the legends growing up around the translation that everyone knew existed. By the time Origen did his Hexapla, he might only have had the already changed version of the Hebrew. Also, videos from the Post-apostolic Church and NathanH83 seem to indicate that the math in the Septuagint is more accurate (if not flawless) in the Septuagint than in the Hebrew. Then there is the fact that not only do the Catholics and Orthodox use a version of the Septuagint, but so do Coptics, Armenians, and Ethiopians (not in Greek but Ethiopian. And that they have been collecting the scriptures before the time of Christ) But the one that sticks with me is that the Hebrew says a young woman will be with child, not virgin. And when the apostles quote from the old testament which do not match up with the Hebrew, no one corrects them. No one says that they are misquoting. So as you can see my mind and spirit are not settled on the old testament issue. Michael. PS Please do not take the above as a criticism rather as questions from a person trying to get to the bottom of an issue.
There seems to me a ccordng to every expert opinion available, nobody is able to correctly define the various metamorphoses of scripture over centuries, if not millennia. They may say " the hebrew bible" when referring to the ancient phonecian writings of moses, and then refer to the much newer "masoretic text' as the hebrew bible. It is a deceptive tactic used on uns uspecting neophytes to prevent them from ever becoming skilled in the word, of full age, able to digest strong meat, as it were, rightly dividing the word of truth. Having their sensed exercised and trained to decern between good and evil. Then, they always fail to mention that the kjv old testament is not even as old as the new testament. Or that the kjv is not even a translation, but a " version " of the bible. I can now see there is quite a racket existing for scooping up all the beginners and putting them into perpetual babyhood, all the while collecting endless fees and costs for babysitting them spiritually . Let me clear the air. THE BIBLE is forever lost and does not exist anymore. Mose's writings and any copies are all gone. These are paleo-hebrew scriptures that had no vowels only consonents. In order to read them, one had to be very close to the priesthood and prophets because oral tradition supplied the essential vowels to de-scribe the info. You had to be a member in order to comprehend the sacred text. After many centuries, another language supplanted paleo-hebrew in respect to scholerly institutions. That new language was coin-a greek. Fortunately, the paleo-hebrew bible was translated into greek in eygpt, before the world updated and discarded the original text of moses.(phonecian is what paleo hebrew really is) so, the greek translation is NOW the only existing substitute for the lost bible. A translation mind you. Now, add in the confusion of a brand new "hebrew', invented in centuries after Christ, and you have the " masoretic mess", the bible touted by all the christ hating anti-Christ jews who have wormed their way into running all Christian denominatios, mainly because fools think that by bringing in jews, they will clarify everything since they read and write hebrew! But which hebrew are we talking here? Well herein lies the scurrilous deception: they (jews) , will bring in all their expertise clarifying the " hebrew" they invented centuries after Christ; denying the fact that even if they didnt have the masoretic tect and could read the original paleo-hebrew books of moses, they would not be able to locate the book. It's gone. The only reliable SUBSTITUE is the septuagint. This is why I roll my eyes when anyone goes on about how innerrant the kjv is. Ego trip.
Why are the titles of the masoretic kjv old testament greek? Because that's what was already on the scrolls that the scribes used to render their translation of various existing texts into " modern" hebrew, with vowels added in that never existed in moses's inspired texts.
You're asking a whole bunch of different questions. The question in the video title - "did someone translate a whole bunch of Hebrew writings into Greek before year 0?" - is a trivial yes
Do you want to know if the Septuagint existed before Christ as a method of either validating or refuting the Apochrapha? That is kind of what it sounds like. However, even if the Septuagint is post Christ, there is still a question of if the apochrapha is valid. But it would raise the question of why Christ and friends seem to quote the Septuagint 9 times out of 10 and the Masoretic text only 1 out of 10 times. If there was no Septuagint, why were they wrong with all their quotations? I am currently investigating the Apochrapha myself. There seems to be no easy answer. I thought there would be.
So youre saying a bc writer new the septuagint and because of that it didnt exist in bc times? I tend ti agree the sept was bogus but your resoning/research is suspect
All that matters here is that Jesus and the Apostles all quoted a different version than the Masoretic text, i.e. the KJV Old Testament. That is fact, right there in your KJV.
Where were you when I was in bible college...??? Lol. I always thought our theology professor was a Jesuit...now I know he was...or at the very least Jesuit trained. The whole class laughed at me because I refused to use any other bible then the King James. I pray to God they all see your videos and wake up!
The KJV is even structured like the LXX. It is divided into four parts instead of the three like the Hebrews. They even use the Greek names for the books. Deuteronomy means second law but the Hebrew word for the same book Devarim which means words. Devarim
In the kjv 1611 preface "from the translators to the reader", the translators say on page 11 that the septuagint was ordered by "ptolemy philadelph". That's ptolemy II, circa 285 BC. Did you know that? What's ur response my brother?
The KJV 1611 translators did not witness anything about the supposed LXX. They were not there. You need contemporary reliable witnesses, but who are they? Can you quote a decree by Ptolemy P, preserved in a manuscript dated 285 BC?
Love u bro but the kjv 1611 intro says it was during the time of ptolemy philadelphus that septuagint was translated. Nathan's channel showed the intro page of the Bible up close, proving it.
Nothing written by men in 17th century England PROVES that there was some scroll called "Septuagint" in 3rd Century BC. The KJV translators where not there.
Hebrews 10:5, "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:" Psalms 40:6, "Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required." Psalms 40:6, "Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body thou hast prepared me: whole-burnt offerning and sacrifice for sin thou didst not require."
Amen, this OT quote is not in any Hebrew manuscript only found in Septuagint, so they would have me believe the Holy Spirit led the writer of Hebrews to quote a text that did not exist 😉
Reference to other passages perhaps. Jesus bringing in the thought from another place? Micah 6:7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? Zechariah 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Also Luke chapter 3 listing the genealogy of Christ is from a Septuagint version of Genesis chapter 11, not from the MT, Isaiah 7:14 is not read as young woman in MT Mathew was using the Septuagint reading 😉 there are many more, it's clear the new testament writers were using a Greek old testament for the majority of the quotes and references to the old testament not Hebrew no matter what the KJV omlyist say
Hebrews 10;5 - It didn't say that it was from Psalm, it just said something God said. Dosen't mean he wrote it down. Psalm, he did prepare a body, when God is prepraing our body when we are born, our ears will open. Same thing.
nothing about this is scholarly. You're using charismatic quick conspiracy logic here. Variants exist in 99 percent of all old writings and the king james and other versions did also. They wrote about them, they revised them. Erasmus wrote about the variants in the greek along with all the translators and versions in the 1500 to 1600s.... If you dismiss old letters completely because of variant accounts you are a liar. That is not how history is negated. All texts have errors in the old world. All versions of Homers Odysee have them, along with most old writings. All the Ante Nicene fathers have variants. You're doing card tricks for people that are un studied. Almost all of the New Testament quotes of the Old Testament from the King James to NIV quote the septuagint and not the masoretic OT that we have in the KJV and other bibles. This is why the quotes don't match. When the dead sea scrolls were found they agreed with the septuagint, showing that the OT in your bible, the masoretic was changed by the Jews in places that proved Christ. This was introduced just before the printing press came around inthe 1400s. Like in Psalm 40:6 the Septuagint read, " but a body you have prepared for me" this was changed in the Masoretic. Also Isa 61:1 in the Septuagint says "recovery of sight to the blind" and left out of the masoretic, which is in almost all bibles. We have fragments of the septuagint from 2nd-century-BC fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957) and 1st-century-BC fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Twelve Minor Prophets (Alfred Rahlfs nos. 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and 943). and much more. The Septuagint is written about in the Jewish Talmud BC, you can't erase them all. In the original KJV, in the 'from the Translators to the reader' preface in the beginning, they write: "then lo, it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek prince (Greek for descent and language), even of Ptolemy Philadelph, king of Egypt, to procure the translating of the book of God out of Hebrew into Greek. This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching," (Ptolemy Philadelp was Pharoah 283 to 246.) .....then further down "Therefore the word of God, being set forth in Greek, becometh hereby like a candle set upon a candlestick, which giveth light to all that are in the house; or like a proclamation sounded forth in the market place, which most men presently take knowledge of; and therefore that language was fittest to contain the Scriptures, both for the first preachers of the gospel to appeal unto for witness, and for the learners also of those times to make search and trial by." (They considered the Septuagint the Word of God and extremely valuable in God's plan to prepare the way before Christ) The Jews had many targums which were Aramaic or Greek versions of the Old Testament script and yes is was not accepted as official but it was accurate and necessary because the Grecian Jews and many of the Babylonian Jews did not know the Hebrew of the scriptures, nor did they write it. Only some did. They used a translator to read the targums called a Thurgamem.
I'm a Ruckmanite KJVO as they come, but excusing witnesses completely without regarding some kernel of truth is not a test of witnesses in the Bible. Where they all agree, it is valid, where they all disagree is invalid.
@@Papasquatch73 Since they were explaining or paraphrasing to make it sense to the people, and not every quote in the BIble from O.T to N.T. is word by word. Not everything the apostles say have to be in the O.T., they could be under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
This guy's agenda is kjv only, he's looking for anything he can to discredit anything that isn't the text underlying kjv, Septuagint isn't masoretic text so it must be evil lol, never mind his kjv is quoting the Septuagint version of scriptures in key Old Testament verses because the masoretic text readings don't line up with the new testament or simply doesn't make sense. The genealogy of Christ in Luke chapter 3 in the KJV is from the Septuagint, it doesn't line up with the masoretic text Readings in Genesis chapter 11. I guess according to this guy, maybe Luke just made it up because there was no BC Septuagint 😔
You refer to little fragments of Greek Old Testament, correct? Now just where in those fragments does it ever say "Septuagint" on them? How do you know that there ever was an LXX & that if there was, that your fragments are fragments of the LXX?
There are no BC Septuagint manuscripts. How many Greek words are in the total of your fragments? There are fragments of Greek OT, but where do they ever call themselves Septuagint???
If there is a greek translation,it is logical that there must have been a hebrew original.We see lots of internal wvidence of scrolls being laid up in the temple With the scattering of the jews they might have forgotten hebrew and started speaking Aramaic and greek.It is strange that the oldest extant copies of the bible are of the septuagint and not hebrew .Possibly the reason lies in the fact that scribes destroyed worn out copies when they made new ones
The original septuagint was only the first 5 books of the bible and was destroyed in the fire of alexandria library in 50 bc. Later it was translated by many others and they all called it the septuagint so the one we have today was not done by the 72 monks in 250 bc.
What is your proof that there was a scroll (were codices invented in 3rd century BC?) or scrolls called "Septuagint" & that they burned up on a fire. Do you have at least 2 contemporary reliable witnesses? Who would they be?
@@lufknuht5960 Some history accounts that there was a great fire in 48 bc and a lot of the library was destroyed. Some say the original septuagint was destroyed, but even if it was not destroyed we do not have the original LXX today.
You believe the King James translators made a perfect translation, what's so hard to believe 70 wise men through God, couldn't come up with the same results? You know you're not the only one who prayed and searched to find out what Bible they should be using. I did the same thing and came away with that I should switch to the Septuagint. One of the main conclusions I came to was who do I trust the early Christians or the Pharisees. The same group of people Christ repeatedly rebukes throughout the New Testament. There's a reason why the New Testament does not line up with the Masoretic as well as the Septuagint does. It's because the Pharisees altered it to discredit Christ as the Messiah.
_"what's so hard to believe 70 wise men through God, couldn't come up with the same results?"_ ----------> for the JKV is called "historical record". For the Septuagint is called "unlimited and extremely contradictory fantasy".... BTW, the story of the festival on the island of Pharos, with the huge lighthouse, point to the truth behind the Septuagint: with that further fantasy, *Philo allegorically linked the perversion of the Septuagint to the rebellion of man at the Babel's Tower (symbolized by the tower of the lighthouse of Pharos)*
@@raymack8767 Jesus and Apostles quoted the "BC Masoretic" text. Even if it existed (just for the sake of the argument), they would have never quoted that heretic garbage, the Septuagint.
@@edoardo_roncelli Your Ad Hominem attack means nothing. There was no BC Masoretic Text, but there was a BC Paleo Hebrew and BC Square Hebrew which in the Dead Sea Scrolls torpedo the Masoretic Text in key areas and in messianic scriptures. Therefore arguing against the LXX is insufficient to bolster the MT.
The first 1611 KJV also had the Apocrypha. Some of those books are genuine, such as Second Ezra (Estras). And what "scholars" say about Pseudo-Aristobulus is irrelevant. Are these the same "scholars" who claim the book of Daniel was not written by the Prophet Daniel during the Babylonian captivity? If anything, it would cause me to believe it was real. Just because it said Plato followed the Law of Moses does not make it wrong, perhaps Plato studied it, and because of that it was reported that he was following the Law. Perhaps he followed the most important parts, such as the 10 Commandments. Memorizing the those books of Moses was probably something that was required of the best scholars. Like later, the Quran is memorized. If you examine the 5 books of Moses the same way you examine this info. you would have a hard time saying they were written by Moses.
The Apocrypha was placed in between the old and New Testaments because the translators were forced to put it there. They knew it wasn’t inspired text and that’s why it was placed in between. It was later removed. None of those stories are canon. They’re not true.
@@JayG1911 The book of 2nd Ezra is not stories, it contains prophecies, that are NOT fiction, they are real. Just because it was not included in the main body of the Old Testament does not make it fake.
Sorry, but God was wrong when He told you that there is no such thing as BCE LX. True, Aristeas and all the rest are works of fiction, but what about actual manuscripts dated to Ptolemy the 2nd, the basis for the 283 BCE timing of the translation of at least part of the Pentateuch? Paleographers and carbon-daters agree on the following datings: Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957) for 283 BCE and fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Twelve Minor Prophets (Alfred Rahlfs nos. 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and 943) for 1st-century-BCE. The author of the gospel according to Mark, writing circa 70 CE, quotes from Sinaiticus-identical Greek text, so someone must have rushed to do all the translating some time when Jesus was still hacking at wood in Nazareth or shortly thereafter. Who would have done this? Christianity, at the time, was a European phenomenon, thanks to Paul who was not particularly hot about gentiles needing the Mosaic law. Whatever Christianity may or may not have developed in Aramaic-speaking eyewitness-land would have no interest in a Greek translation, either, as Hebrew would have been much closer to their own tongue. Finally, who cares? Why is this question more important than whether dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago?
So what if the apocrypha are included? They likely weren’t part of the first century Septuagint Jesus used. Then again, there are multiple passages in the NT that are directly related to the apocrypha. The DSS also shows there was no single Hebrew variant. The Samaritan, Hebrew variant Septuagint was derived from, and Masoretic are all present. The idea you have a “right” translation is simply naive.
Nashvillain Not that you’re actually interested, but look at “When God Spoke Greek” by Michael Law to begin with. Also look up Michael Heiser. Paul’s eschatological language is taken from Enoch, some of Christ’s teachings are similar to Tobit. Jude mentions Tartarus and Hades, both of which are found in Greek mythology. NT authors were highly influenced by these types of works.
You're saying that if there was ANY Greek influence AT ALL during the time of the Apostles (and how could there NOT be), then that means that the Septuagint HAD TO BE what the Apostles used and not a Hebrew Tanakh? If that's what you're saying, that's simply illogical.
Nashvillain Hebrew was a dying language at the time of the 1st century Jew. Sure, there were Hebrew versions in synagogues, and I’d imagine Jesus had some command of the Hebrew language, but to what extent we don’t know. If you study the NT messianic prophecies this isn’t even an issue, the messianic prophecies and much of Paul’s theology is drawn from the Greek translation. Greek is the language the NT was written in, 1st century Jews (as you admit) were influenced by their Greek counterparts. The Greek language is the vehicle that allowed for the spread and propagation of the Gospel message. This is a historical fact, only a small set of Christian fundamentalists reject it, for their Textus Receptus or KJV only or whatever whacky conspiracy theory they are trying to support. The LXX was considered inspired scripture by the 1st century Jew, the very fact the Jesus sect was using it to claim his divinity was a large impetus in establishing the Masoretic tradition.
"Greek is the language the NT was written in..." Who is disputing that? But to say, THEREFORE, scriptures written PRIOR to the New Testament were also Greek is, AGAIN, illogical.
@@raymoshav-bloodbought because King James was a freemason his picture hangs in the Scoon Lodge in Perth to commemorate his joining of the lodgd. Also because the Hebrew Masoretic text is corrupt filth designed to make you doubt messianic prophecy compare it to the Septuagint to see for yourself.
@@raymoshav-bloodbought If you want to believe that go ahead. Or you can physically go to the Scoon lodge in Perth Scotland and speak to them about him being a member and why they have his painting on their wall commemorating him as a freemason.
@@GodIsATrinity The people who wrote that the Septuagint did not believe that Goliath has giant. The Septuagint says the one is being saved, not saved as it truly ought to be, The Septuagint writers did not believe Young Earth Creationism, the Septuagint comes from the heretical Alexandrians(whom be damned for ever and ever), the Authorized Version is truth in English, if you wish to go astray then go.
Somebody would have reported the three days oh darkness.... one would think someone would have reported the zombies that popped up in the earthquake in Matthew.... but no... Matthew is excused
A very large problem with this argument. If the Septuagint did not exist BC. Then why did Christ and the Apostles constantly quote it (many more times than the Masoretic texts). Wait let me guess...., Time travel?
@@JayG1911 fact check.... Something like 80% of the new testament quotes from the ot are from the Septuagint not masoretic (which of course did not actually exist yet but their precoursors could have). Do a simple verse by verse check (or check several already done including on TH-cam). The new testement authors significantly favor the Septuagint and either also quoted the masoritoc root tests (with less frequency). Or were engaging in some paraphrasing and summary or had access to texts destroyed by the Romans (or all of the above which I believe is the case). The good news is both manuscript groups are primarily in agreement, the bad news is the mosoretic texrs have altered some of the prophesies pointing to Jesus as the Messiah. For example. " A Virgin shall be with Child". (as stated in the new testament and Septuagint). Was altered to " a young woman shall be with Child" in the masoretic. There are several of these alterations surrounding the Christ suggesting these were not random transcription errors but intentional alterations by scribes who were not believers and knew certain prophesies were being interpretated as indicating Jesus was the Chirst. (Essentially the exact same issue was going on in the Byzantine vs. Alexandrian text groups in the new testament... Where you get the whole " king James only" argument, which I'm not supporting, but it can be of proven beyond doubt that the Alexandrian texts were.corruppted because the early church fathers quoted verses later dropped in the Alexandrian texts so I completely see why some would heavily lean towards the king James)
@@JayG1911 A simpler way to put it is the majority of the time both texts agree (masoretic vs. Septuagint). When they are not in agreement the Septuagint is directly quoted significantly more often than the masoretic especially by Paul. This is not opinion, but can be simply verified by a line by line comparison of all three texts.
@@GodisGracious1031Ministries I’m referring to the frequent direct quotes for the OT by New testament authors. If you research these there’s a stronger correlation to the wording of the Septuagint than the Masoretic texts. If you’re saying these authors were inspired this even mote strongly affirms the Septuagint as a valid text
The LXX has utter heresy and blasphemy in Isaiah 53:11 saying Jesus was shown light, filled with understanding and that he was justified. That alone should tell anyone that this is a corrupted text, not a preserved one.
+Authorized Mike wowowo,,you said it,,I wonder why he cant see the king James is the only way,,this type of division makes it easy for people like Matthew vines to dispel his false teasing...many pastors stay using the NIV and many other bibles..I wished Matt slick, G Crag Lewis and David W Daniels and the vigilant christian (the guy on TH-cam) got together and made a strong channel for CHRISTIANITY..and Ken Ham, Sam gibb there are a lot of great sources for our lord and farther on TH-cam rite now..It wont be long until they start Banning channels like these..my god this helps me on out so much I wish hope and pray that I can meet David W Daniels some day.
@@Christian-y5m5u Because maybe he can’t make up his mind which is divine. The 1769 Cambridge or Oxford. They are not exactly the same. If you say it doesn’t matter than are you saying everyword in the KJV doesn’t matter
All old writings of the New Testament were in Greek. All the Apostles probably spoke Greek as a first language BTW because they were all raised in a Greek speaking culture. They were Jews yes, but they lived in a Greek speaking world. They probably knew Hebrew because that was the language of thier scriptures. Aramaic and Greek were the main languages of commerce and everyday living. Jesus is known to speak Aramaic i'm sure He spoke Greek also. Also The Apostles were writing letters to gentiles in the New testament, those letters to the gentile churches from Paul ect. Would not have been written in hebrew.!! BTW if you notice, most of the names of the Apostles and Jesus's own brothers are Greek. James, John, Andrew ect. This is not unusual. People name thier children often times in the language they are born into. These names are not used in the old testament written in Hebrew. There are no Hezakiahs or David's for that matter in the New testament. Odd right? It's not odd when you consider the jews were living in this Greek speaking culture. It was thier main everyday language.people tend to name thier children with popular names of the day. Like Mary ....a bunch of those In the new testament and John and even Jesus had a brother named Judas. He changed his name to Jude. I think we can guess why! You know what? It's also very possible that the name Jesus, is actually his real given name!! Its possible Gabriel spoke to Mary in Greek when he told Mary to name Him that. The name Jesus was not uncommon in that time either. There is at least one other man named Jesus mentioned in the New testament. Who knows, the ones insisting that we use the name Yahushua are the ones actually translating His real name into Hebrew instead of the other way round.
You must be unfamiliar with the Dead Sea scrolls Kjv onlyist will never admit that their Masoretic text doesn’t even match the “New Testament “ quotes of the Apostles
"Excused" is the right word as this video is merely looking for excuses to disregard sources. Just because there is a problem with a source doesn't mean that you can disregard it entirely and then make up your own stuff. If you treated the KJV like that, you would have to disregard it to. But one should one expect from "Chicktracts", the famous peddler in slanderous filth.
This is not solid. One tell-tale is his fronting the need to associate his prayerful 'direction by God' to justify his work. I see no linguistic depth, historiographic insight, nor examination of sociolinguistic factors feeding his conclusions. What I DO see is someone who passes cynicism and an ideological need to reach a conclusion.
Your other problem almost all verses from the Apostolic Fathers agree with the Septuagint over the masoretic have you even read them probably not since most Bible Colleges only make you study one to get a full theology degree
16:55 "priests of the mysteries" yeah anyone who knows about the occult knows "the mysteries" is a reference to the same. 16:35 "as though some invisible prompter whispered in the ears" sounds like demons to me...
Is this guy who is a Christian seriously quoting the authors of the talmud as an authority? Ummmm... maybe he should read the NT a bit more or actually believe it.
U have to open your mind. U are closed minded, that's why u think the septuagint should be put aside because u wrongly think the deuterocanonicals favor purgatory, magic and all those stuff but it is not so. And if so, u would know the history of each book
Unless you are reading a Bible in the original language, it WILL have translational errors. You cannot get to the accurate meanings unless you have the original language. The KJV is not so, despite what Chicktracts or what anyone else says. It did not preserve the accuracy of the Name of the Creator. (Check out the first lines of Genesis even in the KJV 1611. It DID NOT preserve the proper NAME of the The Creator. The KJV is a T-R-A-N--S-L-A-T-I-O-N. Unless you have a decent understanding and/or appreciation about ancient history and about the languages of various stages of history, what I am saying will not be understood.
I've heard people who read the Bible in the original language give the right definition to words, but it's the wrong definition in the context where it is used (a word can have more than one meaning). Proper translation takes many years to learn. That's why I use the KJB: it has the proper translation with 400 years of good fruit from the right root bearing witness. Plus, I was one who was saved because I heard and believed the true gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ that is clearly presented in the KJB. Praise יְהֹוָה (Yĕhovah, GOD)!!! Plus, when I was saved, I received the Holy Spirit, and the Bible says, "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." - 1 John 2:27
1 Corinthians 3:18-20 KJV Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. [19] For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. [20] And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
CHURCH, SEPTUAGINT AND TRADITION IS INSPIRED. YOU DESPERATE BLINDS, SHOULD SOMETIMES GO AMONG JEWISH AND MUSLIM APOLOGISTS AND SEE HOW YOUR "CHRISTIANITY" WILL FALL. AS AN APOLOGIST WITH EXPERIENCES DEBATING AGAINST THEM, ALL I CAN SAY IS THE PROBLEMS LIES WITH MASORETIC HOPELESSLY CORRUPTED TEXTS.
KJV is based on the Rabbinic Masoretic text and was edited by Rosicrucian Francis Bacon. It is a good translation but not infallible. Why don't you call out Zionism as a heresy perpetuated by the Jesuits? If you consider Napoleon and the Rothchilds Jesuit operatives, then that is the logical conclusion. The Jesuits are using Zionism to facilitate their agenda, then use it as the justification to persecute Christians and Jews. Jesus defined Israel in Rev 12 as the faithful remnant who keep his testimony and commandments. Christian Zionists like Hagee are warmongering heretics who deny that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah and promote the Satanic doctrine that Daniel 9:27 is about the Antichrist when it was Jesus who confirmed the prophesied covenant.
Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. The children of Israel were in Egypt for 215 years not 430 years. Other wise the Apostle Paul is a liar. I just started watching your TH-cam video and I'm not impressed.
One is sourjourning and one is affliction. They lived peacefully when the king was still there, and then when died. The next king started to make them into affliction.
It seems like, Mr. Daniels, that you don't believe in miracles at all. Why are you stunned to unbelief that God could help 70 elders whom God appointed as leaders in Israel produce a perfect translation so that the world, even the King Ptolemy would believe in such an amazing God. This translation paved the way to prepare the whole known world to the Gospel of Jesus Christ whom the Apostles preached to the world who knew Greek not Hebrew by the way. Guess what Paul used as a text in his missionary journeys to Antioch, Macedonia, Corinth, Ephesus, etc...? When Paul mentions the Law or the Scriptures, he was talking about the Greek Septuagint not the Masoretic Hebrew text produced by the Jews around 1000AD! Paul didn't preach in Hebrew to the Gentiles, but Greek (a no brainer). And guess what Scripture text he would have used? the Hebrew Text? Of course not! It had to be the Greek text which you are claiming never existed in the time of Paul?
There you go again. He "introduces himself" in every video. Why don't you just scroll past his videos and not put yourself through all the anguish? You seem very triggered.
I love this merciless attack on corrupt texts. Really aren't giving them any chance whatsoever of standing up for their putrid nonsense, against the perfect word of God, the KJV. Thank you !
this man will see Heaven ......I wanna give my heart to Jesus but it is so hard for me as an African American growing up here in the USA...RACE,,is a big issue for my people, like I am always more concern if Jesus was a black man or a white man..like I wonder why this is never disguised and I also wonder what is the purpose of Christ being black?? like I cant understand how white Christians say they love this country when the masonic Illuminati Fathers of America had my ancestor in bondage..like I wonder about these things and I see my people not following Jesus Christ because we never see our selves being involved in the biblical world..but I know that Catholicism is a lie and white Jesus is a lie but I never hear the color black being accepting as a good thing it is always seen in the negative...sorry brother and sister in Christ I am just a Luke warm Christian who wants to be with Christ, but I know that I am a willing sinner because of secular issue that separate me from our farther, but I cant get it out of my mindset.. WHAT SHOULD I DO??????????
First off, "race" is a silly and non-biblical idea. Our skin color is not an issue with God: "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;" - Acts ch17 v26. We're all descendants of Adam and Eve. All genetic differences can be easily explained by inbreeding, from the very beginning. Second, what happened in the past, shouldn't be held against anyone for any reason. It happened in the past. Let it go. Forgive and move on, or else it is going to be a continual stumbling block for you, just as it was for me. Third, Jesus wasn't white, but he wasn't black. Not that it matters, but, he had olive-tan skin. Jesus did, however, have at least some black ancestry that I'll explain with scripture to back it up. Moses married an Ethiopian woman! Check this out: "And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman." - Numbers ch12 v1. Why did Aaron and Miriam even care that Moses married an Ethiopian woman? I bet it had to do with their prejudice, because guess what? Even then people hated each other based on appearances. There is nothing new under the sun. But this also indicates that Aaron and Miriam likely had fair or tan skin, otherwise why mention the fact that she was an Ethiopian? Look, when God spoke to Job, God basically said "man up and stop being wishy-washy" in chapters 38 and 40. You don't need me or anyone else to remind you of what you already know, because you admitted it. Just get it out of your mindset. Do away with vain thoughts. Everyone needs Jesus, end of story. God bless you and I'll be praying for you.
55 57 Thank you. Also: "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?" - 1st John ch4 v20. That's pretty clear to me. Don't believe anyone who claims to be a Christian, but hates people based on appearances. Because, who is your brother? If the bible is true, are we not all related? :)
James Lappin wow..man this mean so much to me ,,I get caught up watching African American leaders such as Dr Umar Johnson and Luis Farrakhan...but that verse helps me understand that I shouldn't hate white people for America old crimes..wow..brother in Christ thank you.I watch a lot of christian pastors who are white and they never deal will the topic of American slavery..but this little explanation from a random person helps more than ever..I wish I was able to learn from Mr Daniels, but he is to much of a scholar for me but the bible does say in 1 Thessalonians 5:14 Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men.:):):):):
55 57 Think of the whole slavery issue like this... Remember how God had the children of Israel go into captivity into Egypt? For the longest time in America's history, southern slave owners forbade black people from learning to read/write English. They did this because of the power that the words in the bible have for us all, and the problem of slavery was no different. Stories like Moses gave people hope, that some day they would be set free. But there is another aspect of the story that most people miss. God takes the evil that we do, and turn it into good. The United States was one of the few places where black people flourished, because it wasn't illegal for slaves to have children. Like the Hebrews in Egypt, they were fruitful and multiplied. Maybe it was the best place out of many that black people could have gone to, if you consider how much more terrible other countries were to their slaves at the time. I know that doesn't make it right, but it's at least something to consider. I could tell you about Islam and the middle-east, but just look at any Muslim country, and it will be hard to find a black person living there. There's a good reason why even though Africa is so close, you don't find many black people living in Middle-Eastern countries. Also, if you have 30 minutes to spare, you can watch my testimony on my channel if you want. I seriously hope and pray for you, even though I don't really know you, because God will strengthen and guide you. You can trust that he will, don't doubt it, friend.
I was looking at this post, mainly because I wanted to see what was said about the 'Septuagint'; there is a man online, who loves talking about the giants, ufo's. He refers to the Septuagint's listing of scripture regarding the giants, thus pushing/endorsing another gospel. Ye can't and shouldn't cross-reference KJV against other bibles, why? Some weaker brethren may be listening, and gladly turn back to a more popular rendition of scrip. St Jerome was also the originator of the word, Rapture, divested from the Latin Vulgate, which the Protestant church still clings despondently unto this day; until the Midnight Cry of Matthau 25, and then~! they, the lead preachers, publishers, writers will have to pen a letter of Retraction for this word, AND Trinity, as these are not found in the King James, as well as a humble apology. GTGTG
I'm not sure if you realise this even though it should be obvious to any Christian in the world but the talmud is not a reputable source for historical information. According to that book Jesus was not the messiah.
In Luke's gospel when he gives the genealogy of Jesus he states (3:36) that Cainan was the son of Arphaxad. This is not in the Masoretic text so where did he get it from if not the septuagint?
1.) Exodus 1:5 in the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) Square Hebrew agrees with the Septuagint against the MT that all the souls from Jacob were 75, not 70 which the MT claims.
2.) The older Square Hebrew from the DSS agrees with the Septuagint against the MT for Deut. 32:8-9 in using Sons/angels of God and not sons of Israel.
3.) The Square Hebrew in the DSS for Deuteronomy 32:43 lines up with the Septuagint against the MT.
4.) The Septuagint for 1 and 2 Samuel are backed up by 3 DSS and the MT is known among scholars as botching 1 and 2 Samuel badly.
5.) The MT wrongly has Saul becoming King at age one and ruling for two years.
6.) The MT actually left out an entire line from a Psalm that the Square Hebrew and the Septuagint preserved, thus the so-called masters of vowel memorization not only forgot vowels but also consonants.
7.) Psalm 40:6: a messianic proof text for the Incarnation:
The MT: Thou hast dug out my ears.
The Septuagint: A body thou hast prepared for me.
8.) Concerning another messianic psalm, Psalm 22:16/17, the DSS Square Hebrew and lines up with the Septuagint against the MT.
9.) Baruch, Sirach, Tobit, and Psalm 151 are written in Hebrew in the DSS.
10.) ▪︎The chronologies of Genesis 5, 11 of the Paleo Hebrew and the Septuagint line up against the MT.
▪︎Literary sources before 100 AD line up with the LXX not the MT on this: Josephus and Philo (30/70 AD) did not use the Septuagint to come to their conclusion that lines up with the Septuagint.
▪︎Eupolemus, the Jewish 2nd century BC historian's chronology, comes close to aligning with the Paleo Hebrew and Septuagint and not the MT.
▪︎Jewish Demetrius the Chronicler's (3rd century BC) chronology comes very close to the Paleo Hebrew and Septuagint and against the MT.
▪︎biblearchaeology.org/research/biblical-chronologies/4349-mt-sp-or-lxx-deciphering-a-chronological-and-textual-conundrum-in-genesis-5
Since synagogues around the Mediterranean used Septuagint and Square Hebrew, even in Palestine, Greek was the lingua franca, Jesus grew up near Sepphoris where Hebrew and Greek were both spoken and where Joseph could ply his trade, Christ quoted the scriptures, spoke to the Syrophoenician woman, and Mark/Luke were written to Romans/Greeks, some will be hard-pressed to prove Jesus used only Hebrew.
Concerning key messianic scriptures, Catholics, Copts, Orthodox, and Protestants see that the leaven of the rabbis and then the Masoretes seemed to target scriptures that point to Jesus Christ.
The Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint all agree with each other against the MT far more than they disagree, thus the starting point is to sideline the MT.
There are dozens and dozens of instances where the, Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint agree against the MT: By the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses let every word be established. Deut. 19:15; 2 Cor. 13:1. And if they argue against the LXX, how do they get around the Square Hebrew in the DSS for these scriptures?
@@raymack8767 #5 - This is a misinterpretation of the Hebrew idiom "a son of x years in his reigning" which does not always refer to a person's age.
Chronologically speaking, Josephus uses sources which contradict each other, sometimes supporting the MT and sometimes LXX. The book of Jubilees found in the DSS supports a short chronology. Given that most of the DSS supports the MT over the LXX, I believe it would be a mistake to "sideline" it. The LXX has numerous variants and a lot of missing verses compared to the MT which has remained fairly stable for the last 2,000 years. Both traditions have their place.
@@nealcorbett1149 The overwhelming weight which is including both centuries before and after the DSS and the Paleo Hebrew in the DSS supports the longer chronology and rebuts the work of the Christ deniers who tinkered with the chronology as those before in the 2nd and 3rd century had no reason to.
And the Talmud and Mishnah torpedo the scribes and Masoretes post 100 AD showing the attemots by them at the beginning showed corruption and contradictions among them.
@@nealcorbett1149 The DSS has over 400 instances where the Square and Paleo Hebrew agree with the Septuagint over the M;. I just listed a few
The major point that matters are the references to Christ that the Christ deniers of the MT, who targeted certain Scriptures removed, listed in 3, 7, and 8, where the DSS backs up the Septuagint.
So at the very least the MT will have to be redone using the far older Dead Sea Scrolls.
@@raymack8767 The majority of the long chronology is dependent on Genesis 5 & 11 (~1466 years) of which only Gen 5:13 has been found in the DSS (as far as I know) and most of that verse has been "filled in" from the MT. So I don't know WHERE you are getting this "overwhelming weight" from. If you could provide some credible sources, I'd be interested.
Jerome specifically said that he deviated from the Greek Septuagint when he translated the Latin Vulgate. He translated from the Hebrew.
Jerome wrote the revised Late n Vulgate. It was not based on the traditional text. There was a pure Latin text in use. Jerome admitted his version was a perversion.
St Jerome was also the originator of the word, Rapture, divested from the Latin Vulgate, which the Protestant church still clings despondently unto this day; until the Midnight Cry of Matthau 25, and then~! they, the lead preachers, publishers, writers will have to pen a letter of Retraction for this word, AND Trinity, as these are not found in the King James, as well as a humble apology. GTGTG
@@keithwhitlock7021 what do you mean “revised Latin”? Obviously there were other Latin translations floating around out there and as would be expected they probably differed from one another. Also, what do you mean he did not translate his vulgate from the “traditional text?” Please tell me you don’t mean the Byzantine family of minuscules ( the “majority” manuscripts) that didn’t exist yet. And when did Jerome admit his version was a perversion?!?
@@hummer40316"Trinity" appear in NT not hebrew OT
Where does Jerome use the word "Septuagint"? There surely were Greek Old Testaments, but which ever called itself the Septuagint?
Can you then explain why many quotations from the New Testament of the OT (I believe the TR to be accurate BTW) do not match the Masoretic text's translation of the OT? For example, Deut 32:43 doesn't have "let all of God's angels worship him" as testified by the Book of Hebrews. There are several many such issues when it comes to the Masoretic text. What text do you think the Apostles were using when quoting the OT? If you say Masoretic, I would ask you why is there such a huge difference?
Finally, I believe your point of view about the Septuagint comes from your already existing bias for the KJV. Your heart wants to be grounded on 1 Bible translation and thus you find it very hard to accept the fact that the KJV's OT was translated from the Masoretic text and not the Septuagint.
I'm still studying this and would not claim to be an authority on the subject. However, I would like to hear your point of view regarding the questions I raised.
That Hebrews "quote" you mentioned is not convincing, do you have any others that are fairly obvious maybe an entire verse that the new testament writer SAYS is a quote? Some say the Septuagint simply copied the greek new testament and so far that is what I see.
ChildOL Hebrews 10:5, "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:" KJV /Masoretic text Psalms 40:6, "Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; ”mine ears hast thou opened:” burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required." Septuagint Psalms 40:6, "Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body thou hast prepared me: whole-burnt offerning and sacrifice for sin thou didst not require." The last Bible quote is from the Septuagint. The Masoretic Hebrew text in the King James Bible says mine ears hast thou opened, not a body you have prepared for me. Major difference! There are other examples like this. Some people think the Jews deliberately changed these verses to make the readers doubt Jesus.
The spirit guides us in all the truth. That's why we don't need one perfect Bible translation.
@@dbutube22 1. Didn't have to be in the Psalm, God just inspired the writer to put it there. 2. When someone's ear is opened, God is preparing thier body.
@@GodisGracious1031Ministries What a load of Krapp
TOTALLY AWESOME DELINEATION AND EXPOSITION OF THE FACTS!!!! Keep up the awesome work!!!! 👌
why are you appealing to the TALMUD?! that text blasphemes Christ.
Oh don’t worry he will be going after the gnostics next, they are next on the chopping block, of destroying The idea of a BC septagent.
The Tanakh?
It is all complicated and needs research! But if you see "Truth Is Christ" website by Brandon Peterson he shows the mathematical perfection in the Masoretic text used in the King James Bible. The modern versions switched to the Septuagint /Kittles revision of the Biblica Hebraica as he was hired by Hitler to corrupt the Bible making it more useful to support Nazism.
because that what jews believe, everyone says their god is true, so we use their text against them. Their pride is my salvation.
but don't we know that the Septuagint is older than the 900 AD Masoretic whether or not it was BC, and that would make it less susceptible to Jew adulterations.
Absolutely.
@@Mishakol1290 BC Septuagint:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_Rylands_458
Papyrus Rylands 458 is a copy of the Pentateuch in a *Greek* version of the Hebrew Bible known as the *Septuagint* . It is a papyrus manuscript in roll form. The manuscript has been assigned palaeographically toward the middle of the 2nd century *BCE* , and before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls it was the oldest known manuscript of the Greek Bible. The manuscript has survived in a very fragmentary condition.
Remember the Jesuits were the ones who made paleography and that authors can use the same text style of writing back then, that’s how forgeries can be made
Because Wikipedia is the ultimate authority. 🧐
@BibleFire Probably, but the evidence shows that the septuagint added verses from the New Testament to the Old Testament with the purpose to say that Jesus or the apostles quote the septuagint. Also they try to “fix” verses like Genesis 11:12. They added the apocrypha as God’s word. I trust the MT!
Wow. The skullduggery has been in full effect for a long time. Looks like that mystery of iniquity tryna change God's word. Scary. And angering. Blessings.
1st century Jewish historians, Josephus and Philo, and also 2nd century Church fathers like Irenaeus and Justin the Martyr, all agree that the Greek Septuagint started to be translated during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphius.
So, should we just completely ignore what they have to say?
By the way, when the gospel went forth, what Bible did the disciples give to the churches? Well, 90% of the world was speaking Greek. So, did the disciples give them a Greek translation of the Bible? Or did the disciples give them.... What? Hebrew copies?
The short answer is: Yes, completely ignore what they have to say. For a more complete explanation, here's a link:
www.chick.com/Information/article?id=What-Is-The-Septuagint
So, you think the disciples went out and dispersed bibles?
We can't know the exact words, or even language Jesus used. What I thought we did know, is that most NT quotes line better up with what is known as the septuagint. Either this means that the writers of the NT scrolls later invented a new set of OT scrolls to line up with what they wrote, or some greek version of the OT scrolls were in use by the intended audience. Most likely there were different versions of the hebrew at that time as well. All the different versions are sufficiently in agreement though. I would almost expect the masoretic scribes to ignore any sources that better support the gospel, and the Christian's to prefer the ones that support it, even though I think both groups did everything in good faith. The texts are in large part in agreement. And the fact that they are different points to something hugely important in itself; human language and concepts and even ways of thinking change over time. To attempt to perfectly preserve a text is to guarantee it's meaning will change as the people change over time. To better preserve the meaning, changes are required. However, some meanings change in such ways as to make us see new things that even the original authors and readers didn't. That is revelation.
@@MortenBendiksen well that was a lot of logic in your post. Is that allowed? Sarcasm off - I do believe before Christ's time the Septuagint existed. I myself have switched from the Masoretuc to the Septuagint based Bible.
@@nashvillain171 so you take the word of a man who's lived two thousand years later then take the word of Christians who lived during the time of the Apostles?
The Hebrew is the fraud.
Really appreciate the work you are doing along with Pinto and others. Really equips us unschooled believers to hold our own. Blessings
Please read the section subtitled The translation of the Old Testament out of the Hebrew into Greek of the KJV 11-page preface titled The Translators to the Reader that’s been missing from the KJV along with the Apocrypha since about 1890 AD . pdf online.
Do you trust the KJV Old Testament or the Dead Sea Scrolls?
I have read it.
@@soundimpact4633 So you'll trust medieval age base texts the KJV relied upon (the Masoretic texts)?
i wont to get away from it the Septuagint no wounder the son of the most high said this Matthew 23:13-39 King James Version (KJV)
13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in
I love your videos and I have learned a great deal from you. I have watched this series all the way through and as usual, you have compelling analysis. My question is this. Other sites claim that New Testament quotes of the Old Testament - even quotes in the KJV - follow the Septuagint more than Masoretic What are your thoughts?.
What was the date of the oldest Hebrew manuscripts used by the translators of the Authorised Version of 1611?
Great videos buti sure hope you write a book regarding this subject.
Fun fact about Ptolemy Philadelphus II - he was far from being a good king or an observer of Mosaic law; he married his own sister and declared the two of them Theoi Adelphoi and Theoi Soteres, “Sibling Gods” and “Savior Gods.”
You can find mention of him in Daniel chapter 11, when it speaks of ‘giving him the daughter of women, corrupting her’ and how she wouldn’t retain her power, that’s Ptolemy II Philadelphus’ daughter, Berenice, who he gave in marriage to Antiochus II Theos - both the Ptolemaic and the Seleucid dynasties had a nasty habit of declaring themselves to be gods
What does that have to do with the subject at hand?
@@trappedcat3615 Many suppose the seventy convened under Ptolemy II.
@@voyager14 And, the men who constructed the pens used by the scribes were probably sinners too.
Interesting.
The issues you bring up in regards to the apocrypha are valid, the problem is you don’t want to admit 1st century Jews believed and were exposed to these writings, because it somehow damages Christianity. It doesn’t. I think part of the issue is a misunderstanding of what it means to be inspired scripture.
Nowhere does the NT quote the apocrypha as a proof text.
The oldest witnesses to the LXX include 2nd century BC fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957), and 1st century BC fragments of Genesis, Exodus,Levitcus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Minor Prophets (Rahlfs nos. 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and 943).
Where do these fragments ever call themselves "Septuagint"??? Why do you assume that a Greek translation of the OT is Septugint if they don't say so?
@@lufknuht5960 They dont call themselves Septuagint or Mosoretic but they agree with the Septuagint
great job brother Daniels
Have you considered that fanatical folks "attached" fables to truth?
This causes many to assume the truth to be a part of those "fables".
The Septuagint was not used by Jerome's (440 A.D.) "Latin Vulgate".
He preferred Masoretic texts. No set of MS are completely reliable.
~Steven of Montreal
Great job brother ! God bless you!
According to the Translators to the Reader document, in some King James Bibles (Cambridge, LCBP, Trinitarian Bible Society, &c.), the _seventy_, or the Septuagint, was also the basis for the commentaries of the "Church Fathers"!
+Vilber Voord Doubt it.
+Vilber Voord I didn't say that, I said I doubt that the Septuagint was used by the KJV translators.
+a King James shield Agree, the KJV Translators to the Readers describe the Septuagint:
"This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, *commonly so called*"
"was not so sound and so perfect"
"the Seventy were Interpreters, they were not Prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men *they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the Original, and sometimes to take from it*"
...
Ken Avery Exactly.
***** Uh, no duh, because the Douay Rheims "Bible" used better English than the modern versions of today!
Greeks invaded israel 330bc. They translated all mythic documents from everywhere. Not middle east? Wrong
You cant find stuff because you dont want to find stuff
When he looks at the subject through King James only glasses, this video is the result. I was once a "Authorized" only reader till I saw the numerous discrepancies between the Old and New testaments in the Masoretic based Bibles.
@@dlbard1 hey a sane person, hi, welcome
How about the discrepancy with the Septuagint where it says Metheusalah died 14 yrs after the flood, when only Noah, his wife and children were in the ark. Not to mention the Septuagint adds 100s of years to people's lives, and has them producing children in their hundreds(age).
@@abubbamundt100 - How about all the events the Bible says happened in the 300 yrs (MT) between the Flood and the birth of Abraham? Isn't the LXX timeline more logical?
you do realize the New Testament was written in Greek not Hebrew, it means the churches and people Paul wrote to in a language they both spoke and read, if the ancient world was like you say and the Jews of the Diaspora spoke Hebrew then why didn't Paul write to them in Hebrew or Aramaic? Simple, because just as today the world speaks English the world in the time of the Apostles was speaking and reading Greek not Hebrew or Aramaic, at that time Hebrew and Aramaic was only used in temple or synagogues around Jerusalem but further away the Jews and Gentiles spoke and read Greek. This would only make sense that Christianity would be able to spread as fast it did using a common language.
Only listened to part 1 so far, but he sounds like a defence attorney. ‘There is this problem with this source so we should reject all of it”. I just want the information, good as well as bad, without so much evaluation. The seeming lack of objectivity makes me double that we have all the information and doubt the conclusion so far. I hope to be proved wrong by the next parts.
I dont think that they went about handing any copiesof the o T.To begin with copies were hard to make Their focus would have been on the gospels
Question for Brother Daniels:
In Act 7 Stephen seems to mix up some of his "facts". Is this related to a different OT version he was quoting from? Have you addressed this in your series?
Peace to you, and thank you for your videos!
Greg Cox Assuming you think he is quoting from the Suptuegent ? Btw ! What’s up my friend !
What facts do you think he has wrong?
@Greg Cox forwhatsaiththescriptures.org/2020/08/16/acts-7-6-mistake/
@@Revolver9 No, they weren't "rounding down" to the nearest hundred. It is evident that the children of Israel were "sojourners in Egypt" 430 years and that they were "evil entreated in Egypt" 400 years. There's no inconsistencies in the scriptures and God didn't "round the numbers" please read the text. It's very plain.
@@myotheraccount5947 He's about to be stoned, I don't think he needs exact precision on every number and digits, he's not a factbook
Is it true that Jesus and paul and other quotes from the old testament was from the Septuagint. Ok if its not from BC ,how do you explain the Septuagint version quotes in new testament.
What is your proof that the NT ever quotes an extant Greek OT, let alone the LXX? There is nothing but fragments claimed to be Septuagint before the NT. And so far as I know, none of them ever call themselves the Septuagint. What is your proof that when the 4th century AD Greek Old Testaments (which never call themselves "Septuagint") agree with a NT wording, the 4th Century codices are not themselves quoting from the NT, preferring the gist of the OT given by the Holy Spirit in Greek to any other Greek OT?
@@lufknuht5960 never believe that scholars of any school are not unbiased in their choices of sources or lack of them.
This whole thing about the _seventy_, or the Septuagint, doesn't make any sense at all, no matter where you look: your own research (like David Daniels did in this vlog), common sense, or even the Translators to the Reader document that a lot of people are pulling things out of context to attack the King James Bible, because, there are just way too many bullet holes in this BC Septuagint story, including the ones brought up in this video:
1: In the Book of Jonah, Jonah was a Jew who apparently hated Gentiles (he would be kind of like a Calvinist in some ways), and in Ezra they were told in chapter 9:12 "Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, *nor* *seek* *their* *peace* *or* *their* *wealth* *for* *ever*: that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever."
So, if the Jews in the Old Testament times were not supposed to make friends with Gentiles like that, then why would they, as Hebrew speakers, even give a care about the Greek language?
2: Jesus Christ is recorded as talking about jots and tittles in Matthew 5:18, and Luke 16:17 (Even in some of the new versions)! I thought jots and tittles had something to do with the *Hebrew* language, not Greek!
3: The New Testament uses the Aramaic word for Father (Abba) in Mk. 14:36, Romans 8:15, and Galatians 4:6! I thought Aramaic was a *Sister* language to Hebrew, according to the footnotes of the new versions that I have!
and 4: In the Pentateuch, only the Levitical priests were given the responsibility of taking care of the Scriptures. So if 70 or 72 Jews took part in translating the Old Testament from Hebrew to Greek, then the vast majority of the Jewish people are in trouble with the Lord!
God bless.
Isaiah 28:9-13
9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
1 Corinthians 3:18-20 KJV
Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. [19] For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. [20] And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
Yes they are found in the DSS
Hello David, Firstly I want to say thank God for you and other King James advocates for bringing the very important issue of bible translations to the public. I frankly had no idea that there was so much involved. After much research (reading other people's research) and even contacting a priest of the Orthodox Church, I am fully settled with the King James being the best translation of the New Testament. Until recently, the KJV new testament was the only one the Orthodox Church would recommend it's English speakers to use. One Orthodox scholar when so far as to say, that if there was no original Greek in existence today, that one could be accurately be reconstructed using the King James. A very strong endorsement . The evidence, in my mind, for the King James being the best translation is overwhelming and well researched. It is approached by many different scholars from many different angles. But the arguments for Masoretic vs the Septuagint are not nearly as convincing. Of course Jesus and the apostles would not have been using the Greek Septuagint. they would have been using the original Hebrew Septuagint. (if one existed) The fact that there were many conflicting stories about the origin of Septuagint could also be interpreted as the legends growing up around the translation that everyone knew existed. By the time Origen did his Hexapla, he might only have had the already changed version of the Hebrew. Also, videos from the Post-apostolic Church and NathanH83 seem to indicate that the math in the Septuagint is more accurate (if not flawless) in the Septuagint than in the Hebrew. Then there is the fact that not only do the Catholics and Orthodox use a version of the Septuagint, but so do Coptics, Armenians, and Ethiopians (not in Greek but Ethiopian. And that they have been collecting the scriptures before the time of Christ) But the one that sticks with me is that the Hebrew says a young woman will be with child, not virgin. And when the apostles quote from the old testament which do not match up with the Hebrew, no one corrects them. No one says that they are misquoting. So as you can see my mind and spirit are not settled on the old testament issue. Michael. PS Please do not take the above as a criticism rather as questions from a person trying to get to the bottom of an issue.
There seems to me a ccordng to every expert opinion available, nobody is able to correctly define the various metamorphoses of scripture over centuries, if not millennia. They may say " the hebrew bible" when referring to the ancient phonecian writings of moses, and then refer to the much newer "masoretic text' as the hebrew bible. It is a deceptive tactic used on uns
uspecting neophytes to prevent them from ever becoming skilled in the word, of full age, able to digest strong meat, as it were, rightly dividing the word of truth. Having their sensed exercised and trained to decern between good and evil. Then, they always fail to mention that the kjv old testament is not even as old as the new testament. Or that the kjv is not even a translation, but a " version " of the bible. I can now see there is quite a racket existing for scooping up all the beginners and putting them into perpetual babyhood, all the while collecting endless fees and costs for babysitting them spiritually . Let me clear the air. THE BIBLE is forever lost and does not exist anymore. Mose's writings and any copies are all gone. These are paleo-hebrew scriptures that had no vowels only consonents. In order to read them, one had to be very close to the priesthood and prophets because oral tradition supplied the essential vowels to de-scribe the info. You had to be a member in order to comprehend the
sacred text. After many centuries, another language supplanted paleo-hebrew in respect to scholerly institutions. That new language was coin-a greek. Fortunately, the paleo-hebrew bible was translated into greek in eygpt, before the world updated and discarded the original text of moses.(phonecian is what paleo hebrew really is) so, the greek translation is NOW the only existing substitute for the lost bible. A translation mind you. Now, add in the confusion of a brand new "hebrew', invented in centuries after Christ, and you have the " masoretic mess", the bible touted by all the christ hating anti-Christ jews who have wormed their way into running all Christian denominatios, mainly because fools think that by bringing in jews, they will clarify everything since they read and write hebrew! But which hebrew are we talking here? Well herein lies the scurrilous deception: they (jews) , will bring in all their expertise clarifying the " hebrew" they invented centuries after Christ; denying the fact that even if they didnt have the masoretic tect and could read the original paleo-hebrew books of moses, they would not be able to locate the book. It's gone. The only reliable SUBSTITUE is the septuagint. This is why I roll my eyes when anyone goes on about how innerrant the kjv is. Ego trip.
Why are the titles of the masoretic kjv old testament greek? Because that's what was already on the scrolls that the scribes used to render their translation of various existing texts into " modern" hebrew, with vowels added in that never existed in moses's inspired texts.
You're asking a whole bunch of different questions. The question in the video title - "did someone translate a whole bunch of Hebrew writings into Greek before year 0?" - is a trivial yes
Do you want to know if the Septuagint existed before Christ as a method of either validating or refuting the Apochrapha? That is kind of what it sounds like. However, even if the Septuagint is post Christ, there is still a question of if the apochrapha is valid. But it would raise the question of why Christ and friends seem to quote the Septuagint 9 times out of 10 and the Masoretic text only 1 out of 10 times. If there was no Septuagint, why were they wrong with all their quotations? I am currently investigating the Apochrapha myself. There seems to be no easy answer. I thought there would be.
Wait. Did this guy just throw out multiple corroborating sources in favour of one single source?
So youre saying a bc writer new the septuagint and because of that it didnt exist in bc times? I tend ti agree the sept was bogus but your resoning/research is suspect
All that matters here is that Jesus and the Apostles all quoted a different version than the Masoretic text, i.e. the KJV Old Testament. That is fact, right there in your KJV.
Where were you when I was in bible college...??? Lol. I always thought our theology professor was a Jesuit...now I know he was...or at the very least Jesuit trained. The whole class laughed at me because I refused to use any other bible then the King James. I pray to God they all see your videos and wake up!
The KJV is even structured like the LXX. It is divided into four parts instead of the three like the Hebrews. They even use the Greek names for the books. Deuteronomy means second law but the Hebrew word for the same book Devarim which means words. Devarim
The 1611 kjv had the apocrypha...
Thank you for this series, I look forward to hearing the rest.
In the kjv 1611 preface "from the translators to the reader", the translators say on page 11 that the septuagint was ordered by "ptolemy philadelph". That's ptolemy II, circa 285 BC. Did you know that? What's ur response my brother?
The KJV 1611 translators did not witness anything about the supposed LXX. They were not there. You need contemporary reliable witnesses, but who are they? Can you quote a decree by Ptolemy P, preserved in a manuscript dated 285 BC?
@@lufknuht5960 so the kjv translators are wrong? 😆😆😆. Ur something else. Blessings.
This is Awesome! Thank you!!!
Love u bro but the kjv 1611 intro says it was during the time of ptolemy philadelphus that septuagint was translated. Nathan's channel showed the intro page of the Bible up close, proving it.
Nothing written by men in 17th century England PROVES that there was some scroll called "Septuagint" in 3rd Century BC. The KJV translators where not there.
Hebrews 10:5, "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:" Psalms 40:6, "Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required." Psalms 40:6, "Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body thou hast prepared me: whole-burnt offerning and sacrifice for sin thou didst not require."
Amen, this OT quote is not in any Hebrew manuscript only found in Septuagint, so they would have me believe the Holy Spirit led the writer of Hebrews to quote a text that did not exist 😉
Reference to other passages perhaps. Jesus bringing in the thought from another place?
Micah 6:7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
Zechariah 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Also Luke chapter 3 listing the genealogy of Christ is from a Septuagint version of Genesis chapter 11, not from the MT, Isaiah 7:14 is not read as young woman in MT Mathew was using the Septuagint reading 😉 there are many more, it's clear the new testament writers were using a Greek old testament for the majority of the quotes and references to the old testament not Hebrew no matter what the KJV omlyist say
Hebrews 10;5 - It didn't say that it was from Psalm, it just said something God said. Dosen't mean he wrote it down. Psalm, he did prepare a body, when God is prepraing our body when we are born, our ears will open. Same thing.
nothing about this is scholarly. You're using charismatic quick conspiracy logic here. Variants exist in 99 percent of all old writings and the king james and other versions did also. They wrote about them, they revised them. Erasmus wrote about the variants in the greek along with all the translators and versions in the 1500 to 1600s.... If you dismiss old letters completely because of variant accounts you are a liar. That is not how history is negated. All texts have errors in the old world. All versions of Homers Odysee have them, along with most old writings. All the Ante Nicene fathers have variants. You're doing card tricks for people that are un studied.
Almost all of the New Testament quotes of the Old Testament from the King James to NIV quote the septuagint and not the masoretic OT that we have in the KJV and other bibles. This is why the quotes don't match. When the dead sea scrolls were found they agreed with the septuagint, showing that the OT in your bible, the masoretic was changed by the Jews in places that proved Christ. This was introduced just before the printing press came around inthe 1400s. Like in Psalm 40:6 the Septuagint read, " but a body you have prepared for me" this was changed in the Masoretic. Also Isa 61:1 in the Septuagint says "recovery of sight to the blind" and left out of the masoretic, which is in almost all bibles.
We have fragments of the septuagint from 2nd-century-BC fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957) and 1st-century-BC fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Twelve Minor Prophets (Alfred Rahlfs nos. 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and 943). and much more. The Septuagint is written about in the Jewish Talmud BC, you can't erase them all. In the original KJV, in the 'from the Translators to the reader' preface in the beginning, they write:
"then lo, it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek prince (Greek for descent and language), even of Ptolemy Philadelph, king of Egypt, to procure the translating of the book of God out of Hebrew into Greek. This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching,"
(Ptolemy Philadelp was Pharoah 283 to 246.)
.....then further down "Therefore the word of God, being set forth in Greek, becometh hereby like a candle set upon a candlestick, which giveth light to all that are in the house; or like a proclamation sounded forth in the market place, which most men presently take knowledge of; and therefore that language was fittest to contain the Scriptures, both for the first preachers of the gospel to appeal unto for witness, and for the learners also of those times to make search and trial by." (They considered the Septuagint the Word of God and extremely valuable in God's plan to prepare the way before Christ)
The Jews had many targums which were Aramaic or Greek versions of the Old Testament script and yes is was not accepted as official but it was accurate and necessary because the Grecian Jews and many of the Babylonian Jews did not know the Hebrew of the scriptures, nor did they write it. Only some did. They used a translator to read the targums called a Thurgamem.
so the kjv NT agrees with the greek trans of the hebrew
OT, when quoting from it, but the kjv OT doesn't agree with the original hebrew
Yes there was . The King James translators even say so
References please and thank you
And they knew it was actually written by Origen.
cucomonga joe please show us ! Enlighten us !
So we believe man's word or God's word?
Still waiting on the reference
I'm a Ruckmanite KJVO as they come, but excusing witnesses completely without regarding some kernel of truth is not a test of witnesses in the Bible. Where they all agree, it is valid, where they all disagree is invalid.
I don't think Jesus and apostles used it but I think the Greek writers of the New testament did
Then why do the quotes match the LXX 90% of the time?
@@Papasquatch73 maybe the author's knew what verse was said but they didn't know which version to use idk
@@Papasquatch73 Since they were explaining or paraphrasing to make it sense to the people, and not every quote in the BIble from O.T to N.T. is word by word. Not everything the apostles say have to be in the O.T., they could be under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
A mere transliteration of Hebrew letters into Greek wouldn't help someone who doesn't speak Hebrew.
List of B.C. Septuagint manuscripts:
- 4Q119
- 4Q120
- 4Q121
- 7Q1
- 7Q2
all 1. century BC
This guy's agenda is kjv only, he's looking for anything he can to discredit anything that isn't the text underlying kjv, Septuagint isn't masoretic text so it must be evil lol, never mind his kjv is quoting the Septuagint version of scriptures in key Old Testament verses because the masoretic text readings don't line up with the new testament or simply doesn't make sense. The genealogy of Christ in Luke chapter 3 in the KJV is from the Septuagint, it doesn't line up with the masoretic text Readings in Genesis chapter 11. I guess according to this guy, maybe Luke just made it up because there was no BC Septuagint 😔
You refer to little fragments of Greek Old Testament, correct? Now just where in those fragments does it ever say "Septuagint" on them? How do you know that there ever was an LXX & that if there was, that your fragments are fragments of the LXX?
There are no BC Septuagint manuscripts. How many Greek words are in the total of your fragments? There are fragments of Greek OT, but where do they ever call themselves Septuagint???
@@lufknuht5960 The fragments are in Greek and are the same greek thats in The Septuagint
If there is a greek translation,it is logical that there must have been a hebrew original.We see lots of internal wvidence of scrolls being laid up in the temple With the scattering of the jews they might have forgotten hebrew and started speaking Aramaic and greek.It is strange that the oldest extant copies of the bible are of the septuagint and not hebrew .Possibly the reason lies in the fact that scribes destroyed worn out copies when they made new ones
The original septuagint was only the first 5 books of the bible and was destroyed in the fire of alexandria library in 50 bc. Later it was translated by many others and they all called it the septuagint so the one we have today was not done by the 72 monks in 250 bc.
What is your proof that there was a scroll (were codices invented in 3rd century BC?) or scrolls called "Septuagint" & that they burned up on a fire. Do you have at least 2 contemporary reliable witnesses? Who would they be?
where are you getting this from
@@lufknuht5960 Some history accounts that there was a great fire in 48 bc and a lot of the library was destroyed. Some say the original septuagint was destroyed, but even if it was not destroyed we do not have the original LXX today.
You believe the King James translators made a perfect translation, what's so hard to believe 70 wise men through God, couldn't come up with the same results? You know you're not the only one who prayed and searched to find out what Bible they should be using. I did the same thing and came away with that I should switch to the Septuagint. One of the main conclusions I came to was who do I trust the early Christians or the Pharisees. The same group of people Christ repeatedly rebukes throughout the New Testament. There's a reason why the New Testament does not line up with the Masoretic as well as the Septuagint does. It's because the Pharisees altered it to discredit Christ as the Messiah.
_"what's so hard to believe 70 wise men through God, couldn't come up with the same results?"_ ----------> for the JKV is called "historical record". For the Septuagint is called "unlimited and extremely contradictory fantasy".... BTW, the story of the festival on the island of Pharos, with the huge lighthouse, point to the truth behind the Septuagint: with that further fantasy, *Philo allegorically linked the perversion of the Septuagint to the rebellion of man at the Babel's Tower (symbolized by the tower of the lighthouse of Pharos)*
@@edoardo_roncelli Was there a BC MasoreticText?
@@raymack8767 Jesus and Apostles quoted the "BC Masoretic" text. Even if it existed (just for the sake of the argument), they would have never quoted that heretic garbage, the Septuagint.
@@edoardo_roncelli Your Ad Hominem attack means nothing. There was no BC Masoretic Text, but there was a BC Paleo Hebrew and BC Square Hebrew which in the Dead Sea Scrolls torpedo the Masoretic Text in key areas and in messianic scriptures.
Therefore arguing against the LXX is insufficient to bolster the MT.
@@edoardo_roncelli I argue both for the DSS, for the Septuagint by comparing it to the DSS, and then against the MT thereby.
The first 1611 KJV also had the Apocrypha. Some of those books are genuine, such as Second Ezra (Estras). And what "scholars" say about Pseudo-Aristobulus is irrelevant. Are these the same "scholars" who claim the book of Daniel was not written by the Prophet Daniel during the Babylonian captivity? If anything, it would cause me to believe it was real.
Just because it said Plato followed the Law of Moses does not make it wrong, perhaps Plato studied it, and because of that it was reported that he was following the Law. Perhaps he followed the most important parts, such as the 10 Commandments.
Memorizing the those books of Moses was probably something that was required of the best scholars. Like later, the Quran is memorized.
If you examine the 5 books of Moses the same way you examine this info. you would have a hard time saying they were written by Moses.
The Apocrypha was placed in between the old and New Testaments because the translators were forced to put it there. They knew it wasn’t inspired text and that’s why it was placed in between. It was later removed. None of those stories are canon. They’re not true.
@@JayG1911 The book of 2nd Ezra is not stories, it contains prophecies, that are NOT fiction, they are real. Just because it was not included in the main body of the Old Testament does not make it fake.
Sorry, but God was wrong when He told you that there is no such thing as BCE LX. True, Aristeas and all the rest are works of fiction, but what about actual manuscripts dated to Ptolemy the 2nd, the basis for the 283 BCE timing of the translation of at least part of the Pentateuch? Paleographers and carbon-daters agree on the following datings: Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957) for 283 BCE and fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Twelve Minor Prophets (Alfred Rahlfs nos. 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and 943) for 1st-century-BCE. The author of the gospel according to Mark, writing circa 70 CE, quotes from Sinaiticus-identical Greek text, so someone must have rushed to do all the translating some time when Jesus was still hacking at wood in Nazareth or shortly thereafter. Who would have done this? Christianity, at the time, was a European phenomenon, thanks to Paul who was not particularly hot about gentiles needing the Mosaic law. Whatever Christianity may or may not have developed in Aramaic-speaking eyewitness-land would have no interest in a Greek translation, either, as Hebrew would have been much closer to their own tongue. Finally, who cares? Why is this question more important than whether dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago?
Did you get into a bar fight or something?
Did you think that was funny?
So what if the apocrypha are included? They likely weren’t part of the first century Septuagint Jesus used. Then again, there are multiple passages in the NT that are directly related to the apocrypha. The DSS also shows there was no single Hebrew variant. The Samaritan, Hebrew variant Septuagint was derived from, and Masoretic are all present. The idea you have a “right” translation is simply naive.
Please list the "multiple passages in the NT that are directly related to the Apocrypha."
I'll wait...
Nashvillain Not that you’re actually interested, but look at “When God Spoke Greek” by Michael Law to begin with. Also look up Michael Heiser. Paul’s eschatological language is taken from Enoch, some of Christ’s teachings are similar to Tobit. Jude mentions Tartarus and Hades, both of which are found in Greek mythology. NT authors were highly influenced by these types of works.
You're saying that if there was ANY Greek influence AT ALL during the time of the Apostles (and how could there NOT be), then that means that the Septuagint HAD TO BE what the Apostles used and not a Hebrew Tanakh?
If that's what you're saying, that's simply illogical.
Nashvillain Hebrew was a dying language at the time of the 1st century Jew. Sure, there were Hebrew versions in synagogues, and I’d imagine Jesus had some command of the Hebrew language, but to what extent we don’t know. If you study the NT messianic prophecies this isn’t even an issue, the messianic prophecies and much of Paul’s theology is drawn from the Greek translation. Greek is the language the NT was written in, 1st century Jews (as you admit) were influenced by their Greek counterparts. The Greek language is the vehicle that allowed for the spread and propagation of the Gospel message. This is a historical fact, only a small set of Christian fundamentalists reject it, for their Textus Receptus or KJV only or whatever whacky conspiracy theory they are trying to support. The LXX was considered inspired scripture by the 1st century Jew, the very fact the Jesus sect was using it to claim his divinity was a large impetus in establishing the Masoretic tradition.
"Greek is the language the NT was written in..." Who is disputing that? But to say, THEREFORE, scriptures written PRIOR to the New Testament were also Greek is, AGAIN, illogical.
The Hasmoneans 170BC were High Priests and Kings .
There is no BC Hebrew Masoretic text.
Why do you doubt the king James?
@@raymoshav-bloodbought because King James was a freemason his picture hangs in the Scoon Lodge in Perth to commemorate his joining of the lodgd. Also because the Hebrew Masoretic text is corrupt filth designed to make you doubt messianic prophecy compare it to the Septuagint to see for yourself.
@@GodIsATrinity The Masons didn’t even exist in England until long after his death.
@@raymoshav-bloodbought If you want to believe that go ahead. Or you can physically go to the Scoon lodge in Perth Scotland and speak to them about him being a member and why they have his painting on their wall commemorating him as a freemason.
@@GodIsATrinity The people who wrote that the Septuagint did not believe that Goliath has giant. The Septuagint says the one is being saved, not saved as it truly ought to be, The Septuagint writers did not believe Young Earth Creationism, the Septuagint comes from the heretical Alexandrians(whom be damned for ever and ever), the Authorized Version is truth in English, if you wish to go astray then go.
Somebody would have reported the three days oh darkness.... one would think someone would have reported the zombies that popped up in the earthquake in Matthew.... but no... Matthew is excused
Lol so true. This guy is picking and choosing whatever he wants and everything else... is excused.
A very large problem with this argument. If the Septuagint did not exist BC. Then why did Christ and the Apostles constantly quote it (many more times than the Masoretic texts). Wait let me guess...., Time travel?
The simple answer is Christ and the Apostles didn’t quote it.
@@JayG1911 fact check.... Something like 80% of the new testament quotes from the ot are from the Septuagint not masoretic (which of course did not actually exist yet but their precoursors could have).
Do a simple verse by verse check (or check several already done including on TH-cam). The new testement authors significantly favor the Septuagint and either also quoted the masoritoc root tests (with less frequency). Or were engaging in some paraphrasing and summary or had access to texts destroyed by the Romans (or all of the above which I believe is the case).
The good news is both manuscript groups are primarily in agreement, the bad news is the mosoretic texrs have altered some of the prophesies pointing to Jesus as the Messiah. For example. " A Virgin shall be with Child". (as stated in the new testament and Septuagint). Was altered to " a young woman shall be with Child" in the masoretic.
There are several of these alterations surrounding the Christ suggesting these were not random transcription errors but intentional alterations by scribes who were not believers and knew certain prophesies were being interpretated as indicating Jesus was the Chirst. (Essentially the exact same issue was going on in the Byzantine vs. Alexandrian text groups in the new testament... Where you get the whole " king James only" argument, which I'm not supporting, but it can be of proven beyond doubt that the Alexandrian texts were.corruppted because the early church fathers quoted verses later dropped in the Alexandrian texts so I completely see why some would heavily lean towards the king James)
@@JayG1911 A simpler way to put it is the majority of the time both texts agree (masoretic vs. Septuagint). When they are not in agreement the Septuagint is directly quoted significantly more often than the masoretic especially by Paul. This is not opinion, but can be simply verified by a line by line comparison of all three texts.
God inspired them to speak.
@@GodisGracious1031Ministries I’m referring to the frequent direct quotes for the OT by New testament authors. If you research these there’s a stronger correlation to the wording of the Septuagint than the Masoretic texts. If you’re saying these authors were inspired this even mote strongly affirms the Septuagint as a valid text
The story says the Septuagint was a perfect copy of the Hebrew text. However, it does not follow the traditional Hebrew text.
To be exact the Septuagint does not follow the Masoretic text. The Septuagint follows the dead sea scrolls-much older.
@Sean Carlos the Dead Sea scrolls came from gnosticism. They’re untrustworthy.
The Masoretic Text was purged of anything which supports Christian theology. The MT is newer than the LXX.
Thank you! May God bless your work.
The LXX has utter heresy and blasphemy in Isaiah 53:11 saying Jesus was shown light, filled with understanding and that he was justified. That alone should tell anyone that this is a corrupted text, not a preserved one.
Bet you anything James White will never come near these vlogs out of fear of repentance.
+Authorized Mike wowowo,,you said it,,I wonder why he cant see the king James is the only way,,this type of division makes it easy for people like Matthew vines to dispel his false teasing...many pastors stay using the NIV and many other bibles..I wished Matt slick, G Crag Lewis and David W Daniels and the vigilant christian (the guy on TH-cam) got together and made a strong channel for CHRISTIANITY..and Ken Ham, Sam gibb there are a lot of great sources for our lord and farther on TH-cam rite now..It wont be long until they start Banning channels like these..my god this helps me on out so much I wish hope and pray that I can meet David W Daniels some day.
@@Christian-y5m5u Because maybe he can’t make up his mind which is divine. The 1769 Cambridge or Oxford. They are not exactly the same. If you say it doesn’t matter than are you saying everyword in the KJV doesn’t matter
lets lay this out simply. only paul spoke greek (second language). nothing was written in greek.
But that's nonsense.
All old writings of the New Testament were in Greek. All the Apostles probably spoke Greek as a first language BTW because they were all raised in a Greek speaking culture. They were Jews yes, but they lived in a Greek speaking world. They probably knew Hebrew because that was the language of thier scriptures. Aramaic and Greek were the main languages of commerce and everyday living. Jesus is known to speak Aramaic i'm sure He spoke Greek also. Also The Apostles were writing letters to gentiles in the New testament, those letters to the gentile churches from Paul ect. Would not have been written in hebrew.!! BTW if you notice, most of the names of the Apostles and Jesus's own brothers are Greek. James, John, Andrew ect. This is not unusual. People name thier children often times in the language they are born into. These names are not used in the old testament written in Hebrew. There are no Hezakiahs or David's for that matter in the New testament. Odd right? It's not odd when you consider the jews were living in this Greek speaking culture. It was thier main everyday language.people tend to name thier children with popular names of the day. Like Mary ....a bunch of those In the new testament and John and even Jesus had a brother named Judas. He changed his name to Jude. I think we can guess why! You know what? It's also very possible that the name Jesus, is actually his real given name!! Its possible Gabriel spoke to Mary in Greek when he told Mary to name Him that. The name Jesus was not uncommon in that time either. There is at least one other man named Jesus mentioned in the New testament. Who knows, the ones insisting that we use the name Yahushua are the ones actually translating His real name into Hebrew instead of the other way round.
You must be unfamiliar with the Dead Sea scrolls
Kjv onlyist will never admit that their Masoretic text doesn’t even match the “New Testament “ quotes of the Apostles
The Dead Sea Scrolls are a
H O A X.
The Masoretic text is 1000 years after Jesus but it is reliable. Circular reasoning
"Excused" is the right word as this video is merely looking for excuses to disregard sources. Just because there is a problem with a source doesn't mean that you can disregard it entirely and then make up your own stuff. If you treated the KJV like that, you would have to disregard it to. But one should one expect from "Chicktracts", the famous peddler in slanderous filth.
All those words yet nothing specific.
Or people use every excuse they can to not believe the kjb. The world's most hated bible, I wonder why. The majority are lost.
This is not solid. One tell-tale is his fronting the need to associate his prayerful 'direction by God' to justify his work. I see no linguistic depth, historiographic insight, nor examination of sociolinguistic factors feeding his conclusions. What I DO see is someone who passes cynicism and an ideological need to reach a conclusion.
May I suggest that you may have neen vaccinated with a phonograph needle?
Your other problem almost all verses from the Apostolic Fathers agree with the Septuagint over the masoretic have you even read them probably not since most Bible Colleges only make you study one to get a full theology degree
The Antiochian fathers agree with the king James.
16:55 "priests of the mysteries" yeah anyone who knows about the occult knows "the mysteries" is a reference to the same. 16:35 "as though some invisible prompter whispered in the ears" sounds like demons to me...
Is this guy who is a Christian seriously quoting the authors of the talmud as an authority? Ummmm... maybe he should read the NT a bit more or actually believe it.
U have to open your mind. U are closed minded, that's why u think the septuagint should be put aside because u wrongly think the deuterocanonicals favor purgatory, magic and all those stuff but it is not so. And if so, u would know the history of each book
Unless you are reading a Bible in the original language, it WILL have translational errors. You cannot get to the accurate meanings unless you have the original language. The KJV is not so, despite what Chicktracts or what anyone else says. It did not preserve the accuracy of the Name of the Creator. (Check out the first lines of Genesis even in the KJV 1611. It DID NOT preserve the proper NAME of the The Creator. The KJV is a T-R-A-N--S-L-A-T-I-O-N. Unless you have a decent understanding and/or appreciation about ancient history and about the languages of various stages of history, what I am saying will not be understood.
What is the proper name of the creator and where in the Bible does it command we call Him by this so-called proper name?
check out nehemiah gordons' work regarding that on youtube
I've heard people who read the Bible in the original language give the right definition to words, but it's the wrong definition in the context where it is used (a word can have more than one meaning). Proper translation takes many years to learn. That's why I use the KJB: it has the proper translation with 400 years of good fruit from the right root bearing witness. Plus, I was one who was saved because I heard and believed the true gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ that is clearly presented in the KJB. Praise יְהֹוָה (Yĕhovah, GOD)!!! Plus, when I was saved, I received the Holy Spirit, and the Bible says, "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." - 1 John 2:27
1 Corinthians 3:18-20 KJV
Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. [19] For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. [20] And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
CHURCH, SEPTUAGINT AND TRADITION IS INSPIRED.
YOU DESPERATE BLINDS, SHOULD SOMETIMES GO AMONG JEWISH AND MUSLIM APOLOGISTS AND SEE HOW YOUR "CHRISTIANITY" WILL FALL. AS AN APOLOGIST WITH EXPERIENCES DEBATING AGAINST THEM, ALL I CAN SAY IS THE PROBLEMS LIES WITH MASORETIC HOPELESSLY CORRUPTED TEXTS.
KJV is based on the Rabbinic Masoretic text and was edited by Rosicrucian Francis Bacon. It is a good translation but not infallible.
Why don't you call out Zionism as a heresy perpetuated by the Jesuits? If you consider Napoleon and the Rothchilds Jesuit operatives, then that is the logical conclusion.
The Jesuits are using Zionism to facilitate their agenda, then use it as the justification to persecute Christians and Jews.
Jesus defined Israel in Rev 12 as the faithful remnant who keep his testimony and commandments.
Christian Zionists like Hagee are warmongering heretics who deny that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah and promote the Satanic doctrine that Daniel 9:27 is about the Antichrist when it was Jesus who confirmed the prophesied covenant.
Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. The children of Israel were in Egypt for 215 years not 430 years. Other wise the Apostle Paul is a liar. I just started watching your TH-cam video and I'm not impressed.
One is sourjourning and one is affliction. They lived peacefully when the king was still there, and then when died. The next king started to make them into affliction.
It seems like, Mr. Daniels, that you don't believe in miracles at all. Why are you stunned to unbelief that God could help 70 elders whom God appointed as leaders in Israel produce a perfect translation so that the world, even the King Ptolemy would believe in such an amazing God. This translation paved the way to prepare the whole known world to the Gospel of Jesus Christ whom the Apostles preached to the world who knew Greek not Hebrew by the way. Guess what Paul used as a text in his missionary journeys to Antioch, Macedonia, Corinth, Ephesus, etc...? When Paul mentions the Law or the Scriptures, he was talking about the Greek Septuagint not the Masoretic Hebrew text produced by the Jews around 1000AD! Paul didn't preach in Hebrew to the Gentiles, but Greek (a no brainer). And guess what Scripture text he would have used? the Hebrew Text? Of course not! It had to be the Greek text which you are claiming never existed in the time of Paul?
If u approve the kjv u should approve the apocrypha because it originally had them
Translators did not approve of those.
This man really likes saying his name. Reminds me of Denny Crane of Boston Legal. Form of Narcism.
There you go again. He "introduces himself" in every video.
Why don't you just scroll past his videos and not put yourself through all the anguish? You seem very triggered.
I love this merciless attack on corrupt texts. Really aren't giving them any chance whatsoever of standing up for their putrid nonsense, against the perfect word of God, the KJV. Thank you !
This dude is full of it. He tries too hard and has nothing to base his idea off just "his word" against "mine" (the septuagint).
You are talking nonsense
this man will see Heaven ......I wanna give my heart to Jesus but it is so hard for me as an African American growing up here in the USA...RACE,,is a big issue for my people, like I am always more concern if Jesus was a black man or a white man..like I wonder why this is never disguised and I also wonder what is the purpose of Christ being black??
like I cant understand how white Christians say they love this country when the masonic Illuminati Fathers of America had my ancestor in bondage..like I wonder about these things and I see my people not following Jesus Christ because we never see our selves being involved in the biblical world..but I know that Catholicism is a lie and white Jesus is a lie but I never hear the color black being accepting as a good thing it is always seen in the negative...sorry brother and sister in Christ I am just a Luke warm Christian who wants to be with Christ, but I know that I am a willing sinner because of secular issue that separate me from our farther, but I cant get it out of my mindset..
WHAT SHOULD I DO??????????
First off, "race" is a silly and non-biblical idea. Our skin color is not an issue with God: "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;" - Acts ch17 v26. We're all descendants of Adam and Eve. All genetic differences can be easily explained by inbreeding, from the very beginning.
Second, what happened in the past, shouldn't be held against anyone for any reason. It happened in the past. Let it go. Forgive and move on, or else it is going to be a continual stumbling block for you, just as it was for me.
Third, Jesus wasn't white, but he wasn't black. Not that it matters, but, he had olive-tan skin. Jesus did, however, have at least some black ancestry that I'll explain with scripture to back it up.
Moses married an Ethiopian woman! Check this out: "And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman." - Numbers ch12 v1.
Why did Aaron and Miriam even care that Moses married an Ethiopian woman? I bet it had to do with their prejudice, because guess what? Even then people hated each other based on appearances. There is nothing new under the sun. But this also indicates that Aaron and Miriam likely had fair or tan skin, otherwise why mention the fact that she was an Ethiopian?
Look, when God spoke to Job, God basically said "man up and stop being wishy-washy" in chapters 38 and 40. You don't need me or anyone else to remind you of what you already know, because you admitted it. Just get it out of your mindset. Do away with vain thoughts. Everyone needs Jesus, end of story.
God bless you and I'll be praying for you.
James Lappin
MASTERSTROKE..
55 57 Thank you.
Also: "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?" - 1st John ch4 v20.
That's pretty clear to me. Don't believe anyone who claims to be a Christian, but hates people based on appearances. Because, who is your brother? If the bible is true, are we not all related?
:)
James Lappin
wow..man this mean so much to me ,,I get caught up watching African American leaders such as Dr Umar Johnson and Luis Farrakhan...but that verse helps me understand that I shouldn't hate white people for America old crimes..wow..brother in Christ thank you.I watch a lot of christian pastors who are white and they never deal will the topic of American slavery..but this little explanation from a random person helps more than ever..I wish I was able to learn from Mr Daniels, but he is to much of a scholar for me but the bible does say in 1 Thessalonians 5:14 Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men.:):):):):
55 57 Think of the whole slavery issue like this... Remember how God had the children of Israel go into captivity into Egypt?
For the longest time in America's history, southern slave owners forbade black people from learning to read/write English. They did this because of the power that the words in the bible have for us all, and the problem of slavery was no different. Stories like Moses gave people hope, that some day they would be set free. But there is another aspect of the story that most people miss.
God takes the evil that we do, and turn it into good. The United States was one of the few places where black people flourished, because it wasn't illegal for slaves to have children. Like the Hebrews in Egypt, they were fruitful and multiplied. Maybe it was the best place out of many that black people could have gone to, if you consider how much more terrible other countries were to their slaves at the time. I know that doesn't make it right, but it's at least something to consider.
I could tell you about Islam and the middle-east, but just look at any Muslim country, and it will be hard to find a black person living there. There's a good reason why even though Africa is so close, you don't find many black people living in Middle-Eastern countries.
Also, if you have 30 minutes to spare, you can watch my testimony on my channel if you want. I seriously hope and pray for you, even though I don't really know you, because God will strengthen and guide you. You can trust that he will, don't doubt it, friend.
1st Tim 4:8 Martial Arts is practical, yet godliness...?
you use a picture of a man with a halo..... hmmm
👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
this is all very interesting
Earth, wind and fire. (Heavens is fire)
He was in the wheelhouse of the life span of Jesus. Sounds like a political statement to shape the region.
Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the Septuagint. That’s good enough for me!
Yet here you are.
But the Bible says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God." Did the New Testament writers need to quote from anything?
Roman Catholic here, but we agree on that one!
@@bradholbrooks umm, the OT???
@@bradholbrooks Maybe not, but they did
I was looking at this post, mainly because I wanted to see what was said about the 'Septuagint'; there is a man online, who loves talking about the giants, ufo's. He refers to the Septuagint's listing of scripture regarding the giants, thus pushing/endorsing another gospel. Ye can't and shouldn't cross-reference KJV against other bibles, why? Some weaker brethren may be listening, and gladly turn back to a more popular rendition of scrip.
St Jerome was also the originator of the word, Rapture, divested from the Latin Vulgate, which the Protestant church still clings despondently unto this day; until the Midnight Cry of Matthau 25, and then~! they, the lead preachers, publishers, writers will have to pen a letter of Retraction for this word, AND Trinity, as these are not found in the King James, as well as a humble apology. GTGTG
Even in his Books! He has to put his face throughout the entirity of everyone of his videos. Hard to watch. Repulsive!
Your ad hominems aren't persuasive, Jesuit.
DAMNED PROT, BLIND GUIDE.
Just consider studying Islam...