I really appreciate the integrity with which these two examined the questions. They did not hide from truths relating to textual variants. When they found they were in disagreement on a matter they immediately stopped and examined it. When it comes to the age of the earliest pyramids however I don't think that the question is settled at all and this video seems to have been only a short piece of a fuller discussion.
Very interesting BUT they never tackled the question of when the pyramids were built. Just saying "they were built after the flood" is totally insufficient. What is your evidence to say that? That is what needed to be addressed.
Did you not watch the discussion and also read the relevant articles? We mentioned that they were built on Flood sediments, meaning that they had to be post-Flood.
@@creationministriesintlThe stones of some pyramids are made of geopolymers. That is, a type of artificial "cement", so fine that you know it was pulverized. The chemist Joseph Davidovits demonstrated this. So, how is it possible that there are marine fossils embedded in the stones? Well, that probably leads us to think that some were built before the flood. The Bible does not talk about the pyramids, or when they were built. It's all guesswork. What's more, after the flood it seems that man changed the construction model, using brick.
I'm a little late to resond. South American pyramids are zigarats. I believe they are decedent's of the Tower of Babylon. The TofB was a zigarat. The Assyrian pepple are very close in looks. I believe the bloodlines are similar. After the flood makes sense.
You did not clearly answer the question on when the pyramids were built, you just said it was after the food. 99.9% of your discussion was about 'scholarly' accuracy of historical writing.... 🤔
Lita is a very knowledgeable and intelligent young woman. I'd like to hear more from her. It seems you are trying to make her more understandable to average people when you interrupt her, but I'm tracking with her just fine. I hope her confidence on camera only improves and she is able to finish her thoughts. I know how difficult that is for me when people stop me mid-sentence. She has a lot to offer and I wouldn't want something like that to be a hinderance to her growing in her academic ministry.
@@mr.sherrill9137 He barely gave her ten seconds before he interrupted. Disrespectful to your guest regardless of how long you think she’s taking to answer.
Not only did they not go into when the pyramids were built, they held to another assumption: that the pyramids were actually built by the Egyptians. Assumptions are always dangerous, such as assuming that the Earth’s pre-flood atmosphere was the same as it is now.
That's not an assumption. We have their tools, we have their inscriptions. Yes, Egyptians were master propagandists, but that doesn't extend to non-Pharaoh engineers. Most people have no idea how messy people are, especially in archeology where the timeframe is decades and even a few centuries. If someone other than Egyptian built the pyramids, we'd have ample physical evidence of it. Broken tools, broken pottery, etc. We don't have it. Go to an actual dig site. I visited one at Fort Mackinac. In a carefully preserved section of the dig set up to demonstrate this, one could see buttons, coins, and other forgotten debris that went into some corner, got covered with dirt, and sat there until careful archeology found it. Broken pottery is so ubiquitous in the ancient world that it can be and is used as a dating method. We can be very sure the Egyptians built them even if we don't know all the details of it. We definitely know _who_ .
The begetting ages: {Genesis 11:11-26} Shem: MT (*100 years), LXX (100 years), SP (100 years)na Arphaxad: MT (35 years), LXX (**135 years), SP (135 years) Kainan: LXX (°130 years) Shelah: MT (30 years), LXX (**130 years), SP (130 years) Eber: MT (34 years), LXX (**134 years), SP (134 years) Peleg: MT (30 years), LXX (**130 years), SP (130 years) Reu: MT (32 years), LXX (**132 years), SP (132 years) Serug: MT (30 years), LXX (**130 years), SP (130 years) Nahor: MT (29 years), LXX (**79 years), SP (79 years) Terah: MT (*70 years), LXX (**70 years), SP (70 years) Rule: (MT) = Masoretic Text (☆minus 650 yrs and 130 yrs - Kainan/m) (LXX) = Greek Septuagint (SP) = Samaritan Penteteuch (°) = Luke 3:36 second witness (*) = The MT, the LXX, and the SP are in agreement. (**) = Josephus is in agreement with the LXX and SP. (na) = Josephus does not give a witness. ^ Flavius Josephus was a first century historian. 'Antiquities of the Jews' "The things narrated in the sacred Scriptures, are, however, innumerable, seeing that they embrace the history of *5,000* years..." (Ant. 1:13) Josephus claimed to use *Hebrew* text in his recitation of Genesis and other OT books. (Against Apion, 1:1, 54; Ant. 1:5, 9:208, 10:218) Rabbinic deflation theory (after 70 A.D.): a), Motive (Chrono-Messianism) b), Means (Athority; Rabbi Akiba 40-137 A.D.) c), Opperatunity (Judaism had been reduced to one Pharisaic sect after 70 A.D.) -->There is no unbiased reliable second witness to the complete time-line of the MT before Eusebius in the 4th century A.D. Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in *a good old age* an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people. (175 years) {Genesis 25:8} ^ By MT Chronology this statement would be untrue. According to the MT, Eber was still alive and lived to be a good old age of 464 years, more than twice the age of Abraham. Shem lived to be 600 years old, yet according to the MT he only dies 25 years before Abraham death. (The Jews also falsely claim that he is the high priest of Salem, Melchizedek in a vain attempt to discredit Christ claim of being a priest in the order of Melchizedek.)
Thank you brother, nice explanation. To add 100 years in years old, and 50 in Naor years old, doesn't seem to be a smart thing to do, cause is the ages that actually they have their children. A im right? Shalom
The pyramids were built from a limestone quarry and limestone comes from marine organisms and shells, so it seems very likely that the pyramids were built on sedimentary rock which is post flood.
If more interest about this subject is the Sphinx. It could be quite older than the great pyramids themselves, and appears to have been in a pool of water a while ago. It's fascinating.
video, totally misleading , there is no 'the pyramids'. It is scientifically well proven that the egyptian culture did evolve over thousands of years, when the sahara was still greener, the giza area was unhabitable for humans. real pyramid culture didnt start until the third dynasty with Djosers step pyramid, egypt was actually formed through the age of pyramid building.. then Sneferu's three pyramids, then Khufu, Khafre and Menkaure. After that the time for the big pyramids were over, the egyptians switched over to smaller ones again.
I've noticed that many times in the New Testament when the Old Testament is quoted it uses the Septuagint translation where there are differences between it and the Masoretic text. Is this a similar issue? Have you addressed this before and how should this be handled?
Scholars have long known that the NT quotes the LXX. Even the KJV translators noted this in the Introduction ("From the translators to the reader"). The short answer it that the NT was written in Greek, therefore they used the available Greek translation when they wanted to quote the Bible. In the same way, if I were to quote a verse from the OT here, I would not do it in Hebrew but in English, even though I understand that all translation are imperfect. We discuss the issue here, as well as in other places: creation.com/bad-arguments-mt-lxx
@@rwcarter3434 When you quote english bible, as badly translated as it can be, at least it shows the full verse. In the MT, some messianic verses are simply missing, and if it were not for the LXX we would not be able to check the accuracy of Jesus and Apostle quotes from the NT. NT writers could not quote a MT like text (if it existed at that time), otherwise we would not see with the same strength the connection between Jesus and the Old Testament prophecies.
@@rwcarter3434 You’re basically saying that the New Testament has imperfections and mistakes. Because, after all, the disciples were using a bad translation, so they misquoted the Old Testament. Therefore the New Testament has mistakes. That’s heresy.
Question: the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament was written in Greek. Both languages use letters for numbers. So how do you think that they made mistakes on the numbers?
Such a perfect example: when there is a difference, try NOT to keep your "opinion" but look for the truth hand in hand. That is serious science. Thanks!
Excellent analysis and historical context of the MT, LXX controversy. You clearly have spent a lot of time investigating this crucial topic. Thank you for the clear explanation of the main issues.
@@i7Qp4rQ Peleg was post flood...when the world was divided has to do withe the Tower of Babel confusion of languages and people groups moving across the globe.
@alantasman8273 As I said. That's dogmatic "a clean table" in the way of cutting the corners short: 'peleg' alone means 'earthquake'. A dr. at biblical archaeology has made a longer article about it: what the used word(s) means, and what the contexts are.
@@i7Qp4rQ Four generations after Noah, Genesis 10:25 records the birth of Peleg (meaning division) " for in his days was the earth divided ". Some suggest the continents of the earth were divided at that time but the continents dividing were the result of the global flood and should they have happened at the time of Peleg..without water covering the Earth it would have been a catastrophic event rivaling the flood itself in destruction.
@@alantasman8273 The timeline is 239 (MT) ...339 years, and a lot of earthquakes. Vs. one year of the flood. The much longer timespan diminishes the impact of tsunamis. Just like the name seems to indicate: S6385 Strong's Exhaustive Concordance Peleg The same as peleg; _earthquake_ ; Peleg, a son of Shem -- Peleg. see HEBREW peleg v S6389 Strong's Exhaustive Concordance divide A primitive root; to split (literally or figuratively) -- divide. ... biblearchaeology research chronological categories flood-of-noah 2798 revisiting-the-peleg-event He makes the case that the wording used involves division by water. ... Ps. Youve to realize that not a lot of people were around at that time, the sea levels were around 100m lower or so.
Why would there be huge implecations for inerrancy? The early church used the Septuagint for the first 400 years of Christianity. We know this. Even the latin churches used latin translations of the Septuagint. You don't believe that the early church had an inerrant Bible? Sounds like you're the ones with the doctrinal problem.
The "early church" used a variety of translations, depending on locality (e.g., the Syriac Peshitta), scholars have essentially always known there were major differences between the LXX and MT (and the their respective translations), and, no, the early church did not use the LXX for 400 years. You are missing a whole lot of history.
@@rwcarter3434 “Therefore, because it has been definitely established that the Septuagint version was translated from the original, unadulterated Hebrew scriptures, it is reasonable for us to use that version for this chronicle - especially since it is the only version that is approved by the church of Christ, which has spread throughout the whole world, and it is the version that was handed down to us from the beginning by the apostles and disciples of Christ.” ------ -Eusebius’ Chronicon Was Eusebius wrong?
@@masada2828 What do you mean by “The Latin version”? The Old Latin translations were translated solely from the Greek Septuagint. But the New Latin translation (aka Jerome’s Latin Vulgate) was primarily translated from the Jewish Hebrew text while also drawing upon the Septuagint in some passages.
For many years I would read something in the NT which was a quotation from the OT, but didn't appear to be similar. This confounded me until I actually did a thorough study of both the OT and NT many years ago (which took me 18 months to complete), going through each verse, one by one, and checking (to the best of my ability) the textual variations. Throughout the course of that study, I compiled 2928 typed pages of notes, where I noted (among many other things) all of the manuscript variations which I found, excluding minor things such as: inclusion (or exclusion) of conjunctions; changes in the gender of a word in the original language which does not alter the meaning of the word in English; synonymous words; rearrangement of words in a series; etc. In instances where the Hebrew and Greek texts were not in agreement , many of the NT quotations of such cited the LXX. So (sincere question, as I do not know the answer), if the early church fathers favored the Hebrew over the LXX, why are so many of the OT quotations (where the manuscripts are not in agreement) from the LXX instead of the Hebrew? (I've counted approximately 50, although some are quoting from the same OT verse in different NT books.)
I have noticed times when the LXX was quoted instead of the masoretic even though it is only a small piece of a passage of the LXX used to replace a word or 2 inside of a passage. But then when you compare it to those found in the Dead Sea Scrolls it matches perfectly to it. Such as Psalms 22:16 where the King James matches the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were found and published approximately 3 centuries after the KJV and dated a couple of centuries before Christ and up to about the time of Christ.
The Septuagint was favored and is inspired. The Masoretic Texts are newer than the Septuagint texts; the masoretic texts have. Wen tampered with. The Dead Sea Scrolls are in the original language and are older than both Septuagint and Masoretic Texts. Septuagint is clearly a Greek translation from original Hebrew that’s different than the Masoretic texts (they removed or de-emphasized passages that clearly point to Jesus as messiah). The Dead Sea Scrolls corroborate the Septuagint and refute the Masoretic texts. Much modern secular biblical and pre-messianic Jewish scholars favor the MT and eschew the LXX. ♥️
but... but... you still didn't answer the question in the title of this video satisfactorily--what do you do with the awkward genealogies and timeline?
@@NathanH83 - I was 19 when my dad killed himself at age 44. He had lived a full life and was old to me even though his mother was 88 and twice his age. Now I am 48 and my dad wasn’t nearly as old as I thought he was.
@@boxelder9167 Sorry to hear that about your dad. I think my point would be that if someone died in their 40’s today, you wouldn’t say that they died of old age. Either they died prematurely due to being killed, or they had some deadly disease or something.
the little aside, where they fact check, is priceless! and then, the humility to admit you got something wrong. this is how honest scholarship works. God bless you both
@@rotaryenginepete Honestly, their scholarship is in things like biology. But this particular issue they haven't looked into deeply enough. That's the problem with people with PhD's. They become "know-it-alls". But they don't know it all.
And yet there are several facts in favor of the LXX, and I would kindly advise to at least allow the possibility that Gen 5 and 11 could be right in the LXX, except the scribal error concerning Methushelah. One would not dismiss the MT book of exodus because exodus 1 : 5 is wrong in the MT. One would not dismiss the MT book of Isaiah because his messianic verses are not as accurate as in the LXX. In fact, in lot of cases the LXX is superior to the MT, but each issue should be dealt separately. We known for example that Exodus 12 : 40 is right in the MT and might not in the LXX. As for Gen 5, the LXX has many witnesses such as Demetrios, Eupolemus and Josephus. As for Gen 11, the LXX has also many witnesses such as those cited above + the SP As for Gen 5 the SP is like the MT, but we know that it is strongly probable that Gen 5 in the SP was modified to follow the Jubilees chronology, which is a fabricated one, that is the only witness to the chronology of the MT in Gen 5 is a flawed one. As for Gen 11, the MT stands alone, and have fathers outliving great sons. Also the fact the only patriarch mentioned in the story of Abraham is Terah strongly suggest that the other ones were dead. The text said that Abraham died full of years which would not make sense if people 300 or 400 years older than him would still be around. The Egyptian Chronology might be inflated, but how much ? Could we get the nearly millenium needed to adjust with the Biblical MT timeline ? You might get one or two centuries down which isn't enough. If the Flood occurred in 2350 BC, how could we get the thousands people needed for the Tower of Babel 100 years later and a significant dispersion (with only a few hundreds people around) ? Actually the LXX timeline allows 400 years or more between the flood and Peleg and that is sufficient for a huge construction. I believe the world is 7500 years old and the Flood happened around 3200 BC, and the reason is not because of Egyptian Chronology. By the way, there is no reason to believe the alexandrian Jews modified knowingly the chronology to compete with the Egyptian one. That thought is a modern one. The Seder Olam Rabah shows that Jews tried to modify the post-exilic chronology to disqualify Jesus. They could have done the same with the Gen 5 and 11, taking informations from the modified SP in Gen 5 and putting new modifications in Gen 11. The oldest MT is from 1008 AD, we don't know of any from Spain to India before that to check their presumed timeline. In fact modifying Gen 5 allows to discredit Jesus as the second Adam, and modifiying Gen 11 allows to discredit Jesus claim as the High-Priest in the book of Hebrews. Paul might have spotted the Jewish desire to modify genealogies in Gen 5 and 11. See 1 Timothy 1:4, Titus 3:9, Titus 1:14. And we know Jews started to refute the LXX in the 2nd century AD by making new greek translation ? Why not before ? Also there was a debate about Jews having altered their scriptures (see Augustin Civ 15:11). Did not they crucify the one who had led them out of Egypt ? Would that make them able to do anything to discredit Jesus ? This is the most powerful motive that can be put forward - minimizing messianic verses and altering chronology to disqualify Jesus as the Messiah. Also let us not forget that early Christians (Theophile, Julius Africanus, Justin Martyr, Hyppolite, Methodus...)also refers to the long Chronology of the LXX rather than the short. From 280 BC to the 2nd century AD, nobody rejected the LXX chronology. Shall we today ? Peacefully in Christ,
Of course there are several factors in favor of the LXX. That is normal with disputed subjects (or there would be no reason for debate!). But every one of your points has been addressed already. Question: Have you read our articles on the subject? Do you understand our reasoning for rejecting each of your points? If not, you have homework to do. Start here: creation.com/smith-response
@@rwcarter3434 Thanks, I will go through the article. All I said is for the sake of debating and finding out the truth. Anyway I appreciate your ministry and your contributions about the age of the earth and the evolution vs creation debate.
@@rwcarter3434 Dr.Carter, I did my homework by reading the 3 articles related to the subject. Given the vastness of the subject, I would need you to illuminate a few points that I could not understand from CMI articles and also a variety of points not mentioned in your articles. What I write is only for the sake of seeking truth. And you may correct my mistakes as the subject is difficult. I will put aside for a moment the different positions of Christians from the 2nd century AD and will focus on data prior to that. In your article “textual traditions and biblical chronology - Genesis 5”, you say there are many reasons why the majority of scholars believe the LXX and SP share a common “ancestor” or textual source. The argument given is that of Methuselah age - 67 in the SP and 167 in the LXX. If that point is enough to make a sure connection between both texts, why couldn't that source or ancestor be the original rendering of Gen 5 ? Original text : 187 LXX : 167 because of a scribal error SP : took after the 167 but deflated it to 67 (Jubilees argument) MT : 187 According to figure 1 in your article, the hebrew vorlage of the LXX would have had 67 and then the LXX translators added 100 years. I'm not sure if I understand well the logic of that case. But all of that is quite speculative, one argument in favor of deflation would be what Smith is pointing out - that Jerome stated that the SP in his time had the 187 Methuselah figure while it does not anymore. If that were the case, the 67 wasn't in the SP back then. When you look at numbers in Gen 5, the pattern is smooth in the LXX (230, 205, 190, 170, 165, 162, 165, 167 or 187 and 188), and it's kind of a roller-coaster in the MT. We don't know for sure how things were going culturally speaking at that time, but the smooth pattern might bear some logic. You mentioned in one other article Augustine solution to explain the inflation hypothesis - puberty age and raising those ages to put down skepticism. But why would the LXX translators have added an extra generation if the purpose was to get “more reasonable begetting ages” ? Do we need an additional theory to explain it ? We know that the LXX retains in some cases longer verses that in the MT. We can check an example with Deuteronomy 32:43 where the LXX is superior to both the MT and the DSS. That LXX verse is backed up by Hebrew 1:6. Maybe Cainan was in there under the writing of Moses as was the full verse of Deuteronomy 32:43. In the same way, while the age of Nahor could be increased to 100 years (29 to 129) like for the others in order to compete successfully with the Egyptian Chronology, it remained at 79. In the other way, in the deflation view, if the original age was 79, the pattern of 100 years reduction could not be applied hence the 50 years. The scribe that modified it did what he could - removing the maximum of 50 years. As a matter of fact, the LXX Chronology is still far from catching up with Manetho's Chronology (3000 BC vs 4000 BC or more). It seems that this hypothesis doesn't work well. We can also observe that Abraham died full of years at 175 years old (Gen 25:8). In the MT people aged twice or three times more were still around. The statement would make more sense with the LXX timeline than with the MT's. Long ages were already gone by the time of Abraham. Also the pattern where Shem died before his sons, grandsons, great-grandsons and 700 years before Terah seems to make more sense. The only patriarch mentioned in the story of Abraham is Terah, the others are probably missing because they were dead, which is the case with the LXX. It's difficult to visualize Shem outliving Terah or Eber outliving Abraham and all those relatives being missing in the account. I noticed the argument that the deflation in the 2nd century AD looks impossible to CMI view (Torah too well spread as Augustine said) while Smith believes it's possible. Apparently by the time of the Dead Sea Scroll there were already alterations in the text, it didn't seem to cause a wave of protest. And we have no old hebrew text from the various places in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd ... century AD. I also noticed the argument that, according to CMI, inflation was possible in the 3rd century BC while Smith believe it would have been spotted. While we don't have evidence of the inflation hypothesis and with the fact that Demetrios, Eupolemus and Josephus used the high numbers, we do have some clues that could argue for a deflation hypothesis. Paul could be implying Jews messing up genealogies (1 Tim 1:4; Titus 3:9; Titus 1:14) The fact that Christians were proving the messiahship of Jesus according to the scriptures, could have motivated Jews to counter respond Jews replacing in the 2nd century AD the LXX for new greek translations Jews modifying the post-exilic chronology in the Seder Olam To me the fact that Jews crucified Jesus is enough to make them able of doing anything to counter his claim. The whole deflation would not have taken place in the 2nd century AD, but Jews could have selected the old SP/Jubilees chronology in Gen 5. Then we'd have the hebrew vorlage with LXX numbers (except Methuselah), the SP got deflated afterward but kept begetting age in Gen 11. The hebrew bible were nearly identical to the LXX until the 2nd century AD where Jews could have favored existing text inferior to the LXX which had more power in terms of messianic verses. It doesn't mean Jews altered everything, but they could have selected material. We know for example that the LXX preserved better Deuteronomy 32:43 than MT or DSS. Jews could have noticed that existing hebrew texts was less messianic than the LXX and picked it up. The NT is also much more aligned with the LXX, could it be that Jesus and the Apostles would have been OK with Gen 5 and Gen 11 in the LXX ? I mean they quoted verses from everywhere in the OT (and in the Pentateuch), there's no reason to think that they would have been distrustful to the chronology part of the LXX while they were agreeing with the rest. Also Sumerian and Egyptian data are going back to 3000 BC, is this possible to squeeze them (taking into account co-regency and whatever) to almost a thousand years ? You need time between the Flood and the Tower of Babel, and 100 years seems to be not enough demographically (and historically) speaking. If the Flood occurred in 1656 AM (MT's figure), and Arphaxad was born in 1658, Shelah in 1693, Eber in 1723 and then the dispersion took place during Eber's life because the earth was already divided by the birth of Peleg, it means that the dispersion took place less than 100 years after the flood. In that model, there is not enough people to build the Tower and to get significant groups for the dispersion, particularly for the Egyptian group that would soon construct huge pyramids. Look how little was the group of Jacob when he entered with his family into Egypt - only 75 people, and yet the family was growing up for some 200 years already since Abraham. In the LXX model, we've got 500 years between the flood and the Tower of Babel. And it would make much more sense that Noah and Shem died before the Tower of Babel episode. Those patriarchs would probably not have joined the construction of the Tower and would have had influence on their direct descendants. If LXX is correct, no witness to the flood were still living at the time of the Tower and man would have soon forgotten the sin and fate of the antediluvian world. Kindly, Anthony
@@questcequelaverite First, this is hardly the place for long and detailed discussions. Such things are unsurprising, and occur often when engaging LXX advocates, but this is not the place. Second, most of your points and questions have been addressed in our articles already. Third, you show your cards by putting multiple horses in front of multiple carts. I will leave with this, which we consider the final word on the subject until the LXX advocates develop better arguments: creation.com/smith-response.
Doesn’t the question remain though…how are the texts different then? A change had to happen somewhere, if not a grand conspiracy, then how are they now different!? What is your explanation for the discrepancies?
Should we not at least consider the simple fact that Jesus Himself had no problem quoting from the Septuagint? Also, it does predate the other two versions considerably. I know these aren’t scholarly reasons, but they should say something to the person who claims to believe that Jesus is The Word, God incarnate.
until listening to this post, i would get a teary lump in my throat thinking about the moment of separation for those families . it does my heart good to know that the people born into mixed marriages & seemingly left behind have not been. better yet; they have an identity, the Samaritans!
I have the understanding that the MT was not penned until 1000 AD, thus the Greek Septuagint at 250B.C. would be more accurate and probably copied from the Hebrew Text which there is no known copies of. I like Mr. Hoffman’s video on explaining “How long were the Israelites in Egypt” video.
Not long as, Moses was the grandson of Levi, the son of Jacob, the gt nephew of Joseph (who had an honourable burial), it’s more like ‘how long were the Hebrews slaves’ as, they were not slaves until after Joseph’s death and a new dynasty.
so what scripture was being held in Jesus Christ'shand when He says it's authentic and inspired.. the Masoretic text was 'compiled' around 1000 AD. while the Septuagint was Before Christ, which was being used by the gentiles and jews alike, which was also possibly held in hand by Christ.. eg. 2 Tim 3:16, Luke 24, Luke 4:16-21 Just some question what text was being held at time time; because if the Septuagint Gen 11 is held, adding some 650 years.. the flood is before 2500 BC
and what do the discussions about textual variants and differences have to do with age of Pyramid ? there were civilizations during pre-flood era, of course they built things, like any civilizations do, hence the idea of pyramids being pre-flood, still doesn't contradict the bible ...
My biggest question I can't find an answer to (with my amateur googling) is: I've always heard that the Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch are much older than the Masoretic text, and that Jesus references the Septuagint. If that's true (which it might not be for all I know) then why do we use the Masoretic text for our modern Bibles? Edit: around 16:00 you touched on this a little bit. So what I've heard would be a false claim that the Masoretic came around much later than the Septuagint.
Simple answer. The Masoretic Text was written by the Hebrews. The Septuagint was written (Translated) by Greek Scholars who did not know the Hebrew language very well. And, the Greeks knew little to nothing about the facts of what they were translating.
@@vhebert333 Thank you! This is something that's bothered me for a while. The Septuagint seemed to have a timeline that fit better with current archeological timelines, but I figured we had a good reason for basing modern translations off of the Masoretic text, I just didn't know what that reason was. More than likely, ancient Egyptian and other culture's timelines are inflated due to propagandistic or uninformed compilations of the reigns of kings.
We have addressed this topic extensively. creation.com/lxx-mt-response creation.com/smith-response creation.com/6000-years-masoretic-vs-lxx creation.com/bad-arguments-mt-lxx creation.com/biblical-chronogenealogies
@@creationministriesintl I will deal with those articles as I am a proponent of the LXX being the original and containing the true numbers. I will write a detailed response on paper and send to your website, and have a video response. What I didn't see in any of the articles was addressing the longer chronology preserved by Josephus who is the earliest witness to the Septuagint next to Philo and Demetrius the Chronographer.
You can favor the LXX, but you cannot say things like this... the MT didn't just appear in 700 AD. It has been preserved in parallel with the LXX and SP from the 2nd and 3rd century BC at least. We have the DSS to prove it. But, yes, it's frustrating when people tend to stick to MT for emotional and traditional reasons rather than good scholarship. And the CMI have a big bias with their preference for MT, which is not justified from a scientifical POV.
@@marcusdumitru No, that's not true because if it were then we should have read of divergent texts in the days of Jospehus and prior. Had Christ and the Apostles been using the LXX and the Pharisees the MT: then we should have read of them debating Him and His followers for using contrary scriptures to make their claims.
@@jeremiahcastro9700I guess that the news didn't get to you. But the DSS is a testimony of all the 3 textual families. That is, in the Qumran Scrolls, texts from LXX, MS and SP have been found. That is BEFORE Christ. The apostles and Jesus quoted from Scriptures that resembled both LXX and MT.
I have a question concerning different numbers between the Septuagint and the Masoretic. The Septuagint says Goliath was 4 cubits and a span. The Masoretic says he was 6 cubits and a span. Given the range of lengths possible for a cubit and a span, Goliath was anywhere between 12 feet and 20 feet tall, more or less. Which height do you think is more plausible? The Septuagint's or the Masoretic's? I think the Septuagint's 12 foot range is more likely.
Great subject to be discussed! Can you please create another video with this info but in a different format? The interviewer hindered the flow of information.
Pushing the time of the great pyramids one way or the other, is a futile exercise, insofar as what we know as "ancient Egypt" didn't start with the great pyramids. The great pyramids were build during the 4th dynasty. There were Egyptian pharaohs - dynasties of pharaohs, in fact, before the 4th (yes, you guess it - 3 of them) speaking the same language, using the same hieroglyphs possessing the same religious beliefs, living along the same Nile river. How all of this should somehow have survived the Great Flood, unaltered, is a paradox that isn't affected by whether the great pyramids were build before or after the flood.
There's clearly a bias here about wanting the Masoretic so that questions of inerrancy don't have to be addressed. That makes your objectivity questionable. Question: Why does Josephus side with the Septuagint numbers for Genesis 5 and 11? Question: If the numbers were inflated by 100 years at each link, why was the final link only inflated by 50 years? What specific number were the LXX translators aiming for? (A.k.a motive). If deflation was instead the objective, then Terahs 79 Could not be deflated by 100 years, which would explain why it was deflated by 50 years. If the original number was 29, why does the LXX not read 129? This internal evidence cannot be ignored. Potential motives for deflation: 1) Adding up all the numbers of the patriarchs prior to Moses add up to 12,600 years, a special number 2) It makes Shem's lifespan overlap with Melchizedek. Jews today use this as an argument as to why the stuff said about Melchizedek in the book of Hebrews is wrong (i.e, he was Shem, we knew his mother and father, we knew his beginning of days and end of life, therefore Jesus non Levite priesthood is illegeimate) 3) the 50 year cycles for the book of Jubilees (this one applicable to the Samaritan penateuch, and also explains the differences). Altho this could be motive for both an inflation or a deflation as it sits in the middle.
"clearly a bias" You have clearly not read anything we have written on the subject, especially where we say that we *wanted* the LXX to be the original translation. Most of your other questions are answered in our several articles. creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j29_2/j29_2_99-105.pdf creation.com/lxx-mt-response creation.com/iron-sharpening-iron creation.com/smith-response creation.com/bad-arguments-mt-lxx
@@rwcarter3434 Each generation dies one after the other. The older generations die off, and the newer generations after them. That's the way life works. You're ignoring common sense. The early church defended the Septuagint. New Testament quotes side with the Septuagint.
When the first word out if his mouth his 'heresies' I automatically begin to tune out. I enjoy hearing your interpretation of scripture and I enjoy hearing others. Most Christians, despite interpretational differences, are trying to keep Christ at the center of their interpretations and understandings. Why can't we keep Christ in the center of our interactions with fellow believers? That really is what matters most!
And did they have espresso while enjoying the Bible Bus with Dr. J. Vernon McGee ❤ Thank you, for being here straightening out these alternate versions of history. :) AL
In the book of Genesis when Cain killed his brother Able he was exiled to the land of Nod. Cain went on to ‘build’ a city. Just how many Bronze Age cities were on the earth when Noah’s flood occurred ?
Quick ?……I was listening to something about the masoretic text vs the Septuagint….about the numbers of the ages of the line of Shem being off a 100 years. This is what the Jews today use in the masoretic text to claim Jesus couldn’t be from the order of Melchizedek and they use Hebrews to claim this. Is there any validity to this claim? And do you have any insight on it?
Lita should not call her work in this arena as scholarly. I say that because she is looking for an answer that supports what she believes the bible says is true. Actual scholars do not let their preconceived conclusion shape their data. Instead data should be driving the conclusion, no matter where it leads. The problem of course, is that Christians cannot for a single instance accept that anything in their book may not be completely accurate. This leads to poor scholarly work, whether Christian or secular.
@@JB-yb4wn ...yeah, Mendel was also a trained scientist and is known today as The Father of Genetics. Both he and Darwin theorised about genetics and Gregor was correct, not Darwin.
The Samaritans were not Jews who were left behind. Read 2Kings 17, the Bible tells you exactly who the Samaritans of today are. After the ten tribes of Israel were exiled by the Assyrians, Samaria was then filled by five different Gentile groups (2Kings 17:23-24). One of the wicked Priests of Jeroboam, who were not real high priests, were then brought back to teach these new Gentile Samaritans how to worship the God of Israel (2Kings 17:27-28). Yet they continued to worship the gods of their previous lands, alongside the true God (2Kings 17:29-33).
The thing is, the Assyrians wiped out a State, but that doesn't mean they erased all the population, taking absolutely every Hebrew of the 10 tribes away. A remnant always stayed. The new colonists had to learn the ways of the God of the land from somewhere, to make sure they are welcomed to stay and prosper. So, an interbreed is more likely, with a syncretistic religion.
@@marcusdumitru That isn’t what the text says Read 2Kings 17:27 The King specifically asks for “one” priest to be sent back, so as to teach the new inhabitants. As said before, these priests that were taken away were promoted to priesthood by Jereoboam
They say test what we said, but don't give any opposing views, like refer to Nathan Hoffman's video. I cringe now whenever someone says I am a Dr or scholar in scriptures etc, then say academia is nothing to scoff at. They might as well say I was indoctrinated at seminary X... Well search the scriptures and ask holy spirit to teach you and ask him your questions instead of man's wisdom (google or study bible notes etc). Be willing to have your understanding challenged and be corrected.
They're also scared to mention the fact that Eusebius, a church historian from the 4th century, agreed with the timeline in the Septuagint, and said that the whole Christian church of his day was using the Septuagint, and didn't trust the Hebrew text of the unbelieving Jews. Because if they mention that Eusebius disagrees with them, or quote the words he wrote in his work called "The Chronicon" then it would make them look bad, and wouldn't help to bolster their point. Their strategy: "Ignore the early church." That reflects greatly on their relationship with God.
@Jonathan Sarfati Well then how did those extra 100 years on 6 generations end up in both the Samaritan Bible and the Greek Septuagint? You can’t say that the Samaritan Bible was translated from the Septuagint, since it existed before the Septuagint. You can’t say that the Septuagint was translated from the Samaritan Bible, since the Jews translated it, and the Jews didn’t trust the Samaritans. Besides, the Septuagint correctly says Mt. Zion, so clearly it wasn’t translated from the Samaritan Bible, since it says Mt. Gerazim. The only logical conclusion is that they both were translated from an older Hebrew text. This means that there was an older Hebrew text that included those years. And even Josephus agrees that the Hebrew text he used included those years. And that’s according to his original genuine numbers, not just his present day corrupted numbers. That’s 3 textual witnesses, making it appear that there was an older Hebrew text that included those years. What am I missing? There’s a reason that were countless early church fathers defending the Septuagint, and defending its timeline.
@Jonathan Sarfati Yea, I know the Samaritan Bible agrees with the Masoretic in Genesis 5. You think I don’t know that? You think I haven’t researched this? I know that. There’s even a possibility that Josephus’ original genuine numbers agree with the Masoretic in Genesis 5. But Genesis 5 isn’t what I’m talking about. I’m talking about Genesis 11. I’m talking about the years AFTER the flood. And in Genesis 11, you’ve got the Samaritan Bible, the Greek Bible, and Josephus’ original genuine numbers agreeing that those extra 100 years belong on those 6 generations. This fixes the ridiculous idea that Shem outlived his great great great great great great grandson. And it also fixes the legitimate claims that atheists bring up about the Pyramids and the Tower of Babel. So how do you explain that 3 textual witnesses bear witness of an older Hebrew text that included those years in Genesis 11?
@Jonathan Sarfati If the Samaritan Bible, Masoretic, and Josephus are missing those extra years in Genesis 5, then that’s 3 witnesses, bearing witness that those years don’t belong. I’m following the principle of 2 or 3 witnesses. That’s why I am more inclined to believe that those years before the flood don’t belong. But after the flood, we have 3 witnesses, bearing witnesses that they do belong. Again, I’m following the principle of 2 or 3 witnesses. And I’m NOT saying the Septuagint is perfect.
Its been refuted soundly. The chronology of Egypt is done with computers because we have a few hundred synchronisms. Synchronisms work like this... The king in Assyria has correspondence with a king in egypt. The Assyrian king, at the same time, has correspondence with a king in Babylon. Therefore, the Egyptian king and the Babylonian king existed at the same time. If one date is secure with one of those kings then a date can become secure with the others. David Rohl's chronology breaks 30 synchronisms. Second, his chronology states that Egypt was sometimes split up and two of the kings of Egypt would be ruling at the same time. One in the north and one in the south but his chronology has two such kings ruling different parts of Egypt from the SAME city. Impossible.
@@blusheep2- Mizraim is the Father of the Egyptians who is the son of Canaan, son of Ham. Nimrod who ruled Babel is also a son of Ham so they did exist at the same time. David Rohl chronology is spot on.
@@masada2828 I'm trying to find where exactly it says that Mizraim is the Father of the Egyptians. Whether David Rohl got this chronology right, at this point, doesn't matter. We are speaking to his chronology of Egypt and it is terrible. Like I said, and maybe you don't want to here it, but David Rohl's chronology destroys 30+ sychronisms in the historical record. Sychronisms are rock solid. Not only that but his chronology has overlapping kings, meaning that he has two kings ruling Egypt at the same time from the same city. This is absurd. Rohl makes the argument that, at times, there were two Egyptian kings. One ruling northern Egypt and one ruling southern Egypt. This is plausible but becomes absurd when he has these two kings, who would be antagonists of each other, ruling their respective pieces of Egypt from the same city. I think you can even see how that is a problem.
I'm not able to sit through this whole thing, but can't the same argument of inaccurate chronological dating and misinformation about family and Egyptian royalty Power struggles, be applied to the Bible and determining the age of the Earth? Isn't the whole young earth idea based on the ages that are reported in a document? It seems sort of like a goose and gander philosophy.
The global deluge transmitted by almost every ancient culture through their mythological traditions (According to the Biblical record it would have occurred approx. 2,500 B.C.E.) 🌊
Even without any chronology, it is a simple logical exercise to determine whether or not the pyramids predate the flood. Ask yourself: Are the pyramids built upon sedimentary (geological) layers or do they rest upon or below the Vishnu basement? If yes, they lie upon sedimentary rock layers, they postdate the flood.
All the pyramids in South America were built before the flood. The construction is impossible for us with our technology, so how were the Inca or Mayan people supposed to have built them?
Hello. Question. The pyramids have marine fossils on them from the stones being dragged to the work site. From a Christian perspective how is this explained ? A lot of Christians believe in a young earth creation. To me this might be an argument for an old earth creation story.
@@KenJackson_US I think the argument is this. The worlds limestone is said to have been laid down in the flood and the vast amount of fossils are said to have been laid down in the flood. The limestone quarried to build the pyramids are full of fossils which suggests that the pyramids were built after the flood, not before. The problem here is that we have a good understanding of the pyramids age and we also have the YEC's estimation of the flood. Together it puts the pyramids before the flood and so how does one account for all the fossils in the pyramid limestone if the flood happened after they were built. There are lots of things wrong with the theory that they were built before the flood.
@@blusheep2 Ah. Nathan Hoffman and Douglas Petrovich have made very convincing arguments for the LXX/SP timeline over the MT. It leaves adequate time for the pyramids to be built and for the Sumerian, Akkadian and Egyptian civilizations to live.
I am not impressed with Lita; she really missed it when she talked about the origin of the Samaritan people. It wasn't "Jews" who were removed by the Assyrians, it was the people of the northern kingdom of Israel (2 Kings 17:22, 23). "Jews" refers to the people who are descended from the southern kingdom of Judah. The now emptied cities of Samaria were resettled by peoples from various places within the Assyrian Empire. And because the cities had been emptied, there was no mixing in Samaria between the people of Israel and the foreigners resettled there. On another point concerning the ages of people in Genesis, I don't know where Lita is getting here information, but the consensus view, both ancient Jewish and Christian, falls on the side of the Septuagint and not the Masoretic Text. Furthermore, Lita is conveniently passing over the fact that the oldest Masoretic texts still fall a number of centuries after the oldest Septuagint text. Furthermore, for example, the Hebrew Isaiah scroll from the Dead Scrolls when it varies from the Masoretic text, more often than not it agrees with the Septuagint rendering of the ancient Hebrew. This video is, in my opinion, a poor attempt to appear scholarly. Just because an idea appears reasonable does not mean it is true.
I'd like to make a request, if I may. I suppose it's more of a bone to pick. Please do not make the assumption your viewers are thrown off by seemingly "big words". I've seen this happen, not only here, but on other videos from those defending Creationist beliefs. To me, it comes across as offensive because it implies the viewer is ignorant or simple minded. Especially when the person in the video assuming this, obviously understands the word, but then acts like it's some confusing thing for the listener that then needs to be dumbed down, or even worse, the need to apologize for subjecting us to such "big words" lol. I like the girl in this video's approach much better. Although she communicated with the viewers coherently and explains her thoughts very well, she doesn't apologize for any information or words she provides. To me, that feels like she assumes her audience is intelligent enough to understand and comprehend the concepts she is presenting. So please, stop treating your audience like they are all elementary school kids. If we don't understand a word, we know how to use Google lol. Other than that, this was a very good and informative video. Thank you for sharing 😊
I understand the sentiment, however we make many of the videos with the idea that children will also be viewing the video, and we want the video to be understandable for them too.
@@creationministriesintl I agree with Eli here. Don't ever apologize for using the correct words, descriptions, and scientific terminology that best describes the object, event, or subject you're discussing. Trying to walk a middle line just doesn't work, either for children or adults. If you're concerned about children trying to understand these concepts, then create a video just for them. Your audience wouldn't be viewing these videos unless they were prepared to encounter the most accurate terminology.
This should also be watched "Dr. Douglas Petrovich: Genealogies in Masoretic vs Septuagint & Samaritan Bibles" from the " Is Genesis History?" Series. This topic is not a definitive one either way.
@@rwcarter3434 Your work on coral was brilliant. I pray God continues to help you keep your work going. True, we may not agree 100%(99% though). Have a great day.
Great video. I am just now looking into this; i.e., the NT apostles and Jesus quoting either the LXX or the MT. I heard they mostly quote from the LXX, which makes sense because the main language at that time was Greek. However, the question I have is did Jesus and the apostles ever quote a number or text that is now known to be incorrect? I would think whatever Jesus quoted (if not from the LXX, SP, or the MT) would be the correct reading.
The phrases they quoted don't include many numbers and don't really impinge the timeline debate. Stephen's defense before the Sanhedrin (Acts 7) does include a calculation that seems to have come from the LXX. His "75 persons" (v. 14) can be gotten from the LXX if you include the sons born to Joseph in Egypt that are not mentioned in the MT. But, again, this does not impact any chronology.
@@KenStewartNZ Yes I saw that video and enjoyed learning his take on it. I think the LXX in Gen 5 and 11 are correct. Henry Smith Jr has written about it and can be found on line as well.
2 Kings 13:1 states that in the 23rd year of Joash King of Judah, Jehoahaz became king over Israel and he reigned for seventeen years. This would put the end of Jehoahaz's reign over Israel at the 40th year of Joash's reign, since twenty three and seventeen equal forty. Yet we read in 2 Kings 13:9-10 that Jehoahaz slept with his fathers, and they buried him in Samaria, and Jehoash his son reigned in his place in the THIRTY SEVENTH year of the reign of Joash king of Judah. This would leave only fourteen years for the reign of Jehoahaz, not seventeen years as stated in verse one of this chapter. There is no way you can juggle the numbers and make this come out right. This simply shreds the doctrine of inerrancy, which is the belief that God has perfectly preserved the Bible through the ages down to the present day with no errors in it at all even to the very letter. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny. There were mistakes made by some scribes centuries ago, however for me it doesn't shake my faith in the slightest. I don't depend in some false doctrine of inerrancy, particularly because of the shipwreck that it has made out of once solid Bible believers like Bart Ehrman, but I do believe in the infallibility of the original manuscripts. I also believe in the overall, overwhelming totality of the testimony of the Law, the Prophets and the Apostles as sufficient for my faith. I believe in all areas of theology, morality, prophecy (fulfilled and yet to be fulfilled), the historical account of God's creation of the world and of the world wide Flood of Noah and the story of the early Patriarchs, the history of the Jewish nation, the virgin birth, sinless life, death burial and resurrection of our Lord Jesus the Messiah, and in science the Bible is accurate.
The Mazz Tic text has only been around for approximately 1000 years. It’s by far the youngest of these three families of Old Testament text. So it’s impossible for scholars to have been debating this for 2000 years because 2000 years ago only except two agent and the Samarian texts existed.
Love creation ministries, you guys really shaped my view on this world and my view on the old testament. It makes my faith stronger and thats what all this is about right❤. I made 4 parallel chronologies that are out there. 2 for the Masoretic, 2 for the Septuagint. Of both took the 430 / 215 time in Egypt approach and thorougly dived into the issue of Kainan. But in the end I keep them next to eachother. I honestly don't know which one has the best papers. What fascinates me is the theory that Sem was Melchizedek, but this is not possible in the Septuagint as he died hundreds of years before Abraham. On the other hand, it is appealing as a Christian to have a high priest in the order of Melchizedek that has no link to Levi/Aaron or the priestly blood line but yet is there and is priest king like Melchizedek (Jesus). Super interesting but wouldn't change my view on the bible. Time will tell what the real age of the pyramids are. Between 2300-3100 BCE is good for me. I don't know a lot of recent history of my own town where my anscestors grew up (only up to 1600), let alone something that happened 4500-5000 years ago😅.
One thing I believe is the step pyrimid in Egypt was a grain storage complex built by Pharoah Joser, second to the king, who was Joseph, son of Israel or Jacob
Those building the Tower of Babel on the plain of Shinar in what would later become Babylon probably took some 100 years to build that tower. They gained valuable knowledge about building methods, materials and planning from that mega project. FYI, a Nebuchadnezzar II relief from 600 BC with the Tower in the background has been found as has the remaining base of that Tower. After the confusion of language and the dispersion, at least one of those people groups ended up in the Nile Delta which had fertile, well watered, soil that could grow plenty of food to feed the massive workforce necessary to build the first Pyramid. These people had "recently" stopped building the Tower of Babel. They took the skills learned in that construction of a ziggurat, and applied them to building another pyramid shaped structure. Some believe that the scriptures are reflected in the internal passage ways. ..the narrow passage going up into the pyramid and the wider path going down into the pyramid. More recently, there is some evidence that the limestone blocks (full of marine fossils from the flood) were actually poured as a concrete to form the blocks on the spot.
Mr Carter continuously disrupts the lines of thought made by Lita. it's obvious that he knows the subject and the answers to his own questions. This would have been better narrated by someone else, with the two answering questions.
I appreciate your efforts and I don't like to criticize but I do think you should go back and try this again. I was 'drawn in' by the question "Were the Pyramids Built Before the Flood?" But a good portion of your discussion was spent on wittering about the Pentateuch, which, as far as I can tell, doesn't really tell us anything about the Pyramids specifically. After reading the first five books of the OT, I'm convinced the earth is young, approximately 6000'ish' years old, I'm convinced about 4000 years ago there was a flood, and although mankind may have had the will to do it, I just don't think we ever had the tools and technology to produce such a thing as the Pyramids post flood. Hence, my question: what was mankind up to 'before' the flood? The title of your podcast made me think someone had found evidence. Personally, I've been reconciled to the possibility that there are just some things about the distant past God has chosen to leave a mystery, and that's okay. I expect I'll find out in eternity.
The Masoretic text is not the original Hebrew. It's equally a translation... This is so because the alphabets are almost entirely new and thus different from older Hebrew alphabets. It is written in modern Hebrew. Jesus didnt speak this form of Hebrew and neither did the Apostles. Jesus spoke Aramaic and possibly Greek. So both LXX and the Masoretic text are translations. They both have their strength and weakness. The Masoretic text came 1000 years later, after the ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Early Church didn't use it. So what makes it the original? Thanks for the great work.
Addressed here in detail: There is good reason to believe that the masoretic chronology is correct. creation.com/lxx-mt-response creation.com/smith-response creation.com/bad-arguments-mt-lxx creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j29_2/j29_2_99-105.pdf You will have trouble showing definitely that Jesus did not speak Hebrew, but only Aramaic and Greek. He is likely to have been familiar with all three.
This woman is awesome!!! She's so intelligent, I could conversate with her about this stuff all day! Although I disagree as far as the origins of the Samaritans
what is missing here is the geneology of flavious josephus, which agrees with the samaritan and greek text. in my opinion it is a mistake to view the scriptures as without error, just as it is a mistake to accept the kjv as the best translation. this isn't to say that the scriptures are not divine. but complete devotion to the masoretic text does not allow for a more reasonable conclusion in numbers that do not change the theme of scripture. in a 3 vs 1 scenario, maybe the 3 should not be so easily dismissed. what we have today, is a broad understanding that the 1 (masoretic) is correct, when the 3 would answer the question of the pyramids more reasonably. as of now, the dates are just too close to accept that so many events could take place where the numbers of humans could not possibly account for them. it took a population to build the tower of babel, it took a population to build the pyramids, as examples. the 3 to me seems more reasonable, as it allows time for population growth. accepting the 3 would not deny the scriptures divine authorship. i would have no problem in explaining the pyramids this way.
Help please... If pyramids are say 5000 years old and built of limestone, this only gives 1000 years to establish underwater sedimentary beds of limestone, and then have these beds raised up to form limestone quarries. Also, given only a thousand years, where did the large numbers of workers come from? Suggesting pyramids must be post-Flood, as sedimentation inside chambers is not showing evidence of Flood. Struggling here to grasp the timeline.
The Step Pyramid of Saqqara (and other pyramids) is built on a limestone terrain. In this case, the core of the structure was built of small blocks of tafla, with the outer slope dressed with Tura limestone. Limestone and sandstone are flood sediments, and thus, the pyramid on top of Flood sediments tell us that they were built post-Flood. Similarly, some of the pyramids are also built using rock quarried from the same Flood sediments themselves.
So you said at one point "the septuagint provides more time so that the pyramids could be built after the flood." I didn't hear a definitive statement that the Masoretic gives time for the pyramids to be built after the flood, or that the pyramids were built before (which I find inconceivable). thank you guys and God bless your ministry :) Always useful
*If* the LXX contains the original numbers, there is more time to build the pyramids. However, the LXX almost certainly does not contain the original numbers, as we explained in our several articles (see links). Is there enough time in the MT chronology? We argue that indeed there is in our book Tour Egypt: creation.com/s/10-2-664
I don't think this video was sufficient in addressing this subject. A lot of people say a lot of things but what made the original video on this subject so appealing was 1, the delivery of the information provided, 2 a visual video that complimented what was said, & 3 source material that could be checked. Maybe go through the video addressing each of the statements & provide statements & citations of your own that can be checked. Maybe address the creator of the video himself. He was open to criticism & addressing this. Why not talk to him?
I was brought up thinking the scribes were extremely meticulous to a fault. I got the impression getting the transcriptions right and NOT making mistakes was almost a life and death issue for them. (Not literally) Now I’m hear things like besides just accidental mistakes there could have been intentional rephrasing in order to support better understanding. I don’t understand where they had the right to change anything without some kind of permission. Lastly, do you think maybe that God meant “inspired Word” to cover goofs and all for some benefit we can’t see yet?
Mistakes could have been made. As a Catholic, I scratch my head about Martin Luther deliberately taking books and verses out of the Holy Bible. He changed things to fit his beliefs. I love how Protestants have held the line on evolution and the flood by staying true to the Bible though. It all seems to be playing out as expected. God gives us what we need, and we are allowed to decide how to live our part.
While you have said a lot about the various variants, textual criticism, conspiracy theories, changes to the Septuagint text and the Samaritan Pentateuch, you have barely answered the questiion you asked:"Were the Pyramids built before the flood?". If you did, you did it the way Scholars do, go round and round and just allude to something. A simple answer would have been sufficient. Like Philip said, "Show us the Father and that will be sufficient for us", i would say "Tell us a simple Yes or No and that will be sufficient for us. Then we can take all the scholarly arguments that were put forward and fit them into the understanding of the question
@@creationministriesintl Thanks for the answer but you were not crystal clear. You were going round and round in circles. This approach is OK for someone learned but you will miss reaching ordinary people in this way
@@martinnyirenda2525 I made a video that actually addresses the issue head on and gives the correct answer. The early church believed that the flood was 3,000 BC, long before the pyramids. Simple as that.
The Ancient Peshitta Bible and the translations directly from it are the only versions (sorry KJV only people, but no, your Bible is not inerrant) that have Matthew 27:9-10 correct. All other English versions, including the versions translated from the Latin in the Catholic Church into English, are based on a corrupt Greek text. Matthew was originally written in the Aramaic/Syriac tongue for a Hebrew readership. The Greek text and every single other translation that comes from it (this covers virtually every other version of the Bible in existence except the Peshitta) reads "Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of Him who was priced, whom they of the children of Israel did value, and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me." The problem with this is that this prophecy did not come from the book of the prophet Jeremiah, it came from the book of the prophet Zechariah, 11:12-13. Whoever that unknown scribe was who translated the original text into Greek made an error. This error was copied down and recopied and made it's way into virtually every single Greek text in existence over the entire ancient world, as well as into the later translations into Latin. The translation from the original Aramaic reads (Lamsa translation): "Then what was spoken by the prophet was fulfilled, namely "I took the thirty pieces of silver, the costly price which was bargained with the children of Israel, and I gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me." The scribe who translated the original gospel of Matthew into Greek must have added the name of Jeremiah to the original text, perhaps being a Greek disciple unfamiliar with the original Hebrew Old Testament reference, perhaps being careless or tired, whatever the cause was, and this error was then compounded in every single other copy made in Greek, and thus made its way down to us in the present day.
G.Grennell Not sure your informtion is correct. Masoretic text was developed in the 600's AD, and in any case well after the life of Jesus. I believe the controversy has to do with the age of Shem, and an attempt to portray him as Melchisedek. I read that the dead sea scrolls were more in line with the Saptuagint, chronologically. Not sure what all this means for the pyramids, but the Septuagint is the oldest OT that survives, and doesn't have Shem living in the days of Abraham, which seems very unlikely. Not saying your definetly wrong, but it is possible the Septuagint, the Bible Jesus used, is the correct one. Maybe!
This video is not about the Great Pyramid nor did you prove the Great Pyramid was built by the Egyptians. What about the flood damage on the Sphinx? Have you seen the jars from Egypt that appear to have been CNC'd from stone? Made with greater tolerances than what you can get with many modern tools.
Most sources say the Masoretic text was written by scholars, based on existing Hebrew and possibly Aramaic texts, between the 6th and 10th Centuries AD. There was a Hebrew Bible at the time of Jesus, but it wasn't the Masoretic Text
The discussion was not about dating the pyramids. Initially stating they were post flood , without any logical reasoning is dictatorial not scholarly thinking. Bringing the discussion down to earth would require weaving facts with scripture. For example, we have no understanding of the engineering making the pyramids possible, at least not from a post flood world. Wasn’t the tower of Babel incident an event to retard the science of the people? Doesn’t this suggest very powerful science at play, pre-flood? Another example, shouldn’t the pyramid structures be studied with regard to how the universal flood characteristics behaved? Was the churning and turmoil of the flood ubiquitous? Or, were there hot spots, spots where less activity on the terrain existed, spots of relative calm? Could the pyramids been in an area where the flood actions were less dramatic, allowing for the survival of structures? Has the theorized manner in which the flood occurred been studied. I am sure there must be multiple constructions of how the flood experienced happened, For example, if the flood was so universally dramatic how could there be remnants of pre-flood animals roaming the earth? Wouldn’t such a flood have ripped all flesh to shreds. I would think the flood characteristics would be varied. If in the area of the pyramids there was not geological shifting and churning, then it is conceivable that such large structures could survive the event somewhat intact. My point is that you can not decree the pyramids are post flood especially when there is so much work to be done to provide a realistic, science based explanation of the event.
It is so sad that we can't even get any honest history the way it really happened from anyone. And if you do they cut it out or censor people for doing so.
If you follow the chronology in the Masoretic text there are only about 100 years from the global flood to the dividing of the people at the Tower of Babel. In 100 years the 8 people who came off the Ark would only number around 200 people at best. 200 people could not build the tower of Babel. If you follow the chronology in the Septuagint you have about 400 years and a population of millions. There are other reasons the Septuagint is the better choice but let’s stick to the issue stated here before we move on to other facts.
I am old ( 65) tired, and i have exhausted myself grappling with questions where mostly i could not find satisfactory answers so i am now content to simply not know my quest was motivated by unbelief so let the matter go except to take the occasional look at what scholarship is doing these days now i know that my opinion has no value as regards apologetics, but i also reject apologetics as reliance on clever arguments, especially when the high priestly prayer of John chapter 17 actually TELL US us what will persuade people that God has sent the son take a look at the passage we ignore it as we do not have the reality He spoke of, so will insist on recourse to words and cleverness of argument
Great timeline chart at 7:45! So Noah died around the time Abraham was born and Shem was alive at the time of the birth of Abraham and later Isaac. Very cool!
They were built by the Nepheline/fallen angels as a way to survive the flood. If you look at their construction, they are like a diving bell, thick to withstand the pressures, with drainage in the basements for water that makes it through the cracks. Those huge sarcophagus in the lower level are places for the nepheline/angels to live in while waiting for the waters to recede.
Well, doesn't that contradict the Bible when it says everything with the breath of life outside the Ark perished. Apart from the fact that the pyramids are made from rocks formed during the deluge.
3 years late, Before the flood. Why do I say this? Simple observation, analytical reason and 45 years of Biblical study. The story of Joseph is the first time we are given a description of Egyptian construction. What were they using? Bricks. Why would it mention the Tower of Babel but not the Pyramids? People before the Flood were far beyond our current intellect. We, by virtue of life span are children. Northern Africa is a sand bar. In some places hundreds of feet deep. How did it get there? As it was in the days of Noah so shall it be in the end. They built amazing structures, so do we just with different materials. They spoke one language, we broke the language barriers with computers. I have no idea why people think we lived in caves before the flood. That came after
It would be nice if he could let her finish one sentence. It's also disruptive, it doesn't flow like a coherent discussion :(
Seriously! Very hard to listen to!
Yes, let the lady speak.
Yeah that was rough. He seemed to want to provide all of her answers for her.
Totally agree!
I really appreciate the integrity with which these two examined the questions. They did not hide from truths relating to textual variants. When they found they were in disagreement on a matter they immediately stopped and examined it.
When it comes to the age of the earliest pyramids however I don't think that the question is settled at all and this video seems to have been only a short piece of a fuller discussion.
Very interesting BUT they never tackled the question of when the pyramids were built. Just saying "they were built after the flood" is totally insufficient. What is your evidence to say that? That is what needed to be addressed.
Did you not watch the discussion and also read the relevant articles? We mentioned that they were built on Flood sediments, meaning that they had to be post-Flood.
So all of earths pyramids were built during pangia(one content) before the flood separated the contents?
@@creationministriesintlThe stones of some pyramids are made of geopolymers. That is, a type of artificial "cement", so fine that you know it was pulverized. The chemist Joseph Davidovits demonstrated this. So, how is it possible that there are marine fossils embedded in the stones? Well, that probably leads us to think that some were built before the flood. The Bible does not talk about the pyramids, or when they were built. It's all guesswork. What's more, after the flood it seems that man changed the construction model, using brick.
I'm a little late to resond. South American pyramids are zigarats. I believe they are decedent's of the Tower of Babylon. The TofB was a zigarat. The Assyrian pepple are very close in looks. I believe the bloodlines are similar. After the flood makes sense.
@@crazyasstaz Huh? The pyramids are about the original one: the tower of babel. That event is after the flood.
You did not clearly answer the question on when the pyramids were built, you just said it was after the food. 99.9% of your discussion was about 'scholarly' accuracy of historical writing.... 🤔
because by giving a date it puts a date on the so called global flood which will easily be tested and we all know what the conclusion will be
@@eugenelindsey1523 exactly! Waste of my time.
Lita is a very knowledgeable and intelligent young woman. I'd like to hear more from her. It seems you are trying to make her more understandable to average people when you interrupt her, but I'm tracking with her just fine. I hope her confidence on camera only improves and she is able to finish her thoughts. I know how difficult that is for me when people stop me mid-sentence. She has a lot to offer and I wouldn't want something like that to be a hinderance to her growing in her academic ministry.
Please stop interrupting her!
Exactly. It is irritating.
I like this info however I wouldn't have been able to deal with interruptions or him trying to finish her sentences.
He was coaching her the whole way through
I wouldn't have been able to deal with her slow responses without trying to finish her sentences.
Yeah seriously. Came here to say this.
@@mr.sherrill9137
He barely gave her ten seconds before he interrupted. Disrespectful to your guest regardless of how long you think she’s taking to answer.
The dialogue was maintained throughout the conversation and helped explain definitions and history. Ty for the pod
Not only did they not go into when the pyramids were built, they held to another assumption: that the pyramids were actually built by the Egyptians. Assumptions are always dangerous, such as assuming that the Earth’s pre-flood atmosphere was the same as it is now.
That's not an assumption. We have their tools, we have their inscriptions. Yes, Egyptians were master propagandists, but that doesn't extend to non-Pharaoh engineers.
Most people have no idea how messy people are, especially in archeology where the timeframe is decades and even a few centuries.
If someone other than Egyptian built the pyramids, we'd have ample physical evidence of it. Broken tools, broken pottery, etc. We don't have it.
Go to an actual dig site. I visited one at Fort Mackinac. In a carefully preserved section of the dig set up to demonstrate this, one could see buttons, coins, and other forgotten debris that went into some corner, got covered with dirt, and sat there until careful archeology found it.
Broken pottery is so ubiquitous in the ancient world that it can be and is used as a dating method.
We can be very sure the Egyptians built them even if we don't know all the details of it. We definitely know _who_ .
@ Perhaps you definitely know who built them but we certainly do not. Your belief system is not universal and that’s okay.
The begetting ages:
{Genesis 11:11-26}
Shem: MT (*100 years), LXX (100 years),
SP (100 years)na
Arphaxad: MT (35 years), LXX (**135 years),
SP (135 years)
Kainan: LXX (°130 years)
Shelah: MT (30 years), LXX (**130 years),
SP (130 years)
Eber: MT (34 years), LXX (**134 years),
SP (134 years)
Peleg: MT (30 years), LXX (**130 years),
SP (130 years)
Reu: MT (32 years), LXX (**132 years),
SP (132 years)
Serug: MT (30 years), LXX (**130 years),
SP (130 years)
Nahor: MT (29 years), LXX (**79 years),
SP (79 years)
Terah: MT (*70 years), LXX (**70 years),
SP (70 years)
Rule:
(MT) = Masoretic Text
(☆minus 650 yrs and 130 yrs - Kainan/m)
(LXX) = Greek Septuagint
(SP) = Samaritan Penteteuch
(°) = Luke 3:36 second witness
(*) = The MT, the LXX, and the SP are in agreement.
(**) = Josephus is in agreement with the LXX and SP.
(na) = Josephus does not give a witness.
^
Flavius Josephus was a first century historian.
'Antiquities of the Jews'
"The things narrated in the sacred Scriptures, are, however, innumerable, seeing that they embrace the history of *5,000* years..."
(Ant. 1:13)
Josephus claimed to use *Hebrew* text in his recitation of Genesis and other OT books.
(Against Apion, 1:1, 54; Ant. 1:5, 9:208, 10:218)
Rabbinic deflation theory (after 70 A.D.):
a), Motive (Chrono-Messianism)
b), Means (Athority; Rabbi Akiba 40-137 A.D.)
c), Opperatunity (Judaism had been reduced to one Pharisaic sect after 70 A.D.)
-->There is no unbiased reliable second witness to the complete time-line of the MT before Eusebius in the 4th century A.D.
Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in *a good old age* an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people. (175 years)
{Genesis 25:8}
^
By MT Chronology this statement would be untrue.
According to the MT, Eber was still alive and lived to be a good old age of 464 years, more than twice the age of Abraham.
Shem lived to be 600 years old, yet according to the MT he only dies 25 years before Abraham death. (The Jews also falsely claim that he is the high priest of Salem, Melchizedek in a vain attempt to discredit Christ claim of being a priest in the order of Melchizedek.)
Thank you brother, nice explanation. To add 100 years in years old, and 50 in Naor years old, doesn't seem to be a smart thing to do, cause is the ages that actually they have their children. A im right? Shalom
Thanks for your thorough and informative layout
The pyramids were built from a limestone quarry and limestone comes from marine organisms and shells, so it seems very likely that the pyramids were built on sedimentary rock which is post flood.
Post "A" flood, the earth has flooded many times.
@@crazyasstazThere was only one *worldwide* flood. (But also many other floods to varying degrees)
Limestone can form very fast, geologically speaking
If more interest about this subject is the Sphinx. It could be quite older than the great pyramids themselves, and appears to have been in a pool of water a while ago. It's fascinating.
video, totally misleading , there is no 'the pyramids'. It is scientifically well proven that the egyptian culture did evolve over thousands of years, when the sahara was still greener, the giza area was unhabitable for humans. real pyramid culture didnt start until the third dynasty with Djosers step pyramid, egypt was actually formed through the age of pyramid building.. then Sneferu's three pyramids, then Khufu, Khafre and Menkaure. After that the time for the big pyramids were over, the egyptians switched over to smaller ones again.
Dr. Carter is awesome, I'm listening more and more to him. He works well with Ms. Cosner, great team, great video.
Poor quality communications, deceptive headline title, should be taken down, planned properly and redone
I've noticed that many times in the New Testament when the Old Testament is quoted it uses the Septuagint translation where there are differences between it and the Masoretic text.
Is this a similar issue? Have you addressed this before and how should this be handled?
Scholars have long known that the NT quotes the LXX. Even the KJV translators noted this in the Introduction ("From the translators to the reader"). The short answer it that the NT was written in Greek, therefore they used the available Greek translation when they wanted to quote the Bible. In the same way, if I were to quote a verse from the OT here, I would not do it in Hebrew but in English, even though I understand that all translation are imperfect. We discuss the issue here, as well as in other places: creation.com/bad-arguments-mt-lxx
@@rwcarter3434 thank you for your response
@@rwcarter3434 When you quote english bible, as badly translated as it can be, at least it shows the full verse. In the MT, some messianic verses are simply missing, and if it were not for the LXX we would not be able to check the accuracy of Jesus and Apostle quotes from the NT.
NT writers could not quote a MT like text (if it existed at that time), otherwise we would not see with the same strength the connection between Jesus and the Old Testament prophecies.
You are arguing your thesis as if it was a conclusion. We dealt with this argument conclusively in creation.com/smith-response and related articles.
@@rwcarter3434
You’re basically saying that the New Testament has imperfections and mistakes. Because, after all, the disciples were using a bad translation, so they misquoted the Old Testament. Therefore the New Testament has mistakes.
That’s heresy.
Question: the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament was written in Greek. Both languages use letters for numbers. So how do you think that they made mistakes on the numbers?
Such a perfect example: when there is a difference, try NOT to keep your "opinion" but look for the truth hand in hand. That is serious science. Thanks!
Excellent analysis and historical context of the MT, LXX controversy. You clearly have spent a lot of time investigating this crucial topic. Thank you for the clear explanation of the main issues.
Nobody wrote about a conspiracy?
Justin Martyr? Irenaeus? Eusebius?
I wish it was a little less dogmatic with this issue. Same with Peleg.
@@i7Qp4rQ Peleg was post flood...when the world was divided has to do withe the Tower of Babel confusion of languages and people groups moving across the globe.
@alantasman8273 As I said. That's dogmatic "a clean table" in the way of cutting the corners short: 'peleg' alone means 'earthquake'.
A dr. at biblical archaeology has made a longer article about it: what the used word(s) means, and what the contexts are.
@@i7Qp4rQ Four generations after Noah, Genesis 10:25 records the birth of Peleg (meaning division) " for in his days was the earth divided ". Some suggest the continents of the earth were divided at that time but the continents dividing were the result of the global flood and should they have happened at the time of Peleg..without water covering the Earth it would have been a catastrophic event rivaling the flood itself in destruction.
@@alantasman8273
The timeline is 239 (MT) ...339 years, and a lot of earthquakes. Vs. one year of the flood. The much longer timespan diminishes the impact of tsunamis. Just like the name seems to indicate:
S6385 Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
Peleg
The same as peleg; _earthquake_ ; Peleg, a son of Shem -- Peleg.
see HEBREW peleg
v
S6389 Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
divide
A primitive root; to split (literally or figuratively) -- divide.
...
biblearchaeology research chronological categories flood-of-noah 2798 revisiting-the-peleg-event
He makes the case that the wording used involves division by water.
...
Ps. Youve to realize that not a lot of people were around at that time, the sea levels were around 100m lower or so.
Why would there be huge implecations for inerrancy? The early church used the Septuagint for the first 400 years of Christianity. We know this. Even the latin churches used latin translations of the Septuagint. You don't believe that the early church had an inerrant Bible? Sounds like you're the ones with the doctrinal problem.
The "early church" used a variety of translations, depending on locality (e.g., the Syriac Peshitta), scholars have essentially always known there were major differences between the LXX and MT (and the their respective translations), and, no, the early church did not use the LXX for 400 years. You are missing a whole lot of history.
@@rwcarter3434
“Therefore, because it has been definitely established that the Septuagint version was translated from the original, unadulterated Hebrew scriptures, it is reasonable for us to use that version for this chronicle - especially since it is the only version that is approved by the church of Christ, which has spread throughout the whole world, and it is the version that was handed down to us from the beginning by the apostles and disciples of Christ.”
------
-Eusebius’ Chronicon
Was Eusebius wrong?
But the Latin version was translated from the Greek & Hebrew.
@@masada2828
What do you mean by “The Latin version”?
The Old Latin translations were translated solely from the Greek Septuagint. But the New Latin translation (aka Jerome’s Latin Vulgate) was primarily translated from the Jewish Hebrew text while also drawing upon the Septuagint in some passages.
@@rwcarter3434 The Masoretic Text was not even created until the second century, let alone circulated.
For many years I would read something in the NT which was a quotation from the OT, but didn't appear to be similar. This confounded me until I actually did a thorough study of both the OT and NT many years ago (which took me 18 months to complete), going through each verse, one by one, and checking (to the best of my ability) the textual variations.
Throughout the course of that study, I compiled 2928 typed pages of notes, where I noted (among many other things) all of the manuscript variations which I found, excluding minor things such as: inclusion (or exclusion) of conjunctions; changes in the gender of a word in the original language which does not alter the meaning of the word in English; synonymous words; rearrangement of words in a series; etc.
In instances where the Hebrew and Greek texts were not in agreement , many of the NT quotations of such cited the LXX.
So (sincere question, as I do not know the answer), if the early church fathers favored the Hebrew over the LXX, why are so many of the OT quotations (where the manuscripts are not in agreement) from the LXX instead of the Hebrew? (I've counted approximately 50, although some are quoting from the same OT verse in different NT books.)
Maybe they favoured LXX
I think that NT writers wrote to mainly Greek speakers and therefore quoted the LXX.
Jim: _"..., I compiled 2928 typed pages of notes, ..."_
Wow! That's some serious study.
I have noticed times when the LXX was quoted instead of the masoretic even though it is only a small piece of a passage of the LXX used to replace a word or 2 inside of a passage. But then when you compare it to those found in the Dead Sea Scrolls it matches perfectly to it. Such as Psalms 22:16 where the King James matches the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were found and published approximately 3 centuries after the KJV and dated a couple of centuries before Christ and up to about the time of Christ.
The Septuagint was favored and is inspired. The Masoretic Texts are newer than the Septuagint texts; the masoretic texts have. Wen tampered with. The Dead Sea Scrolls are in the original language and are older than both Septuagint and Masoretic Texts. Septuagint is clearly a Greek translation from original Hebrew that’s different than the Masoretic texts (they removed or de-emphasized passages that clearly point to Jesus as messiah). The Dead Sea Scrolls corroborate the Septuagint and refute the Masoretic texts. Much modern secular biblical and pre-messianic Jewish scholars favor the MT and eschew the LXX. ♥️
Question: when did man begin to reckon time? There would be no seasons in the garden of Eden per se and no need for it . Thoughts?
Why do you think no seasons at Eden?
Before they were made, seasons were created too. Genesis 1 and 2 @@i7Qp4rQ
@lifeisnow3944 1. Days, dark-light sequence.
2. Months, four weeks
3. Years, with an axle tilt.
All seemed to be in place since the start.
@@i7Qp4rQ yep
but... but... you still didn't answer the question in the title of this video satisfactorily--what do you do with the awkward genealogies and timeline?
@Jonathan Sarfati
Abraham died “old and full of years” at 175 while Heber is still chugging away at 460?
Huh?
@Jonathan Sarfati
Doesn’t make any sense to me.
@@NathanH83 - I was 19 when my dad killed himself at age 44. He had lived a full life and was old to me even though his mother was 88 and twice his age. Now I am 48 and my dad wasn’t nearly as old as I thought he was.
@@boxelder9167
Sorry to hear that about your dad.
I think my point would be that if someone died in their 40’s today, you wouldn’t say that they died of old age. Either they died prematurely due to being killed, or they had some deadly disease or something.
@@NathanH83the ages had to be symbolic then.
the little aside, where they fact check, is priceless! and then, the humility to admit you got something wrong. this is how honest scholarship works. God bless you both
First question where did they get the sedimentary rock from? We know the deposit and it fits with the flood
GREAT POINT. The pyramids would be barried and covered with sedimentary rock.
Is Eusebius just a newbie who doesn’t know any better?
@Jonathan Sarfati
Eusebius isn’t a newbie then?
Nathan you have definitely ruffled their "scholarly" feathers 🤣
@@rotaryenginepete
True dat
@@rotaryenginepete Honestly, their scholarship is in things like biology. But this particular issue they haven't looked into deeply enough. That's the problem with people with PhD's. They become "know-it-alls". But they don't know it all.
@@NathanH83A PhD in chemistry suddenly becomes an expert on theology.
And yet there are several facts in favor of the LXX, and I would kindly advise to at least allow the possibility that Gen 5 and 11 could be right in the LXX, except the scribal error concerning Methushelah. One would not dismiss the MT book of exodus because exodus 1 : 5 is wrong in the MT. One would not dismiss the MT book of Isaiah because his messianic verses are not as accurate as in the LXX.
In fact, in lot of cases the LXX is superior to the MT, but each issue should be dealt separately. We known for example that Exodus 12 : 40 is right in the MT and might not in the LXX.
As for Gen 5, the LXX has many witnesses such as Demetrios, Eupolemus and Josephus.
As for Gen 11, the LXX has also many witnesses such as those cited above + the SP
As for Gen 5 the SP is like the MT, but we know that it is strongly probable that Gen 5 in the SP was modified to follow the Jubilees chronology, which is a fabricated one, that is the only witness to the chronology of the MT in Gen 5 is a flawed one.
As for Gen 11, the MT stands alone, and have fathers outliving great sons. Also the fact the only patriarch mentioned in the story of Abraham is Terah strongly suggest that the other ones were dead. The text said that Abraham died full of years which would not make sense if people 300 or 400 years older than him would still be around.
The Egyptian Chronology might be inflated, but how much ? Could we get the nearly millenium needed to adjust with the Biblical MT timeline ? You might get one or two centuries down which isn't enough.
If the Flood occurred in 2350 BC, how could we get the thousands people needed for the Tower of Babel 100 years later and a significant dispersion (with only a few hundreds people around) ? Actually the LXX timeline allows 400 years or more between the flood and Peleg and that is sufficient for a huge construction.
I believe the world is 7500 years old and the Flood happened around 3200 BC, and the reason is not because of Egyptian Chronology. By the way, there is no reason to believe the alexandrian Jews modified knowingly the chronology to compete with the Egyptian one. That thought is a modern one.
The Seder Olam Rabah shows that Jews tried to modify the post-exilic chronology to disqualify Jesus. They could have done the same with the Gen 5 and 11, taking informations from the modified SP in Gen 5 and putting new modifications in Gen 11.
The oldest MT is from 1008 AD, we don't know of any from Spain to India before that to check their presumed timeline.
In fact modifying Gen 5 allows to discredit Jesus as the second Adam, and modifiying Gen 11 allows to discredit Jesus claim as the High-Priest in the book of Hebrews.
Paul might have spotted the Jewish desire to modify genealogies in Gen 5 and 11. See 1 Timothy 1:4, Titus 3:9, Titus 1:14. And we know Jews started to refute the LXX in the 2nd century AD by making new greek translation ? Why not before ? Also there was a debate about Jews having altered their scriptures (see Augustin Civ 15:11). Did not they crucify the one who had led them out of Egypt ? Would that make them able to do anything to discredit Jesus ? This is the most powerful motive that can be put forward - minimizing messianic verses and altering chronology to disqualify Jesus as the Messiah.
Also let us not forget that early Christians (Theophile, Julius Africanus, Justin Martyr, Hyppolite, Methodus...)also refers to the long Chronology of the LXX rather than the short.
From 280 BC to the 2nd century AD, nobody rejected the LXX chronology. Shall we today ?
Peacefully in Christ,
Of course there are several factors in favor of the LXX. That is normal with disputed subjects (or there would be no reason for debate!). But every one of your points has been addressed already. Question: Have you read our articles on the subject? Do you understand our reasoning for rejecting each of your points? If not, you have homework to do. Start here: creation.com/smith-response
@@rwcarter3434 Thanks, I will go through the article. All I said is for the sake of debating and finding out the truth. Anyway I appreciate your ministry and your contributions about the age of the earth and the evolution vs creation debate.
@@rwcarter3434
Dr.Carter, I did my homework by reading the 3 articles related to the subject. Given the vastness of the subject, I would need you to illuminate a few points that I could not understand from CMI articles and also a variety of points not mentioned in your articles. What I write is only for the sake of seeking truth. And you may correct my mistakes as the subject is difficult.
I will put aside for a moment the different positions of Christians from the 2nd century AD and will focus on data prior to that.
In your article “textual traditions and biblical chronology - Genesis 5”, you say there are many reasons why the majority of scholars believe the LXX and SP share a common “ancestor” or textual source.
The argument given is that of Methuselah age - 67 in the SP and 167 in the LXX. If that point is enough to make a sure connection between both texts, why couldn't that source or ancestor be the original rendering of Gen 5 ?
Original text : 187
LXX : 167 because of a scribal error
SP : took after the 167 but deflated it to 67 (Jubilees argument)
MT : 187
According to figure 1 in your article, the hebrew vorlage of the LXX would have had 67 and then the LXX translators added 100 years. I'm not sure if I understand well the logic of that case.
But all of that is quite speculative, one argument in favor of deflation would be what Smith is pointing out - that Jerome stated that the SP in his time had the 187 Methuselah figure while it does not anymore. If that were the case, the 67 wasn't in the SP back then.
When you look at numbers in Gen 5, the pattern is smooth in the LXX (230, 205, 190, 170, 165, 162, 165, 167 or 187 and 188), and it's kind of a roller-coaster in the MT. We don't know for sure how things were going culturally speaking at that time, but the smooth pattern might bear some logic.
You mentioned in one other article Augustine solution to explain the inflation hypothesis - puberty age and raising those ages to put down skepticism. But why would the LXX translators have added an extra generation if the purpose was to get “more reasonable begetting ages” ? Do we need an additional theory to explain it ?
We know that the LXX retains in some cases longer verses that in the MT. We can check an example with Deuteronomy 32:43 where the LXX is superior to both the MT and the DSS. That LXX verse is backed up by Hebrew 1:6. Maybe Cainan was in there under the writing of Moses as was the full verse of Deuteronomy 32:43.
In the same way, while the age of Nahor could be increased to 100 years (29 to 129) like for the others in order to compete successfully with the Egyptian Chronology, it remained at 79. In the other way, in the deflation view, if the original age was 79, the pattern of 100 years reduction could not be applied hence the 50 years. The scribe that modified it did what he could - removing the maximum of 50 years.
As a matter of fact, the LXX Chronology is still far from catching up with Manetho's Chronology (3000 BC vs 4000 BC or more). It seems that this hypothesis doesn't work well.
We can also observe that Abraham died full of years at 175 years old (Gen 25:8). In the MT people aged twice or three times more were still around. The statement would make more sense with the LXX timeline than with the MT's. Long ages were already gone by the time of Abraham.
Also the pattern where Shem died before his sons, grandsons, great-grandsons and 700 years before Terah seems to make more sense. The only patriarch mentioned in the story of Abraham is Terah, the others are probably missing because they were dead, which is the case with the LXX.
It's difficult to visualize Shem outliving Terah or Eber outliving Abraham and all those relatives being missing in the account.
I noticed the argument that the deflation in the 2nd century AD looks impossible to CMI view (Torah too well spread as Augustine said) while Smith believes it's possible. Apparently by the time of the Dead Sea Scroll there were already alterations in the text, it didn't seem to cause a wave of protest. And we have no old hebrew text from the various places in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd ... century AD.
I also noticed the argument that, according to CMI, inflation was possible in the 3rd century BC while Smith believe it would have been spotted.
While we don't have evidence of the inflation hypothesis and with the fact that Demetrios, Eupolemus and Josephus used the high numbers, we do have some clues that could argue for a deflation hypothesis.
Paul could be implying Jews messing up genealogies (1 Tim 1:4; Titus 3:9; Titus 1:14)
The fact that Christians were proving the messiahship of Jesus according to the scriptures, could have motivated Jews to counter respond
Jews replacing in the 2nd century AD the LXX for new greek translations
Jews modifying the post-exilic chronology in the Seder Olam
To me the fact that Jews crucified Jesus is enough to make them able of doing anything to counter his claim.
The whole deflation would not have taken place in the 2nd century AD, but Jews could have selected the old SP/Jubilees chronology in Gen 5.
Then we'd have the hebrew vorlage with LXX numbers (except Methuselah), the SP got deflated afterward but kept begetting age in Gen 11. The hebrew bible were nearly identical to the LXX until the 2nd century AD where Jews could have favored existing text inferior to the LXX which had more power in terms of messianic verses.
It doesn't mean Jews altered everything, but they could have selected material. We know for example that the LXX preserved better Deuteronomy 32:43 than MT or DSS. Jews could have noticed that existing hebrew texts was less messianic than the LXX and picked it up.
The NT is also much more aligned with the LXX, could it be that Jesus and the Apostles would have been OK with Gen 5 and Gen 11 in the LXX ? I mean they quoted verses from everywhere in the OT (and in the Pentateuch), there's no reason to think that they would have been distrustful to the chronology part of the LXX while they were agreeing with the rest.
Also Sumerian and Egyptian data are going back to 3000 BC, is this possible to squeeze them (taking into account co-regency and whatever) to almost a thousand years ? You need time between the Flood and the Tower of Babel, and 100 years seems to be not enough demographically (and historically) speaking.
If the Flood occurred in 1656 AM (MT's figure), and Arphaxad was born in 1658, Shelah in 1693, Eber in 1723 and then the dispersion took place during Eber's life because the earth was already divided by the birth of Peleg, it means that the dispersion took place less than 100 years after the flood.
In that model, there is not enough people to build the Tower and to get significant groups for the dispersion, particularly for the Egyptian group that would soon construct huge pyramids.
Look how little was the group of Jacob when he entered with his family into Egypt - only 75 people, and yet the family was growing up for some 200 years already since Abraham.
In the LXX model, we've got 500 years between the flood and the Tower of Babel. And it would make much more sense that Noah and Shem died before the Tower of Babel episode.
Those patriarchs would probably not have joined the construction of the Tower and would have had influence on their direct descendants. If LXX is correct, no witness to the flood were still living at the time of the Tower and man would have soon forgotten the sin and fate of the antediluvian world.
Kindly,
Anthony
@@questcequelaverite First, this is hardly the place for long and detailed discussions. Such things are unsurprising, and occur often when engaging LXX advocates, but this is not the place. Second, most of your points and questions have been addressed in our articles already. Third, you show your cards by putting multiple horses in front of multiple carts. I will leave with this, which we consider the final word on the subject until the LXX advocates develop better arguments: creation.com/smith-response.
Doesn’t the question remain though…how are the texts different then? A change had to happen somewhere, if not a grand conspiracy, then how are they now different!? What is your explanation for the discrepancies?
Mandela Effect? 🤣🤣
Should we not at least consider the simple fact that Jesus Himself had no problem quoting from the Septuagint? Also, it does predate the other two versions considerably. I know these aren’t scholarly reasons, but they should say something to the person who claims to believe that Jesus is The Word, God incarnate.
I love that you guys didn't edit that out. God bless.
until listening to this post, i would get a teary lump in my throat thinking about the moment of separation for those families .
it does my heart good to know that the people born into mixed marriages & seemingly left behind have not been.
better yet; they have an identity, the Samaritans!
What point of this video gets to discussing the timeframe of the pyramids?
I have the understanding that the MT was not penned until 1000 AD, thus the Greek Septuagint at 250B.C. would be more accurate and probably copied from the Hebrew Text which there is no known copies of. I like Mr. Hoffman’s video on explaining “How long were the Israelites in Egypt” video.
Not long as, Moses was the grandson of Levi, the son of Jacob, the gt nephew of Joseph (who had an honourable burial), it’s more like ‘how long were the Hebrews slaves’ as, they were not slaves until after Joseph’s death and a new dynasty.
so what scripture was being held in Jesus Christ'shand when He says it's authentic and inspired.. the Masoretic text was 'compiled' around 1000 AD. while the Septuagint was Before Christ, which was being used by the gentiles and jews alike, which was also possibly held in hand by Christ.. eg. 2 Tim 3:16, Luke 24, Luke 4:16-21
Just some question what text was being held at time time; because if the Septuagint Gen 11 is held, adding some 650 years.. the flood is before 2500 BC
with all that's going on today, i can definitely see the ability for a certain few to change history to their favor.
Well, they've certainly done it with American history.
and what do the discussions about textual variants and differences have to do with age of Pyramid ? there were civilizations during pre-flood era, of course they built things, like any civilizations do, hence the idea of pyramids being pre-flood, still doesn't contradict the bible ...
My biggest question I can't find an answer to (with my amateur googling) is:
I've always heard that the Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch are much older than the Masoretic text, and that Jesus references the Septuagint. If that's true (which it might not be for all I know) then why do we use the Masoretic text for our modern Bibles?
Edit: around 16:00 you touched on this a little bit. So what I've heard would be a false claim that the Masoretic came around much later than the Septuagint.
Simple answer. The Masoretic Text was written by the Hebrews. The Septuagint was written (Translated) by Greek Scholars who did not know the Hebrew language very well. And, the Greeks knew little to nothing about the facts of what they were translating.
@@vhebert333 Thank you! This is something that's bothered me for a while.
The Septuagint seemed to have a timeline that fit better with current archeological timelines, but I figured we had a good reason for basing modern translations off of the Masoretic text, I just didn't know what that reason was. More than likely, ancient Egyptian and other culture's timelines are inflated due to propagandistic or uninformed compilations of the reigns of kings.
@@vhebert333well that's just wrong.
This is completely in error! The _Septuagint_ (c. -284 BC) was translated 1,000 years before the _Masoretic Text_ (c. 700 AD).
We have addressed this topic extensively.
creation.com/lxx-mt-response
creation.com/smith-response
creation.com/6000-years-masoretic-vs-lxx
creation.com/bad-arguments-mt-lxx
creation.com/biblical-chronogenealogies
@@creationministriesintl I will deal with those articles as I am a proponent of the LXX being the original and containing the true numbers. I will write a detailed response on paper and send to your website, and have a video response.
What I didn't see in any of the articles was addressing the longer chronology preserved by Josephus who is the earliest witness to the Septuagint next to Philo and Demetrius the Chronographer.
You can favor the LXX, but you cannot say things like this... the MT didn't just appear in 700 AD. It has been preserved in parallel with the LXX and SP from the 2nd and 3rd century BC at least. We have the DSS to prove it.
But, yes, it's frustrating when people tend to stick to MT for emotional and traditional reasons rather than good scholarship. And the CMI have a big bias with their preference for MT, which is not justified from a scientifical POV.
@@marcusdumitru No, that's not true because if it were then we should have read of divergent texts in the days of Jospehus and prior. Had Christ and the Apostles been using the LXX and the Pharisees the MT: then we should have read of them debating Him and His followers for using contrary scriptures to make their claims.
@@jeremiahcastro9700I guess that the news didn't get to you. But the DSS is a testimony of all the 3 textual families. That is, in the Qumran Scrolls, texts from LXX, MS and SP have been found. That is BEFORE Christ.
The apostles and Jesus quoted from Scriptures that resembled both LXX and MT.
I have a question concerning different numbers between the Septuagint and the Masoretic.
The Septuagint says Goliath was 4 cubits and a span. The Masoretic says he was 6 cubits and a span.
Given the range of lengths possible for a cubit and a span, Goliath was anywhere between 12 feet and 20 feet tall, more or less.
Which height do you think is more plausible? The Septuagint's or the Masoretic's?
I think the Septuagint's 12 foot range is more likely.
The only problem is not believing the Bible.
Let her talk and finish a sentence.
@@robertmccully2792 Agreed
Great subject to be discussed! Can you please create another video with this info but in a different format? The interviewer hindered the flow of information.
Pushing the time of the great pyramids one way or the other, is a futile exercise, insofar as what we know as "ancient Egypt" didn't start with the great pyramids. The great pyramids were build during the 4th dynasty. There were Egyptian pharaohs - dynasties of pharaohs, in fact, before the 4th (yes, you guess it - 3 of them) speaking the same language, using the same hieroglyphs possessing the same religious beliefs, living along the same Nile river. How all of this should somehow have survived the Great Flood, unaltered, is a paradox that isn't affected by whether the great pyramids were build before or after the flood.
Excellent. Being willing to be persuaded .... I word this as follows: "keep an open, but a cautious mind."
Personally, I believe the Pyramids were built
around 750 BCE well after the flood but close to
the time of the Tower of Babel.
There's clearly a bias here about wanting the Masoretic so that questions of inerrancy don't have to be addressed. That makes your objectivity questionable.
Question: Why does Josephus side with the Septuagint numbers for Genesis 5 and 11?
Question: If the numbers were inflated by 100 years at each link, why was the final link only inflated by 50 years? What specific number were the LXX translators aiming for? (A.k.a motive). If deflation was instead the objective, then Terahs 79 Could not be deflated by 100 years, which would explain why it was deflated by 50 years. If the original number was 29, why does the LXX not read 129? This internal evidence cannot be ignored.
Potential motives for deflation:
1) Adding up all the numbers of the patriarchs prior to Moses add up to 12,600 years, a special number
2) It makes Shem's lifespan overlap with Melchizedek. Jews today use this as an argument as to why the stuff said about Melchizedek in the book of Hebrews is wrong (i.e, he was Shem, we knew his mother and father, we knew his beginning of days and end of life, therefore Jesus non Levite priesthood is illegeimate)
3) the 50 year cycles for the book of Jubilees (this one applicable to the Samaritan penateuch, and also explains the differences). Altho this could be motive for both an inflation or a deflation as it sits in the middle.
"clearly a bias" You have clearly not read anything we have written on the subject, especially where we say that we *wanted* the LXX to be the original translation. Most of your other questions are answered in our several articles.
creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j29_2/j29_2_99-105.pdf
creation.com/lxx-mt-response
creation.com/iron-sharpening-iron
creation.com/smith-response
creation.com/bad-arguments-mt-lxx
@@rwcarter3434 Each generation dies one after the other. The older generations die off, and the newer generations after them. That's the way life works. You're ignoring common sense. The early church defended the Septuagint. New Testament quotes side with the Septuagint.
Melchizedek was GOD the father in a human flesh body.
This is explained in the New testament.
@@robertstennett7566 read those passages in multiple translations
He was described as having no father or mother and no beginning and no ending only GOD the father can qualify.@@isaacmarshmallow8751
When the first word out if his mouth his 'heresies' I automatically begin to tune out.
I enjoy hearing your interpretation of scripture and I enjoy hearing others. Most Christians, despite interpretational differences, are trying to keep Christ at the center of their interpretations and understandings.
Why can't we keep Christ in the center of our interactions with fellow believers?
That really is what matters most!
And did they have espresso while enjoying the Bible Bus with Dr. J. Vernon McGee ❤ Thank you, for being here straightening out these alternate versions of history. :) AL
In the book of Genesis when Cain killed his brother Able he was exiled to the land of Nod. Cain went on to ‘build’ a city. Just how many Bronze Age cities were on the earth when Noah’s flood occurred ?
Quick ?……I was listening to something about the masoretic text vs the Septuagint….about the numbers of the ages of the line of Shem being off a 100 years. This is what the Jews today use in the masoretic text to claim Jesus couldn’t be from the order of Melchizedek and they use Hebrews to claim this. Is there any validity to this claim? And do you have any insight on it?
No! The force of the Flood would have destroyed them. It wasn’t just water but volcanic action on the sea floor and earthquakes.
Can someone answer for me….do people at creation ministries believe in the “dispensational”? Thank you!
Lita should not call her work in this arena as scholarly. I say that because she is looking for an answer that supports what she believes the bible says is true. Actual scholars do not let their preconceived conclusion shape their data. Instead data should be driving the conclusion, no matter where it leads. The problem of course, is that Christians cannot for a single instance accept that anything in their book may not be completely accurate. This leads to poor scholarly work, whether Christian or secular.
....thank God that there are people much much more smarter and disciplined than I to sift through the muck.
@@JB-yb4wn....people like the founder of plate tectonics, or the father of genetics...and microbiology? Yeah, they believed in the Genesis flood. 😎
@@JB-yb4wn ...yeah, Mendel was also a trained scientist and is known today as The Father of Genetics. Both he and Darwin theorised about genetics and Gregor was correct, not Darwin.
@@JB-yb4wn ...so how can they both be correct. One got it right and the other did not as he had a different model.
The Samaritans were not Jews who were left behind. Read 2Kings 17, the Bible tells you exactly who the Samaritans of today are. After the ten tribes of Israel were exiled by the Assyrians, Samaria was then filled by five different Gentile groups (2Kings 17:23-24). One of the wicked Priests of Jeroboam, who were not real high priests, were then brought back to teach these new Gentile Samaritans how to worship the God of Israel (2Kings 17:27-28). Yet they continued to worship the gods of their previous lands, alongside the true God (2Kings 17:29-33).
The thing is, the Assyrians wiped out a State, but that doesn't mean they erased all the population, taking absolutely every Hebrew of the 10 tribes away. A remnant always stayed. The new colonists had to learn the ways of the God of the land from somewhere, to make sure they are welcomed to stay and prosper. So, an interbreed is more likely, with a syncretistic religion.
@@marcusdumitru That isn’t what the text says
Read 2Kings 17:27
The King specifically asks for “one” priest to be sent back, so as to teach the new inhabitants.
As said before, these priests that were taken away were promoted to priesthood by Jereoboam
@@marcusdumitru You're just ignoring the text.
They say test what we said, but don't give any opposing views, like refer to Nathan Hoffman's video. I cringe now whenever someone says I am a Dr or scholar in scriptures etc, then say academia is nothing to scoff at. They might as well say I was indoctrinated at seminary X... Well search the scriptures and ask holy spirit to teach you and ask him your questions instead of man's wisdom (google or study bible notes etc). Be willing to have your understanding challenged and be corrected.
They're also scared to mention the fact that Eusebius, a church historian from the 4th century, agreed with the timeline in the Septuagint, and said that the whole Christian church of his day was using the Septuagint, and didn't trust the Hebrew text of the unbelieving Jews. Because if they mention that Eusebius disagrees with them, or quote the words he wrote in his work called "The Chronicon" then it would make them look bad, and wouldn't help to bolster their point.
Their strategy: "Ignore the early church."
That reflects greatly on their relationship with God.
@Jonathan Sarfati
Well then how did those extra 100 years on 6 generations end up in both the Samaritan Bible and the Greek Septuagint?
You can’t say that the Samaritan Bible was translated from the Septuagint, since it existed before the Septuagint.
You can’t say that the Septuagint was translated from the Samaritan Bible, since the Jews translated it, and the Jews didn’t trust the Samaritans. Besides, the Septuagint correctly says Mt. Zion, so clearly it wasn’t translated from the Samaritan Bible, since it says Mt. Gerazim.
The only logical conclusion is that they both were translated from an older Hebrew text.
This means that there was an older Hebrew text that included those years. And even Josephus agrees that the Hebrew text he used included those years. And that’s according to his original genuine numbers, not just his present day corrupted numbers.
That’s 3 textual witnesses, making it appear that there was an older Hebrew text that included those years.
What am I missing?
There’s a reason that were countless early church fathers defending the Septuagint, and defending its timeline.
@Jonathan Sarfati
Yea, I know the Samaritan Bible agrees with the Masoretic in Genesis 5. You think I don’t know that? You think I haven’t researched this? I know that. There’s even a possibility that Josephus’ original genuine numbers agree with the Masoretic in Genesis 5.
But Genesis 5 isn’t what I’m talking about. I’m talking about Genesis 11. I’m talking about the years AFTER the flood. And in Genesis 11, you’ve got the Samaritan Bible, the Greek Bible, and Josephus’ original genuine numbers agreeing that those extra 100 years belong on those 6 generations.
This fixes the ridiculous idea that Shem outlived his great great great great great great grandson. And it also fixes the legitimate claims that atheists bring up about the Pyramids and the Tower of Babel.
So how do you explain that 3 textual witnesses bear witness of an older Hebrew text that included those years in Genesis 11?
@Jonathan Sarfati
Take some more time and think about it. I’m confident you’ll come to the same conclusion as me. It’s the only logical conclusion.
@Jonathan Sarfati
If the Samaritan Bible, Masoretic, and Josephus are missing those extra years in Genesis 5, then that’s 3 witnesses, bearing witness that those years don’t belong.
I’m following the principle of 2 or 3 witnesses. That’s why I am more inclined to believe that those years before the flood don’t belong.
But after the flood, we have 3 witnesses, bearing witnesses that they do belong.
Again, I’m following the principle of 2 or 3 witnesses. And I’m NOT saying the Septuagint is perfect.
I find David Rohl's chronology most compelling.
in fact, until it is ever refuted soundly it is my default position
Its been refuted soundly. The chronology of Egypt is done with computers because we have a few hundred synchronisms. Synchronisms work like this... The king in Assyria has correspondence with a king in egypt. The Assyrian king, at the same time, has correspondence with a king in Babylon. Therefore, the Egyptian king and the Babylonian king existed at the same time. If one date is secure with one of those kings then a date can become secure with the others.
David Rohl's chronology breaks 30 synchronisms.
Second, his chronology states that Egypt was sometimes split up and two of the kings of Egypt would be ruling at the same time. One in the north and one in the south but his chronology has two such kings ruling different parts of Egypt from the SAME city. Impossible.
@@blusheep2- Mizraim is the Father of the Egyptians who is the son of Canaan, son of Ham. Nimrod who ruled Babel is also a son of Ham so they did exist at the same time. David Rohl chronology is spot on.
@@masada2828 I'm trying to find where exactly it says that Mizraim is the Father of the Egyptians.
Whether David Rohl got this chronology right, at this point, doesn't matter. We are speaking to his chronology of Egypt and it is terrible. Like I said, and maybe you don't want to here it, but David Rohl's chronology destroys 30+ sychronisms in the historical record. Sychronisms are rock solid. Not only that but his chronology has overlapping kings, meaning that he has two kings ruling Egypt at the same time from the same city. This is absurd. Rohl makes the argument that, at times, there were two Egyptian kings. One ruling northern Egypt and one ruling southern Egypt. This is plausible but becomes absurd when he has these two kings, who would be antagonists of each other, ruling their respective pieces of Egypt from the same city. I think you can even see how that is a problem.
Father and Son ruling at the same time. Like for the 18th Dynasty. Not for all.
FYI: The pyramid at Giza was built before the flood.
I'm not able to sit through this whole thing, but can't the same argument of inaccurate chronological dating and misinformation about family and Egyptian royalty Power struggles, be applied to the Bible and determining the age of the Earth? Isn't the whole young earth idea based on the ages that are reported in a document? It seems sort of like a goose and gander philosophy.
The simple answer here is simply to take what the Bible says and not embellish or amplify it. Just the facts.
What flood?
The global deluge transmitted by almost every ancient culture through their mythological traditions (According to the Biblical record it would have occurred approx. 2,500 B.C.E.) 🌊
c. 3400 BC
Even without any chronology, it is a simple logical exercise to determine whether or not the pyramids predate the flood.
Ask yourself:
Are the pyramids built upon sedimentary (geological) layers or do they rest upon or below the Vishnu basement?
If yes, they lie upon sedimentary rock layers, they postdate the flood.
All the pyramids in South America were built before the flood. The construction is impossible for us with our technology, so how were the Inca or Mayan people supposed to have built them?
Hello. Question. The pyramids have marine fossils on them from the stones being dragged to the work site. From a Christian perspective how is this explained ? A lot of Christians believe in a young earth creation. To me this might be an argument for an old earth creation story.
Many Christians believe in an old earth creation story as well.
I don't understand the conflict. Both the blocks and the ground they sit on are made of flood sediment.
@@KenJackson_US I think the argument is this. The worlds limestone is said to have been laid down in the flood and the vast amount of fossils are said to have been laid down in the flood. The limestone quarried to build the pyramids are full of fossils which suggests that the pyramids were built after the flood, not before. The problem here is that we have a good understanding of the pyramids age and we also have the YEC's estimation of the flood. Together it puts the pyramids before the flood and so how does one account for all the fossils in the pyramid limestone if the flood happened after they were built.
There are lots of things wrong with the theory that they were built before the flood.
@@blusheep2 Ah. Nathan Hoffman and Douglas Petrovich have made very convincing arguments for the LXX/SP timeline over the MT. It leaves adequate time for the pyramids to be built and for the Sumerian, Akkadian and Egyptian civilizations to live.
I am not impressed with Lita; she really missed it when she talked about the origin of the Samaritan people. It wasn't "Jews" who were removed by the Assyrians, it was the people of the northern kingdom of Israel (2 Kings 17:22, 23). "Jews" refers to the people who are descended from the southern kingdom of Judah. The now emptied cities of Samaria were resettled by peoples from various places within the Assyrian Empire. And because the cities had been emptied, there was no mixing in Samaria between the people of Israel and the foreigners resettled there. On another point concerning the ages of people in Genesis, I don't know where Lita is getting here information, but the consensus view, both ancient Jewish and Christian, falls on the side of the Septuagint and not the Masoretic Text. Furthermore, Lita is conveniently passing over the fact that the oldest Masoretic texts still fall a number of centuries after the oldest Septuagint text. Furthermore, for example, the Hebrew Isaiah scroll from the Dead Scrolls when it varies from the Masoretic text, more often than not it agrees with the Septuagint rendering of the ancient Hebrew. This video is, in my opinion, a poor attempt to appear scholarly. Just because an idea appears reasonable does not mean it is true.
Honestly none of this matters to me anymore cuz we dont have to much longer on Earth. You can ask God these questions once we get up there.
I'd like to make a request, if I may. I suppose it's more of a bone to pick. Please do not make the assumption your viewers are thrown off by seemingly "big words". I've seen this happen, not only here, but on other videos from those defending Creationist beliefs. To me, it comes across as offensive because it implies the viewer is ignorant or simple minded. Especially when the person in the video assuming this, obviously understands the word, but then acts like it's some confusing thing for the listener that then needs to be dumbed down, or even worse, the need to apologize for subjecting us to such "big words" lol.
I like the girl in this video's approach much better. Although she communicated with the viewers coherently and explains her thoughts very well, she doesn't apologize for any information or words she provides. To me, that feels like she assumes her audience is intelligent enough to understand and comprehend the concepts she is presenting.
So please, stop treating your audience like they are all elementary school kids. If we don't understand a word, we know how to use Google lol.
Other than that, this was a very good and informative video. Thank you for sharing 😊
I understand the sentiment, however we make many of the videos with the idea that children will also be viewing the video, and we want the video to be understandable for them too.
@@creationministriesintl I agree with Eli here. Don't ever apologize for using the correct words, descriptions, and scientific terminology that best describes the object, event, or subject you're discussing. Trying to walk a middle line just doesn't work, either for children or adults. If you're concerned about children trying to understand these concepts, then create a video just for them. Your audience wouldn't be viewing these videos unless they were prepared to encounter the most accurate terminology.
@@jesseketcham6154 You can give a definition for an uncommon word, trusting it's enough.
This should also be watched "Dr. Douglas Petrovich: Genealogies in Masoretic vs Septuagint & Samaritan Bibles" from the " Is Genesis History?" Series.
This topic is not a definitive one either way.
RW Carter I love all your work for the Lord, however I do not agree with you on every detail such as this one.
God Bless.
I will disagree with Dr Petrovich here. In fact, I think he has no case. See creation.com/smith-response
Why would anyone assume you and I would agree 100%?
@@rwcarter3434 Your work on coral was brilliant.
I pray God continues to help you keep your work going.
True, we may not agree 100%(99% though).
Have a great day.
@@rwcarter3434
Why don’t you debate Dr. Petrovich? Take him on. I dare you.
Great video. I am just now looking into this; i.e., the NT apostles and Jesus quoting either the LXX or the MT. I heard they mostly quote from the LXX, which makes sense because the main language at that time was Greek. However, the question I have is did Jesus and the apostles ever quote a number or text that is now known to be incorrect? I would think whatever Jesus quoted (if not from the LXX, SP, or the MT) would be the correct reading.
The phrases they quoted don't include many numbers and don't really impinge the timeline debate. Stephen's defense before the Sanhedrin (Acts 7) does include a calculation that seems to have come from the LXX. His "75 persons" (v. 14) can be gotten from the LXX if you include the sons born to Joseph in Egypt that are not mentioned in the MT. But, again, this does not impact any chronology.
I found NathanH83 channel & video with the same title to be an excellent analysis.
@@KenStewartNZ Yes I saw that video and enjoyed learning his take on it. I think the LXX in Gen 5 and 11 are correct. Henry Smith Jr has written about it and can be found on line as well.
Patterns of Evidence covers all this, and lays it out wonderfully.
2 Kings 13:1 states that in the 23rd year of Joash King of Judah, Jehoahaz became king over Israel and he reigned for seventeen years. This would put the end of Jehoahaz's reign over Israel at the 40th year of Joash's reign, since twenty three and seventeen equal forty. Yet we read in 2 Kings 13:9-10 that Jehoahaz slept with his fathers, and they buried him in Samaria, and Jehoash his son reigned in his place in the THIRTY SEVENTH year of the reign of Joash king of Judah. This would leave only fourteen years for the reign of Jehoahaz, not seventeen years as stated in verse one of this chapter.
There is no way you can juggle the numbers and make this come out right. This simply shreds the doctrine of inerrancy, which is the belief that God has perfectly preserved the Bible through the ages down to the present day with no errors in it at all even to the very letter. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
There were mistakes made by some scribes centuries ago, however for me it doesn't shake my faith in the slightest. I don't depend in some false doctrine of inerrancy, particularly because of the shipwreck that it has made out of once solid Bible believers like Bart Ehrman, but I do believe in the infallibility of the original manuscripts. I also believe in the overall, overwhelming totality of the testimony of the Law, the Prophets and the Apostles as sufficient for my faith. I believe in all areas of theology, morality, prophecy (fulfilled and yet to be fulfilled), the historical account of God's creation of the world and of the world wide Flood of Noah and the story of the early Patriarchs, the history of the Jewish nation, the virgin birth, sinless life, death burial and resurrection of our Lord Jesus the Messiah, and in science the Bible is accurate.
The Mazz Tic text has only been around for approximately 1000 years. It’s by far the youngest of these three families of Old Testament text.
So it’s impossible for scholars to have been debating this for 2000 years because 2000 years ago only except two agent and the Samarian texts existed.
The Septuagint predates the MS by over 1000 years. The difference is that the Septuagint is a Greek translation and the MS is Hebrew.
Why didn’t you mention the topic of the pyramids? Maybe a passing mention at most? Isn’t that supposed to be the video topic?
Love creation ministries, you guys really shaped my view on this world and my view on the old testament. It makes my faith stronger and thats what all this is about right❤. I made 4 parallel chronologies that are out there. 2 for the Masoretic, 2 for the Septuagint. Of both took the 430 / 215 time in Egypt approach and thorougly dived into the issue of Kainan. But in the end I keep them next to eachother. I honestly don't know which one has the best papers. What fascinates me is the theory that Sem was Melchizedek, but this is not possible in the Septuagint as he died hundreds of years before Abraham. On the other hand, it is appealing as a Christian to have a high priest in the order of Melchizedek that has no link to Levi/Aaron or the priestly blood line but yet is there and is priest king like Melchizedek (Jesus). Super interesting but wouldn't change my view on the bible. Time will tell what the real age of the pyramids are. Between 2300-3100 BCE is good for me. I don't know a lot of recent history of my own town where my anscestors grew up (only up to 1600), let alone something that happened 4500-5000 years ago😅.
Explain how Egyptian built it, how they installed 60t sarkofagi in the middle of pyramid and second thing, dinosaur bones, where they from ?
One thing I believe is the step pyrimid in Egypt was a grain storage complex built by Pharoah Joser, second to the king, who was Joseph, son of Israel or Jacob
Those building the Tower of Babel on the plain of Shinar in what would later become Babylon probably took some 100 years to build that tower. They gained valuable knowledge about building methods, materials and planning from that mega project. FYI, a Nebuchadnezzar II relief from 600 BC with the Tower in the background has been found as has the remaining base of that Tower. After the confusion of language and the dispersion, at least one of those people groups ended up in the Nile Delta which had fertile, well watered, soil that could grow plenty of food to feed the massive workforce necessary to build the first Pyramid. These people had "recently" stopped building the Tower of Babel. They took the skills learned in that construction of a ziggurat, and applied them to building another pyramid shaped structure. Some believe that the scriptures are reflected in the internal passage ways. ..the narrow passage going up into the pyramid and the wider path going down into the pyramid. More recently, there is some evidence that the limestone blocks (full of marine fossils from the flood) were actually poured as a concrete to form the blocks on the spot.
Mr Carter continuously disrupts the lines of thought made by Lita. it's obvious that he knows the subject and the answers to his own questions. This would have been better narrated by someone else, with the two answering questions.
I appreciate your efforts and I don't like to criticize but I do think you should go back and try this again. I was 'drawn in' by the question "Were the Pyramids Built Before the Flood?" But a good portion of your discussion was spent on wittering about the Pentateuch, which, as far as I can tell, doesn't really tell us anything about the Pyramids specifically.
After reading the first five books of the OT, I'm convinced the earth is young, approximately 6000'ish' years old, I'm convinced about 4000 years ago there was a flood, and although mankind may have had the will to do it, I just don't think we ever had the tools and technology to produce such a thing as the Pyramids post flood. Hence, my question: what was mankind up to 'before' the flood? The title of your podcast made me think someone had found evidence. Personally, I've been reconciled to the possibility that there are just some things about the distant past God has chosen to leave a mystery, and that's okay. I expect I'll find out in eternity.
The Masoretic text is not the original Hebrew. It's equally a translation... This is so because the alphabets are almost entirely new and thus different from older Hebrew alphabets. It is written in modern Hebrew. Jesus didnt speak this form of Hebrew and neither did the Apostles. Jesus spoke Aramaic and possibly Greek. So both LXX and the Masoretic text are translations. They both have their strength and weakness. The Masoretic text came 1000 years later, after the ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Early Church didn't use it. So what makes it the original? Thanks for the great work.
Addressed here in detail:
There is good reason to believe that the masoretic chronology is correct.
creation.com/lxx-mt-response
creation.com/smith-response
creation.com/bad-arguments-mt-lxx
creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j29_2/j29_2_99-105.pdf
You will have trouble showing definitely that Jesus did not speak Hebrew, but only Aramaic and Greek. He is likely to have been familiar with all three.
*Does it matter if something is original fiction or extra embellished fiction?*
This woman is awesome!!! She's so intelligent, I could conversate with her about this stuff all day! Although I disagree as far as the origins of the Samaritans
what is missing here is the geneology of flavious josephus, which agrees with the samaritan and greek text. in my opinion it is a mistake to view the scriptures as without error, just as it is a mistake to accept the kjv as the best translation. this isn't to say that the scriptures are not divine. but complete devotion to the masoretic text does not allow for a more reasonable conclusion in numbers that do not change the theme of scripture. in a 3 vs 1 scenario, maybe the 3 should not be so easily dismissed. what we have today, is a broad understanding that the 1 (masoretic) is correct, when the 3 would answer the question of the pyramids more reasonably. as of now, the dates are just too close to accept that so many events could take place where the numbers of humans could not possibly account for them. it took a population to build the tower of babel, it took a population to build the pyramids, as examples. the 3 to me seems more reasonable, as it allows time for population growth. accepting the 3 would not deny the scriptures divine authorship. i would have no problem in explaining the pyramids this way.
Help please... If pyramids are say 5000 years old and built of limestone, this only gives 1000 years to establish underwater sedimentary beds of limestone, and then have these beds raised up to form limestone quarries. Also, given only a thousand years, where did the large numbers of workers come from? Suggesting pyramids must be post-Flood, as sedimentation inside chambers is not showing evidence of Flood. Struggling here to grasp the timeline.
The pyramids are dated to 2550
The step pyramid was built before the flood it is Considered
The oldest Pyramid.
The Step Pyramid of Saqqara (and other pyramids) is built on a limestone terrain. In this case, the core of the structure was built of small blocks of tafla, with the outer slope dressed with Tura limestone. Limestone and sandstone are flood sediments, and thus, the pyramid on top of Flood sediments tell us that they were built post-Flood. Similarly, some of the pyramids are also built using rock quarried from the same Flood sediments themselves.
So you said at one point "the septuagint provides more time so that the pyramids could be built after the flood." I didn't hear a definitive statement that the Masoretic gives time for the pyramids to be built after the flood, or that the pyramids were built before (which I find inconceivable). thank you guys and God bless your ministry :) Always useful
Please look in the video description, where it says LINKS AND SHOW NOTES.
*If* the LXX contains the original numbers, there is more time to build the pyramids. However, the LXX almost certainly does not contain the original numbers, as we explained in our several articles (see links). Is there enough time in the MT chronology? We argue that indeed there is in our book Tour Egypt: creation.com/s/10-2-664
@@rwcarter3434 Thanks I will read those :)
@@FRN2013 Thanks for that, didn't hear them in the video to do so.
@@rwcarter3434 Just ordered the book. Can't wait to read it.
I don't think this video was sufficient in addressing this subject. A lot of people say a lot of things but what made the original video on this subject so appealing was 1, the delivery of the information provided, 2 a visual video that complimented what was said, & 3 source material that could be checked.
Maybe go through the video addressing each of the statements & provide statements & citations of your own that can be checked. Maybe address the creator of the video himself. He was open to criticism & addressing this. Why not talk to him?
I was brought up thinking the scribes were extremely meticulous to a fault. I got the impression getting the transcriptions right and NOT making mistakes was almost a life and death issue for them. (Not literally)
Now I’m hear things like besides just accidental mistakes there could have been intentional rephrasing in order to support better understanding.
I don’t understand where they had the right to change anything without some kind of permission.
Lastly, do you think maybe that God meant “inspired Word” to cover goofs and all for some benefit we can’t see yet?
Mistakes could have been made. As a Catholic, I scratch my head about Martin Luther deliberately taking books and verses out of the Holy Bible. He changed things to fit his beliefs. I love how Protestants have held the line on evolution and the flood by staying true to the Bible though. It all seems to be playing out as expected. God gives us what we need, and we are allowed to decide how to live our part.
While you have said a lot about the various variants, textual criticism, conspiracy theories, changes to the Septuagint text and the Samaritan Pentateuch, you have barely answered the questiion you asked:"Were the Pyramids built before the flood?". If you did, you did it the way Scholars do, go round and round and just allude to something. A simple answer would have been sufficient. Like Philip said, "Show us the Father and that will be sufficient for us", i would say "Tell us a simple Yes or No and that will be sufficient for us. Then we can take all the scholarly arguments that were put forward and fit them into the understanding of the question
Okay, the answer is no. The pyramids were not built before the flood. I thought we were pretty clear on that.
@@creationministriesintl Thanks for the answer but you were not crystal clear. You were going round and round in circles. This approach is OK for someone learned but you will miss reaching ordinary people in this way
@@martinnyirenda2525
I made a video that actually addresses the issue head on and gives the correct answer. The early church believed that the flood was 3,000 BC, long before the pyramids. Simple as that.
The Ancient Peshitta Bible and the translations directly from it are the only versions (sorry KJV only people, but no, your Bible is not inerrant) that have Matthew 27:9-10 correct. All other English versions, including the versions translated from the Latin in the Catholic Church into English, are based on a corrupt Greek text. Matthew was originally written in the Aramaic/Syriac tongue for a Hebrew readership.
The Greek text and every single other translation that comes from it (this covers virtually every other version of the Bible in existence except the Peshitta) reads
"Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of Him who was priced, whom they of the children of Israel did value, and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me."
The problem with this is that this prophecy did not come from the book of the prophet Jeremiah, it came from the book of the prophet Zechariah, 11:12-13.
Whoever that unknown scribe was who translated the original text into Greek made an error. This error was copied down and recopied and made it's way into virtually every single Greek text in existence over the entire ancient world, as well as into the later translations into Latin.
The translation from the original Aramaic reads (Lamsa translation):
"Then what was spoken by the prophet was fulfilled, namely "I took the thirty pieces of silver, the costly price which was bargained with the children of Israel, and I gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me."
The scribe who translated the original gospel of Matthew into Greek must have added the name of Jeremiah to the original text, perhaps being a Greek disciple unfamiliar with the original Hebrew Old Testament reference, perhaps being careless or tired, whatever the cause was, and this error was then compounded in every single other copy made in Greek, and thus made its way down to us in the present day.
G.Grennell Not sure your informtion is correct. Masoretic text was developed in the 600's AD, and in any case well after the life of Jesus. I believe the controversy has to do with the age of Shem, and an attempt to portray him as Melchisedek. I read that the dead sea scrolls were more in line with the Saptuagint, chronologically. Not sure what all this means for the pyramids, but the Septuagint is the oldest OT that survives, and doesn't have Shem living in the days of Abraham, which seems very unlikely. Not saying your definetly wrong, but it is possible the Septuagint, the Bible Jesus used, is the correct one. Maybe!
This video is not about the Great Pyramid nor did you prove the Great Pyramid was built by the Egyptians. What about the flood damage on the Sphinx? Have you seen the jars from Egypt that appear to have been CNC'd from stone? Made with greater tolerances than what you can get with many modern tools.
Most sources say the Masoretic text was written by scholars, based on existing Hebrew and possibly Aramaic texts, between the 6th and 10th Centuries AD. There was a Hebrew Bible at the time of Jesus, but it wasn't the Masoretic Text
The discussion was not about dating the pyramids. Initially stating they were post flood , without any logical reasoning is dictatorial not scholarly thinking. Bringing the discussion down to earth would require weaving facts with scripture. For example, we have no understanding of the engineering making the pyramids possible, at least not from a post flood world. Wasn’t the tower of Babel incident an event to retard the science of the people? Doesn’t this suggest very powerful science at play, pre-flood? Another example, shouldn’t the pyramid structures be studied with regard to how the universal flood characteristics behaved? Was the churning and turmoil of the flood ubiquitous? Or, were there hot spots, spots where less activity on the terrain existed, spots of relative calm? Could the pyramids been in an area where the flood actions were less dramatic, allowing for the survival of structures? Has the theorized manner in which the flood occurred been studied. I am sure there must be multiple constructions of how the flood experienced happened, For example, if the flood was so universally dramatic how could there be remnants of pre-flood animals roaming the earth? Wouldn’t such a flood have ripped all flesh to shreds. I would think the flood characteristics would be varied. If in the area of the pyramids there was not geological shifting and churning, then it is conceivable that such large structures could survive the event somewhat intact. My point is that you can not decree the pyramids are post flood especially when there is so much work to be done to provide a realistic, science based explanation of the event.
Did they actually answer the dern question. Not like I don't suspect the answer is clearly a "no".
It is so sad that we can't even get any honest history the way it really happened from anyone. And if you do they cut it out or censor people for doing so.
??? What did any of this conversation have to do with the pyramids? Did I miss something? It was more about what set of scriptures is more accurate.
The genealogies push the flood before the pyramids
Well explained, and also kept it interesting when it could have gotten a bit dry and longwinded...
If you follow the chronology in the Masoretic text there are only about 100 years from the global flood to the dividing of the people at the Tower of Babel. In 100 years the 8 people who came off the Ark would only number around 200 people at best. 200 people could not build the tower of Babel. If you follow the chronology in the Septuagint you have about 400 years and a population of millions. There are other reasons the Septuagint is the better choice but let’s stick to the issue stated here before we move on to other facts.
Thank you both! This is very interesting indeed. May The Lord bless you, and keep you. :)
I am old ( 65) tired, and i have exhausted myself grappling with questions where mostly i could not find satisfactory answers
so i am now content to simply not know
my quest was motivated by unbelief so let the matter go except to take the occasional look at what scholarship is doing these days
now i know that my opinion has no value as regards apologetics, but i also reject apologetics as reliance on clever arguments, especially when the high priestly prayer of John chapter 17 actually TELL US us what will persuade people that God has sent the son
take a look at the passage
we ignore it as we do not have the reality He spoke of, so will insist on recourse to words and cleverness of argument
Great timeline chart at 7:45! So Noah died around the time Abraham was born and Shem was alive at the time of the birth of Abraham and later Isaac. Very cool!
They were built by the Nepheline/fallen angels as a way to survive the flood. If you look at their construction, they are like a diving bell, thick to withstand the pressures, with drainage in the basements for water that makes it through the cracks. Those huge sarcophagus in the lower level are places for the nepheline/angels to live in while waiting for the waters to recede.
Well, doesn't that contradict the Bible when it says everything with the breath of life outside the Ark perished. Apart from the fact that the pyramids are made from rocks formed during the deluge.
@@Hydroverseno, I’m not saying they were successful. It was the intention.
3 years late, Before the flood. Why do I say this? Simple observation, analytical reason and 45 years of Biblical study. The story of Joseph is the first time we are given a description of Egyptian construction. What were they using? Bricks. Why would it mention the Tower of Babel but not the Pyramids? People before the Flood were far beyond our current intellect. We, by virtue of life span are children. Northern Africa is a sand bar. In some places hundreds of feet deep. How did it get there? As it was in the days of Noah so shall it be in the end. They built amazing structures, so do we just with different materials. They spoke one language, we broke the language barriers with computers. I have no idea why people think we lived in caves before the flood. That came after