Hi XRP, you can add/pm me on fb: web.facebook.com/ProtagonistPhill/ ... you can also message me on fiverr: www.fiverr.com/protagonistp?up_rollout=true

KJV is good. Definitely better than many modern secularized translations that add crap like gender inclusive language… But why not study Greek? The early church used the Greek Old Testament, and wrote the New Testament in Greek. There’s a lot of great things to glean from the Greek

You are welcome here brother... We both learned something, and we're looking over some of the books you mentioned and stuff you referenced... Every time I rewatch these podcasts we do I pick up something new.

That is added in an intercalation week that is inserted after a certain interval of years

@@PhillipOnWater Very much appreciated..

Add me on fb: web.facebook.com/ProtagonistPhill/

Yes exactly brother. This is exactly what is happening... The NT doesn’t lie. But the Jews who rejected (and continue to reject) the messiah i am perfectly willingly to accept are wrong.

This is good research brother. I checked and the Gottingen does, in fact, read 70 at Deut. 10:22 for the main text. ….But this doesn’t solve the problem. Because are you saying Stephen in Acts was wrong? The NT reading in the Greek is firm. He said “75.” And he had to have gotten that from the LXX. That’s the point I’m making. Stephen was using the LXX tradition, and so we should too. If your points there are “proof” the original read “70,” then that just proves my point even more… St. Stephen used a reading that disagrees with the original text from the LXX tradition, which means there can be inspired textual traditions that don’t represent the original text. Do you catch my drift? We need to re think bibliology, and the importance of the LXX.

My suggested solution: I am suggesting the difference of numbers given in Deuteronomy and Genesis is because the contexts are different in ways that isn’t readily clear. So the numbers are precise for what they are saying. But the grand total had to have been 75, as we find in Acts and the LXX of Exodus.

@@PhillipOnWaterGenesis 46 says the wives of Jacob’s children are not included in this count. So perhaps this is where the difference in numbers is (perhaps these were included in the 75 in Acts).

@@derekk1 Yes... ! I figured something like this was the reason. Thanks for pointing this out.

Hi LoudCry. Glad you liked it... Assuming those claims are true, here are my responses: "Armenian Christianity predates St. Gregory..." 1) St. Gregory caused the nation to accept Christianity, and had a huge influence on the Church there. So, its like, there were people in America before the founding-fathers, but you cannot say there was a nation there until the founding-fathers appear and do what they do. Consider that analogy. "Should the Acts of Paul be invalidated?... What about Thecla?" 2) I'm not making an argument for or against the Acts of Paul. You can put that issue aside for the time being. You don't need to accept it to accept Third Corinthians. And this goes both ways. You don't need to accept Third Corinthians to accept the Acts of Paul, either. Third Corinthians is a completely separate composition that is only associated with those Acts at a later date. Whether or not you want to accept the Acts of Paul is a separate issue entirely. That's the point. People are confusing two separate questions into one. It would be like me writing a book about Philemon, and a later editor of my book includes the whole book of Philemon in my bigger book about it. You don't have to accept my bigger book to accept Philemon. Nor do you have to accept Philemon per se to accept my bigger book. These are two separate issues. But people have completely erred. Because for many people, due to lack of good research, I think, assume the Acts of Paul and Third Corinthians are one. This is simply not true. It's simply incorrect... Let me state it more clearly for anyone else reading these comments: It is an error to assume Third Corinthians and the Acts of Paul are one. A later editor of the Acts of Paul inserted Third Corinthians into those Acts. It is a false association. "St. Ephrem draws from some questionable stuff though." 3) Paul quotes pagan poets. But you and I both know Jude quoting 1 Enoch in the way he does means 1 Enoch is Scripture. The point is *how* the author is using the source. St. Ephrem treats Third Corinthians like the rest of the New Testament. Everything has to be taken on a case by case basis. There isn't a sweeping generalization that works for anything, if you want to be accurate. I hope that helps. Would you provide some references to pre-St. Gregory Christianity in Armenia? And some references to St. Ephrem referencing rabbinical literature and apocryphal texts you think we should disagree with? I would be very interested to see that. Thanks for the comment brother. Hope all is well over there. Peace.

Or another more radical (but still analogous) example might be, imagine someone made an edition of Shakespeare and combined it with the Gospels... Do you have to accept Shakespeare to accept the Gospels? Do you have to accept the Gospels to accept the Shakespeare? The answer is certainly "no" to both questions. For my purposes here, it is irrelevant to ask if we should accept Acts of Paul or not. I do think it is a good question. But I don't want it to be a hindrance to people coming to Third Corinthians as the truth. It is a good question. And I will do more with it in the future.

Thanks Jimmy. lol

Yes. I also accept that book as divinely inspired Scripture, just like the Apostle and Saint Jude does in the Bible.

You would know.. you were in it. lol

The word in Hebrew is the word for “islands” or “island nations”. But in actual Hebrew thought, this is the lands around the Mediterranean, like around Rome and Greece

@@PhillipOnWater , thats a stretch, just because its around the locality, doesn't mean its talking about any one of them... That's Hugh Grey Area, from Over 2,000 years ago.... Nobody really knows....lol

The word in Hebrew is אי (plural איים). What I told you is what the lexicons and scholarly resources say, like HALOT and DCH. The “island nations” were those in the Mediterranean because that’s the nearest sea to Israel where Biblical Hebrew was used. Does that make sense? That is not a “stretch.” That is common sense. Unfortunately, common sense isn’t very common. Secondly, I will teach you something more important here. A life lesson. When you ask a question to a teacher, you need to show respect. Not only to the teacher, but also to yourself, by using manners so that people more informed than you will want to help you. If you want to be childish and refuse to allow yourself to grow, you won’t get anywhere in life. Want to learn? Come. Let’s learn.

You just described modern Greek pronunciation. But that is not the historical reconstructed pronunciation, as put forth by Cambridge scholar Ben Kantor. That’s what I’m using.

This is wonderful. Thank you for sharing. I’m not arguing against this, friend. I’m arguing against the idea that you gain a “status” of righteousness when you’re not actually righteous. If you want to put Isaiah 53 this way, okay. Agreed. We are on the same team! Please check out my latest video. I got a new movie coming out, it premieres this Friday.

Exactly. The Dead Sea scrolls show it was in Hebrew in the 2nd century BC

Is Jesus, being God in the flesh, above himself? Would Jesus contradict what God said? That’s the problem friend. I’m defending Jesus, and God, and God’s word, in this video, using the Dead Sea scrolls, which are better copies of the Bible than what the reformers had when they did their original English translational work.

This is wonderful, couldn’t agree more. Thanks for the comment!

How is it any less pitiful to flat out say Matthew was manipulating the text?… The other differences in his quote there are not radical differences. Those can be explained as differences in translational choices from the same text. Not the problem I pointed out in my video. That is a radical difference that cannot be derived from the Hebrew. So, the only way to explain it (without saying Matthew intentionally changed the text, which he wouldn’t have done), is to recognize in textual criticism the potential scribal habits that may occur, and allow for the evidence to form our bibliology. To the Apostles, it’s not about the “original text.” They used traditions from the MT, DSS, and the LXX, even, apparently, though the LXX copy Matthew used was defective at that spot… it’s not an error of content. It’s an error of transmission, that is apparently inspired. Otherwise, God would not have allowed Matthew to use it. It’s not the other way around. It’s not that “Matthew wouldn’t use an error.” Rather, it’s “this is not actually an error, because Matthew used it.” The point I’m trying to get at is this: The “error” in the tradition becomes the truth God wants us to see, even though it’s not the original text.

@@PhillipOnWaterSo God had the Greek author of Mathew purposely use a fraudulent translation to change the text of Isaiah. You are saying that it was only God changing Isaiah because he didn’t get it right the first time. The Septuagint translation of Isaiah was created by for the author of Matthew.

No I'm saying that is the completely wrong way of looking at it. Matthew had multiple text types/traditions before him. It is clear when studying the NT that they used readings that match different text types. So, Matthew recognized them all as Scripture. Its not about the "original text." The quest for the "original text" is a modern concern Matthew didn't necessarily have. He was simply looking at the traditions (the different textual forms) that were passed down to him, and then choosing the one that suited his purposes. So, some LXX manuscripts, I am suggesting, had this textual corruption, and Matthew chose it for his purposes. It's not an error to Matthew. It's only an error in our modern eyes. This is a difference of perspective. In short, For Matthew, its not about the "original." Its about, what versions did he have, and which ones did he select for his purposes. So, I know the Bible-haters are going to love spinning my content in the wrong way. But that wasn't my intention here. I believe Matthew even if he is wrong (though, I'm not saying he is wrong. This is a misunderstanding). I'll also add here that its more complicated than people think. It is possible there were Hebrew manuscripts that did read שׁם ("name") and we just don't have them. Jerome seems to suggest Matthew used Hebrew texts in his OT quotes, so that would lend support to that idea. However, we just don't know, and, in my conclusions I try to form opinions based on verifiable antiquity. You could talk all day about what "could be" in terms of what we don't have. But what do we actually have? I presented that in this video. At the end of the day, we have to be honest with the evidence. I tried to do that here. I believe Matthew's Gospel. And I believe it is inerrant. As I said, even if Matthew said something that was flatly wrong, I would still believe it. Matthew is divinely inspired Scripture, without error. So... that's the point. If Matthew is true, then how do you explain this problem? Again, that's the point... We have to change our understanding of bibliology. We should think like Matthew. Its not about finding a lost "original text." its about, what did he have to deal with. Those were all inspired text-types for Matthew, but the ones he actually uses in his Gospel are especially important because thats what God wants us to see. So, you should consider thinking about this in a different way. Take a step back and consider a different perspective.

I will be reading my English translation soon, and discuss the evidence for this letter as being an authentic letter of Paul, and a genuine book of Scripture.

​@@PhillipOnWater Great 😃💯💯 looking forward...u did great here in Ancient Greek

That’s right. I’m just against people today clinging to the MT.

But also Luther is bad for other reasons.

Luther can't not find dead sea scrolls but he can find septuagint but he rejected septuagint.

That's not true. The DSS don't say Avimelech. Did you watch the video?

I think you misunderstood brother. The point of this video was to fight against the scoffers who think this verse had a contradiction.