Dr Phil Stringer - The Truth About the LXX Septuagint

[@clark_woodson]

The KJV was not 100% faithful to the MT, it used the LXX as well in the OT. Let us be objective as the translators of the KJV. They do mention and use the LXX. The LXX cannot be ignored.

[@truthreigns7]

I am 55 years old. When i was a child of 9 years old, I was born again in Christ Jesus. Ever since that age of 9 years old, I have been able to read God's Word (KJB) and understand it. However I am not able to fully know all the depths of God's Word, but i have not had a problem reading and understanding the wording. I tried the Living Bible and I did not like it at all. I would compare those translations using John 3:16. If they did not convey the meaning of that verse, then i got rid of that bible.

[@salvadorprado2854]

Good job brother!!

[@JR-lg7fd]

@@truthreigns7 it is a good translation

[@TruSciencePro]

The first Bible I read was an NIV and I quickly changed to a NKJV. I got saved out of that NKJV, and looking back I can see how diluted they are compared to the King James. The KJV has power because God’s hand is on that book. As you grow in your spiritual walk after being born again, I believe you’ll graduate to the KJV.

[@michaelwhite6505]

Amen

[@michaelwhite6505]

Truth is a magnet to the saved Job 32:8

[@anewmaninchrist]

I think there is something to this. I grew as a Roman Catholic and I am now a Lutheran. My congregation uses the ESV. I was always told by both Catholics and Protestants that the one Bible not to get was a KJV except for some sort of nostalgia factor that I never personally had. Yet the more I have researched the history of this Bible, the more convinced I am that we seriously err by abandoning the received text. And to the degree that the KJV faithfully translates that text, it is the best translation on the market. I do like the NKJV here and there but there are places in the Old Testament where it gives opposite meanings to the KJV, and I cannot help but believe that it is the NKJV that erred not the KJV because the former is departing from the same underlying Hebrew as the latter. In Lutheran circles, the late Theodore Letis was probably the best advocate for the KJV. Unfortunately not nearly enough people have heard of him. The KJV wields authority in a way that no other translation does. I now use it exclusively in my personal studying.

[@fredgillespie5855]

@@anewmaninchrist - The KJV is translated from the corrupted Masoretic text and this enables Rabbis to pick holes in the NT. The NKJV has much of this corruption corrected from the Septuagint.

[@yffadkcud]

Everybody knows that Enjoyed your discussion Then everybody knows that You’re humorous entertains factual direct no 1/2 way Gods way or nothing Thank you Phil Stringer In awe of Gods word 🦋🦋

[@JR-lg7fd]

@@yffadkcud I wish he would get right with God.

[@dennismaher9533]

the ever changing rabbit hole of the NIV is one deep hole i don't desire to ever get near ........

[@Nomad58]

Demonic Bible written from Catholic texts. Stuck to the textus receptus

[@risermoreriser4237]

The KJV has many editions. How many times has the KJV changed? Can you research and give us an number? If you're going to make claims. Back them up with evidence.

[@Nomad58]

@@risermoreriser4237 the major change was eliminating the apocalyptic books. Which never were accepted by the early Christian’s nor the Jewish people before Christ. Other than that all the editions were grammatical. Absolutely no contextual changes were made. Which is easily researchable. If you care you will do that research The KJV only people have one major error I think. The difference in translations is based on the texts used. Textus Receptus, or the Catholic texts, used in all modern bibles since the late 1800’s. I am not KJV only. I am Textus Receptus only, otherwise known as the received, or traditional text.

[@Nomad58]

@@jjpetkusiii nor are there any “original” New Testament copies. Either you believe God cares enough about his word to keep it true, or you don’t. But there can only be one true version period. You pick which one you will base your life on. Textus Receptus is my choice

[@Nomad58]

@@jjpetkusiii I didn’t debate any of that. But it’s not the KJV that’s infallible it is the textus receptus from which the KJV is written that is important.

[@garyhill2740]

If the world attacks the KJV, that is all the more affirmation I need to read it.

[@preacherman9018]

That was an excellent sermon! We Baptists need this. I used to have a pastor who undermined our faith with the Septuigent. He started his path from KJVO to KJV to criticizing our Bible with statements like that mentioned here, "Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuigent.". We were never provided with any evidence and I never believed that lie.

[@risermoreriser4237]

There is plenty of evidence. Why don't you turn to Act 8:32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: .................Now compare it to Isaiah Isa 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. Do you see lamb changed to sheep and sheep to lamb? What a horrible mistake. The KJV gets lamb and sheep mixed up................. Good thing we have the original manuscripts to know the Greek OT matches perfectly. PERFECTLY.

[@risermoreriser4237]

@@jjpetkusiii How many times are you going to just repeat yourself?

[@aussiebloke51]

@@jjpetkusiii Interestingly the oldest manuscripts of Malachi that we have from the Greek (LXX) tradition. There is no one Hebrew manuscript and the Hebrew fragments we have are later than the Greek fragments. The Jewish ordering also places 1 and 2 Chronicles as the last books of the Old Testament. A quick look online shows that the gospel message you outlined in Jn3.16, 1Cor 15.1-4, and Heb 1.1.-3 is clearly stated in all old and new translations by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants, and the gospel message is not confined to an Anglican translation in 1611.

[@jayandrew87]

This is unfortunately why people don’t take KJVO seriously. Mostly rhetoric and straw men argumentation with very little discussion of sound evidence. 2:57 The KJB translators held this view & expected every wise reader to as well hence the original marginalia. See the Translator Letter to the Reader, “Reasons Inducing Us To Set A Diversity Of Senses In The Margin When There Is A Great Probability For Each”. If the speaker believes his statement at 30:45 then he would not disregard the KJB translators opinion on this matter of textual and translational uncertainty. 36:07 AGAIN, just READ the KJB translators letter to the reader. They specifically tell you their aim is for YOU the READER to choose for yourself what the best readings are wherever there is uncertainty. I just happen to be wise enough to take their advice to me. Amen? Amen! 😇

[@100davidmartinez]

A few years ago I came to Christ and I did not know anything about this issue and I have been learning more and more, and even here after reading most of the viewers comments I have to say: Dr. Phil Stringer is a genius, his eloquence is a gift of God. Thanks God for Christian geniuses. Brother Stringer be blessed in the name of Jesus.

[@tommypeter7859]

Amen and Amen.

[@crossculturecommunity6593]

Only the ignorant do not realize that Springer can be classified as a false prophet based on the Apostolic churches

[@bobbyadkins6983]

@@crossculturecommunity6593 He's only been saved a few years. Is your insult really necessary? Are you even saved?

[@crossculturecommunity6593]

@@bobbyadkins6983 I am not insulting. I am simply calling out what needs to be called out. Test the spirits. The biggest problem with Christian America is accommodation especially accommodation of error in the name of "peace" instead of calling a spade what it is, a simple spade.

[@Ben6Strings]

The attacks against the KJV reaffirms my faith each time. If anything, it makes me look into it more and learn more so I can defend it more! Satan, most of all, hates the KJV. I just had a guy spend a week attacking me. He called me a cultist, demonic, and all kinds of slanderous lies. All because I said I prefer my KJV. He was leaving comments that were at least 10 paragraphs long. By the end, he was defending Westcott and Hort and admitted one of his favorite translations is the perverted NIV. He danced around every point I made, including my debunking of his claim that the KJV was a Catholic translation "through and through". Smh

[@baubljos103]

I gotta KJV 1611, but - apparently contrary to yours - mine doesn't indicate that "Satan...hates the KJV". My KJV includes Satan's doctrines in numerous places - Genesis 3, Job, even Matthew, Corithians, Acts, John. In other words, Satan's messages are all over the place in my KJV, so I don't see any particular basis for you to infer that he/she/it hates the KJV. Although I suppose it's plausible that Satan spoke to you and informed you what he/she/it "hates", and you do seem to be at least attempting to speak for Satan. If you do speak for Satan, perhaps you could inform me whether - or not - Satan's doctrine changed in between the Old Testament and the New Testament. You know.... Satan (or AKA a serpent) was apparently free to slither around in the garden of eden, according to Genesis at which point his doctrine was - apparently - "what did God really say". But by the time that God's word was allegedly written by Paul in his 2nd letter to the Corinthians Satan's doctrine appears to be deception because "Eve was deceived". Seems to me there's a big difference between a doctrine asking "what did God really say" and a doctrine that deceives people. Since you speak for Satan, perhaps you can explain that distinction.

[@Ben6Strings]

@@baubljos103 why the hell do demonic possessed 🤡s have to try to reinterpret someone's words just to satisfy their own lies? Where did I speak for Satan? I said Satan clearly hates the KJV- hence why anti-Christian men, occultists and Jesuits, attack it and try to replace it. Your weird attempt at putting thoughts and words in my mouth fail, 🤡. I have a 1611 KJV Facsimile myself, along with a couple other King James Bibles. Your claim that it has Satan's doctrine throughout it is extremely ignorant. The KJV very clearly, blatantly, speaks against Satan and all wickedness.

[@Ben6Strings]

@@baubljos103 Genesis 3 has Satan's doctrine? Because God exposes what Satan did? That makes absolutely no sense. Also, Satan gave mankind knowledge at the garden. What was this knowledge? I believe it has a lot to do with Gnosticism which is another direct enemy to the KJV ironically. Gnostics believe that as well. They think Lucifer is a good guy who came to give men knowledge to save them from an evil creator.

[@baubljos103]

@@Ben6Strings Nonesense? Genesis 3 KJV refers to a "serpent" that spoke to Eve. But Revelation 12:9 seems to indicate that Serpent was also called Satan. Did the Serpent/Satan express a doctrine to Eve? I say "yes". Satan's doctrine was to doubt what God instructed by asking if "every tree" was included. And to contradict God by claiming "ye shall not surely die". Satan's doctrine includes claims about what "God knows". So - I say Satan's doctrine is in the bible. You can also see Satan's doctrine in the book of Job, and in Matthew's gospel. It's also plausible that Satan's doctrine has entered the bible under the names of other authors such as Paul, or by way of translations of words from Hebrew to Latin to English, and also through the Greek language. As to what Gnostics "believe" - I'm never really certain about what other people "believe" because belief is a cognitive process deep within the mind. It's very difficult for one person to get into the mind of another person. So I rather doubt claims about what people "believe". But I can read the bible and understand what's written. The book of Job has an interesting report about Satan. The report is - essentially - that Satan had a conference with God. God commanded Satan to do things to Job and Satan followed God's commands precisely. So - the Job report seems to imply that Satan is an obedient servant. Maybe you'll find that is also nonsense. Read it yourself.

[@Ben6Strings]

@@baubljos103 everything you say is pure ignorance. For one, all Bible translations contain the story of the serpent. Same with the Job account. Just because YOU don't understand what's happening doesn't mean it's a bad doctrine. That same story is in the Septuagint and ALL Biblical accounts. Are you calling God a liar? I find YOU to be nonsensical.

[@witnessking9433]

I’m curious if the Septuagint is dated at around 200BC by 6 scholars from every tribe 12 (6*12=72) where did they find these scholars? The 10 northern tribes of Israel were scattered to the wind in 722BC. There would not have been found scholars from each of the 12 tribes. In Deut 31:9,26 only the Levites were in charge of the scriptures. The only exception that I can find is the king to learn the word of God Deut 17:18-19. The other tribes would not have copied the word of God because that was the job of the Levites. We only have copies after 350AD of the Septuagint of Codex Vaticanus (Catholic), Codex Sinaiticus (Catholic) and Codex Alexandrinus. These Septuagint copies disagree 3000 times in the gospels alone.

[@2HarveyCee]

James felt that there were still 12 identifiable tribes, however he may have been speaking figuratively/poetically. Even so, when there were times of revival, Godly Jews moved south to Judah, but did they keep their tribal identity? Simeon was presumed to have been absorbed by Judah, did they keep their tribal identity? Sounds fraudulent. Deut. 31 has the Levites storing the LAW in the Ark of the Covenant and commissioned to communicate the law, i don't see anything about writing the law. Joshua, David and Solomon authored writings, did they "source" them to Levites to write? Haven't checked the prophets yet except Amos who was from Tekoa, how many of them were Levites?

[@fredgillespie5855]

@@2HarveyCee - If you check it out you find that Moses commanded the People to write the law, to carve it on their doorposts, gates etc. You will find it in Deuteronomy.

[@jamesdawson4800]

@@witnessking9433 The jews were living in the land before Yashua was born. There were priests and Levites and a temple. John's father, Zechariah, was a priest.

[@jamesdawson4800]

@@jjpetkusiii you need to be reported for providing false info... Everyone needs to report this fool!

[@jamesdawson4800]

@@jjpetkusiii blah, blah, blah, your a bot, yada yada yada...

[@byronsmith5314]

Dr. Stringer, you sure brought out the haters, experts, and arm chair theologians. You must be over the target.

[@jwatson181]

Have you noticed he doesn't do debates? It's because he is lying to you.

[@John3.36]

@@jwatson181 Debates are not good determiners of truth.

[@jwatson181]

@@John3.36 It can be. It can prevent people from just making things up.

[@randyd9805]

@@jwatson181 What exactly did Dr. Springer make up? You are the one making things up because you disagree with him. You evidently do not believe in the preservation and word-for-word inspiration of scripture. I do not believe that the KJV is a flawless TRANSLATION because it does have errors, but that does not discount that God's word has been preserved all the way down to 2023 to an incredible degree. If you believe the lies of those who support the critical text you will NEVER see the truth. You MUST of necessity excuse all of the changes and omissions found in almost all modern translations due to the fact they were based on the extremely corrupt critical text with literally thousands of omissions. I wonder seriously if you even know Christ as your Savior? No, Dr. Stringer is NOT making things up, you are a false accuser, just like Satan. Btw, the truth is NOT determined by debates. I could for example lose a debate on whether or not Acts 8:37 actually belongs in the Bible. Was that one verse originally inspired by God? Why is it not in most modern translations? Let me tell you something, if you don't know that verse belongs there I question if you have the Holy Spirit of God in you and that you are truly a born-again child of God. Btw, the same goes for First John 5:7 and number of other verses.

[@JR-lg7fd]

@@John3.36 cults are not good determiners of truth either bub.

[@benhael3624]

If they weren't speaking Greek in the time of Christ then why is the new testament written completely in Greek?

[@christopheryetzer]

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think what he said was that they wouldn't be speaking Greek in the synagogues. Not that they wouldn't speak Greek in the streets. The New Testament is written more as a message or historical account being given to the people on the street.

[@benhael3624]

@Paul Beduhn I dont know what these guys do with all that time they have to study. They dont se ess m the list bit interested in knowing or telling truth.

[@God-db9vp]

At that time Greek was international language like English today.

[@christopheryetzer]

@@jjpetkusiii So?

[@christopheryetzer]

@@jjpetkusiii Ok

[@johnnycook8690]

Jesus didn't use any manuscripts. He was the living manuscript. What He Said was confirmed by the old testament written by Moses.

[@Lightn1ng82]

Really? Luke 4:16-20 KJV And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. [17] And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, [18] The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, [19] To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. [20] And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. I get the statement but it is wrong to say he didn't use manuscripts.

[@joshportie]

Jesus did read, though he probably didn't need to.

[@caldylangoss2287]

Saw the title, said "That tripe ain't worth my time;" but thought, "I might learn a thing." So glad I listened. Sometimes the best feeling comes from finding out you were wrong.

[@JR-lg7fd]

@@caldylangoss2287 it wasn't worth your time.

[@HeavyHeartsShow]

It’s wise to have an open mind and accept the better answer. Props. Also put it to the test yourself with Scripture.

[@AmillennialMillenial]

Isn’t it pretty safe, as Christians, to pretty much disregard the authority of any Jewish Council after the time of Christ and during the time the NT was being written?

[@ronester1]

it would only make sense

[@awakenedbyyhuhassembly6015]

The masoretic text was written by talmudic scribes at talmudic academies in Babylon and Israel this is a documented fact. Also they were very antichrist

[@awakenedbyyhuhassembly6015]

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text

[@AmillennialMillenial]

@@jjpetkusiii none of those verses prove that the King James Bible is the only true English translation.

[@AmillennialMillenial]

@@jjpetkusiii so if I think the kjv and the nkjv bibles are both acceptable translations, then I’m not regenerate? What Bible was an English speaker supposed to use in 1605, or was there no word of God before 1611?

[@RobertHarbitzII]

I have been a Christian for 20 years and have never heard a true evangelical say that because he believes Jesus quoted from the Septuagint that concepts are all we have and not preserved words from God.

[@skjones91199]

Plenty of alexandrinans here that did not listen to Dr. Stringer. Amazing.

[@randyd9805]

They only come here to pick things apart. They are drawn to the subject and frankly, it's demonic. There are clearly demonic forces at work to attempt to destroy faith in the word of God. No matter how well people like Dr. Stringer show the truth they will not change or acknowledge anything he said is true. Satan is in an all-out attack to destroy faith in the Bible, but especially the KJV.

[@DiscernmentNow]

EXACTLY

[@fredgillespie5855]

God gave man logic, Dr. Stringer doesn't use his. Consider, for example - According to the KJV (Masoretic) Abraham was born less that 300 years after the Flood. The Tower of Babel had been built and destroyed, Sargon of Akkad's empire had been and gone, the city of UR was a trading centre importing goods from Afghanistan and the Indus Valley. There was civilisation in Sudan, Egypt and China with city states all round the fertile crescent. Did all that happen in 300 years of the Masoretic or is it more logical to believe it took place over the 1100 years of the Septuagint? Watch - "The Old Testament and Rabbi Akiva" by Barry Setterfield on YT.

[@JR-lg7fd]

@@skjones91199 thank goodness they didn't.

[@jamesdawson4800]

I watched the ENTIRE video from beginning to end. He is DECEIVED, and a false teacher. The LXX was the source for the NT. Psalm 40 and Hebrews 10 is the most important scripture in the entire bible. But a body you have prepared for me. The Masoretic text was written by Jews who hated that their fellow Jews were converting to Christianity BECAUSE of psalm 40, which Paul quotes in Hebrews 10. This man is a liar!

[@peterwiebewall5608]

Let the doubters doubt, and let the Nay sayers say Nay, but as for me and my house, we stand unreservedly on the Holy Bible (King James).

[@JR-lg7fd]

@@peterwiebewall5608 idolatry

[@HeavyHeartsShow]

@@JR-lg7fd while I think the KJV is a better translation, what that guy said is idolatry of the KJV Bible and is cringe.

[@quintonjones7139]

This guy is wrong. I don't believe in the apocrypha, but I do use the Septuagint. If you compare Luke 4:18 it matches Isaiah 61:1 in the Septuagint NOT the Masoretic text which doesn't mention "the blind"

[@larrythrasher9713]

Your Septuagint was written after the new Testament and copied from Luke! NOT the other way around! And yes, this guy does know a lot of very good information on this subject!!

[@quintonjones7139]

@@larrythrasher9713 Perhaps I didn’t explain this well. Isaiah 61 1 is *Almost* identical to Luke 4 18. The important part being they are similar enough to say the New Testament writers were using something from the Septuagint family but not similar enough to say that the scribes of the New Testament edited the Septuagint to match the New Testament. Pull up the Septuagint and Luke in codex sinaiticus. Isaiah has «ϊσασθε τους συντετριμμενους τη καρδιά» which is missing from Luke. It doesn’t make sense that if a New Testament scribe wanted to edited the Old Testament to match the New they would fail to actually match them in such a major way. But everything else about the Isaiah verse matches Luke down to the ordering of words. Something we often don’t see between New Testament manuscripts

[@quintonjones7139]

@@jjpetkusiii I don’t understand what you are saying. It seems like you reject the LXX because you can’t find definitive proof it was around during the time of Jesus so instead you use the KJV which was definitely not around at the time of Jesus. The logical jump doesn’t make sense to me. If you want Old Testament scriptures from the time of Jesus wouldn’t you use the Dead Sea scrolls? (Josephus talks about the Septuagint so it had to be around pre 70s AD)

[@GodisGracious1031Ministries]

Jesus quoted another part of Isaiah.

[@quintonjones7139]

@@GodisGracious1031Ministries what part of Isaiah was he quoting? Luke 4: 18 (kjv) doesn’t match anywhere that I can tell in Isaiah (kjv)

[@truman5838]

The original kjv included the Apocrypha .

[@frankjames1955]

no it did.. but it was placed between them when published to give that appearance

[@robertgreatsinger9179]

Check Sam Gipp/THE LXX

[@nojustno1216]

Yes, AND contained marginal note references to the old and new testaments...now it's gone..."added"..."removed"??? A double standard it would seem.

[@KathrynBriley]

do you have a manuscript copy?! what year does it reflect?!

[@malcolm4887]

1611 included all Apoc I have a copy + Great bible Henry viii 1539 all had 80 books until 1689 see vid false septuagint posted today

[@johnuitdeflesch3593]

" 'hoti' recitative use introducing a direct quotation and is equivalent to quotation marks" [regarding Galatians 3:8] Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament, Rienecker and Rogers, p. 508

[@brianbradford4023]

Interesting that when Jesus quotes the OT in the NT its direct in some cases from the LXX. Not the MT

[@soban1981]

I would have loved it if the speaker explained why some of jesus quotes of old T don't match MT

[@Obediah002]

Not if you are using the KJV/Traditional text line. Besides this there is too much intrigue surrounding any, all the Alexandrian texts to trust them over the preserved text which has no actual flaws to be found like are throughout the Alexandrian sourced texts. He glories in concealing things, in His word for us to search Him out; the only text line faithful to His vry words is the Preserved text line, KJV, all the modern versions use dynamic equivalence to translate giving their own understanding of meaning(s) of words completely ignoring and stripping the Spirit from His own word; this is why these Alexandrian texts are dead texts, they can not be searched out!

[@susyhebner2543]

@@Obediah002 you just touched on something I’ve know for a long time but thought it was just me. Had a friend that was strictly NASB. Here’s the oddity to this, I could sense the difference in the Spirit even though we went to the same church. Only when I read the KJV do I sense the Spirit. I have all the other Bible versions but just have not been able to adapt to them except maybe for clarification here & there. Now how odd is that?

[@Obediah002]

@@susyhebner2543 Yes think maybe we are on the same page, you see what I have discovered the Spirit is in the very words of the KJV and not in the leavened moderns. Have a few of them in my Library including he RCC bible but only use them to research, and know error.

[@igregmart]

@@soban1981 He did. They were not direct quotes, Jesus words are scripture as well. He was alluding to what was said in the OT.

[@lonestarstate6570]

Although you might be right with some of this information, when it comes to the Apocrypha, the New Testament references the Apocrypha on multiple occasions. In John 10:32-33 Jesus is at the Temple for the Feast of Dedication which is a festival instituted during the second Temple period. Antiochus Epiphanes slaughtered a pig on the altar and setup an image of Zeus/Jupiter. This was viewed as a type of the Abomination of Desolation (1Macc. 1:45-54). The Temple was cleansed after Judas Maccabeus overthrew Antiochus and his army, the feast of "Dedication" (which in Hebrew is pronounced Hannukah) became a mandatory feast/celebration for all Jews moving forward (2Macc. 10:1-8). If the Apocrypha was unknown or not followed by the Jews, then why was Jesus there? Why were any Jews at the Temple during this winter feast in John 10? In Matthew 22:23-28, Mark 12:18-23, and Luke 20:27-33 we have in all synoptic Gospels an account of the Sadducees questioning Jesus about marriage and more specifically, raising up children with a relative's spouse should he pass away. All accounts reference a story about a woman who married seven brothers and was unable to produce children before all seven died! Tragic story, and for most people who read these parallel passages, they assume that the story is made up by the Sadducees. Yet Matthew's account makes it clear that these seven brethren were "among us" or "with us" according to the Sadducees, making it a little more personal. As we look at the Apocrypha, we find in Tobit 3:8 the story being referenced by the Sadducees. The woman had seven husbands, who were all killed by a demon (Asmodeus) before they could produce any children. We have to remember that the Sadducees don't believe in a resurrection, or Angels/demons/spirits, and they believe that only the Torah (Law of Moses) is inspired Scripture. This story in Tobit contains all of the elements that the Sadducees reject. The woman is pestered by a demon (Tob. 3:8), an Angel is sent to help the woman (Tob. 3:17), and the woman believes she has a place in eternity with God, which might be better understood as a resurrection (Tob. 3:6). Jesus' response is intriguing, "you do err, not knowing the Scriptures"...Jesus is calling Tobit "the Scriptures"!!! In the story, the woman recognizes that she is better off with God and wants to set her eyes and face toward Him (Tob. 3:12). This is what Jesus is referencing in Matt. 22:30, there is no marriage in Heaven, only focusing on God. When correcting their understanding of the resurrection Jesus quotes the Torah, but this doesn't negate the fact that Jesus explicitly referred to Tobit as the Scriptures. Hebrews Hall of Faith references women who "received their dead raised to life again, others were tortured not accepting deliverance that they might obtain a better resurrection". This is without a doubt talking about the story in 2Maccabees 7.

[@lewwunderwald1]

So Jesus was not directly reading from the scroll of Isaiah 61 in the Synagogue in Luke 4. It says He was, and what He read lines up with the Septuigent much better than the Masoretic text.

[@michaelwhite6505]

The catholics copied the septuagint in 350 ad to make it look like it was more accurate. Actually they twist the words in the septuagint, why don't you get it , you are decieved

[@GodisGracious1031Ministries]

There is a quote in Isaiah about the blind getting healed and the prison opening in another passage.

[@jamesdawson4800]

@@jjpetkusiii I hope you stop deceiving yourself and others, and learn the history behind the Masoretic text.

[@jamesdawson4800]

@@jjpetkusiii how did you get 2 upvotes in just 20 minutes? You joke of a scholar. Stop typing and read where the Masoretic text came from. Stop upvoting your lies, and stop deceiving people...

[@jamesdawson4800]

@@jjpetkusiii why didn't you post on the video, but are all over the comments? It's because you MUST be a paid troll, a lying deceiver...

[@NuevaCriaturaValera]

The preface of the Septuagint marketed today points out that the stories surrounding the B.C. (before Christ) creation of the Septuagint (LXX) and the existence of a Greek Old Testament are based on fables. All of the Septuagint manuscripts cited in its concordance were written after A.D. 200 and represent Origen’s Hexapla, in kind. The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics elaborates, calling “the letter of the pseudo- Aristeas, a manifest forgery and the fragments of Aristobulus highly suspect.” It also points out many of the LXX’s Gnostic and Platonic readings. The fable of the Septuagint arose from the counterfeit letter of pseudo- Aristeas. It said that seventy-two scholars were called, around 250 B.C., by Ptolemy, king of Egypt, to create a Greek Old Testament. This Egyptian ruler supposedly asked them a number of questions related to pagan philosophy and pagan theology. If they could answer these questions, they could be on the Septuagint “committee.” The fable further states that six Jews from each of the twelve tribes were involved. The word Septuagint means seventy, however, not seventy- two. The Septuagint (LXX) cannot be the word of God for several reasons: 1. Only the tribe of Levi was permitted by God to write the scriptures (1 Chron. 16:4). 2. Any Jew living in or returning to Egypt was in direct disobedience to God’s command in Deuteronomy 17:16. “But he shall not... cause the people to return to Egypt... forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way"

[@Ca1iGurl31]

Yet & still, Jesus went and lived in Egypt with his mother and father to hide from Herod???

[@2HarveyCee]

@@Ca1iGurl31 worse "the angel of the Lord" COMMANDED him to sin! Unless what Jeremiah wrote was only meant for those fleeing the wrath of the Babylonians.

[@johnuitdeflesch3593]

So...Jesus sinned when he went to Egypt?

[@billymartin4866]

At 16:30 he begins to use the argument that most of the available manuscripts of the Septuagint were developed after AD 350. He then proceeded to use that to say that they could have made there manuscripts match, word for word, the New Testament. Well, the Masoretic Text was not written until around AD 1000! Those writers didn’t have enough sense to go back and make their’s match the New Testament. Why? Because they did not believe the New Testament.

[@rosslewchuk9286]

The OT quotations found in the NT are worded by the Holy Spirit. Why go outside the TR for other sources? Also, Turretin forbids using the LXX to "correct" the Masoretic Text. The Holy Spirit used quotations from various works to make a point, but that does not mean He considers the whole of such works to be inspired: only those portions found in the TR.

[@rosslewchuk9286]

He sure is free to do so! We have what He chose in His New Testament! How is that sophistry? James 3:17-18 King James Version (KJV)But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace. May the Lord bless you!🙏📖

[@rosslewchuk9286]

I am a Byzantine prioritist not a KJVO. I prefer the KJV and NKJV. To observe other perspectives, I also consult Robinson-Pierpont, Pickering, Boyd, WEB, BSB, NET, LSB and the NET LXX, Lexham LXX and Swete's LXX Psalter, La Sainte Bible Louis Segond 1910 and 2021, snd Bib la an Kreyòl ayisyen. May God bless you!🙏

[@rosslewchuk9286]

You need to read more Bible and less other non-inspired writings. And Gipp & Riplinger are not even near my ballpark. May God bless you! 🙏📖

[@joeydelrio]

he forgot to mention the DSS lines up with the LXX and not the masoretic as well as the masoretic text is a pharisee version of the Hebrew bible, the enemies of Jesus and the 12. but its important to ignore facts such as those when your trying to make your theology work.

[@admiralmurat2777]

joeydelrio of course man is to prideful.

[@Obediah002]

Uh-oh now that statement you have made I KNOW is false, this is why the liberal theologian has went silent in regard to the DSS as it agrees perfectly with the Masoretic text and even more importantly to us who are His today, the text of the KJV's OT.

[@Obediah002]

@@lavalleeverdun What said is quite true. The preserved word of God is His responsibility and He has preserved it in the Traditional tex line which is what the A/KJV is. Have compared these various version now for many years and the men behind them and they are not of Him.

[@joeydelrio]

@@Obediah002 you obviously have done no research. the idea that the LXX was a corrupt text has been thoroughly debunked with the discovery of the DSS. the MZ and LXX both vary from the DSS however the LXX has only a few, the MZ has a mountain. the LXX was put together by Jews with no agenda. the MZ was put together by pharisees in opposition to those that followed Jesus. the KJV was a copy of the biships bible, a copy of a copy lol when Jesus and the 12 quote the Hebrew bible it matches the LXX more then the MZ Here are just a few changes the MZ made, I dont have time to go through them all as there are to many: Psalm 22 16 pierced is replaced with lion. Prophecy passage about the Christ, but not anymore. Psalm 145 13 omitted Is 53 11 omits “light” Psalm 151 omitted Dt 32 8 Angels of Elohim changed to children of Israel. completely changes the meaning, this is a big one. trying to make a case for the MZ over the LXX is based on politics and goes back to the reformation and Catholics vs protestants. i was raised in a Baptist church, but i could care less what anyone believes. when it comes to the truth i want the text that matches the best.

[@Obediah002]

@@joeydelrio The DSS have confirmed the unchanged nature of the Traditional text line of which the KJV is in line of, no changes or differences! You got it backwards the DSS agrees with KJV. The Alexandrain texts disagree between themselves, greatly. The one they call the oldest Bible Siniaticus is highly edited with multiple editors, altered and missing so much it is laughable to even call it a complete Bible. Psalm 22:16, my KJV says pierced, have no idea what you are trying to say here, Jews to this day reject the Septuagint despite the claim they wrote it (LOL). Psalm 145:13 is in my KJV too. Isaiah 53:11 again your confused here. Deuteronomy 32:8 claim is quite strained isn't it, if it isn't it still changes nothing! But the doctrinal & deity of Jesus changes between the kjv and ALL the Alexandrian texts are of great import to understand. The KJV is His preserved word for us today none of the leavened Alexandrian texts few as they are are of any truth or value to genuine believers today.

[@appalachianflyfishco.377]

“Jesus and Paul quoted from the LXX” If you take an honest unbiased look at the timeline and origin of the LXX, there is one letter referred to that everyone uses to advocate the LXX was created in BC. Look into that letter it has a lot of issues and cannot be relied upon, especially as the only evidence. But there is much to support it was translated a few centuries after the NT was written. Too much to put into this comment but look into it if you’re interested in truth. We were taught wrong unfortunately by people who are just reading or quoting others who were taught wrong. Remember it’s about the actual truth not what is mainstream opinion. - no B.C. "LXX"; - The N.T. "quotes" that DO match the LXX are the LXX quoting the N.T., NOT the N.T. quoting LXX; I’m convinced personally on this matter.

[@ronester1]

There clearly was a greek Old Testament before Christ hiding your head in the sand doesn't change that fact, if you read your kjv new testament quotes that don't match you Masoretic Text Old Testament but do match Septuagint Old Testament verses this points to that fact. The new testament writers were clearly not using the Masoretic Text. We have numerous ancient witnesses that testify to the ancient greek translation of the hebrew Old Testament early church fathers Jewish and Christian historians, but the new testament itself is the strongest witness against the Masoretic Text

[@jamesdawson4800]

@@appalachianflyfishco.377 Look into who wrote the Masoretic text. They were Jews who hated Christianity. They watched as thousands of their brothers and sisters were converting BECAUSE of 3 verses in psalms. Paul quotes them in Hebrews 10 5-7. The reason Jews were converting was because the ORIGINAL Hebrew in psalm 40 was "but a body you prepared for me". Which, regardless of it's origins, the LXX PRESERVED. The Masoretic writers changed it to say "you have pierced my ear" and it has been that way since 900 AD. Please look into it's origins...

[@jamesdawson4800]

@@lavalleeverdun The Masoretic writers were not good men, and deceived their fellow Jews by rewriting psalm 40. "But a body you have prepared for me", to "you have pierced my ear".

[@risermoreriser4237]

@@jamesdawson4800 Good thing you know how to study. The Masoretic writers hated Jesus Christ. Yet, you have these same men being praised by KJVOists. We can tell who is the deceiver here.

[@risermoreriser4237]

There you go. Personal convicts being passed off as Heavenly requirements. Why an American citizen would ever praise an English king is beyond me. What did English kings do to us? When you going to listen to those English kings and become part of the "Church of England"??????????? Do you know what an Anglican is?

[@truthreigns7]

Thank you so much for your faithfulness.

[@daniel.d2150]

1.Perer.1:25 25But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. Isaiah.40:6 6The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field:

[@admiralmurat2777]

The Original King James The translators letter section says the apostles and Jesus used the septuigant. Are you saying the king James writers are liars?

[@billymartin4866]

General Lee so far, this is the best comment I’ve read.

[@AndersErichsen-rr7vs]

Hmm, that's the anoying thing of some bibles taking out the foreword. I think iv seen someone actually show it on KZbin on video in regards of that statement.

[@awakenedbyyhuhassembly6015]

This guy is extremely biased and just wants to believe in the fable that the KJV is perfect

[@awakenedbyyhuhassembly6015]

@@jjpetkusiii for the KJV to be perfect it has to be perfect in both parts in the Bible which is not. The old testament alone has tons of doctrinal errors because of the manuscript it uses is highly corrupt any Bible that uses the masoretic text can't be perfect on a doctrinal or historical stand point.

[@JTHill-ed7qe]

42:35 Amazing. My dad said the exact same thing to me! 🤣 and by those words i lived. I never lost. Came close a few times though. But I never started a fight and that gave me the advantage because I had nothing to lose but people that start fights have everything to lose especially their pride!

[@tommypeter7859]

Thank's Brother, appreciate your kind words, God bless you abundantly! God speed!

[@tommypeter7859]

@@jjpetkusiii Amen and Amen Brother

[@weskandel]

28:08 Saying we shouldn't trust scribes who "went where they weren't supposed to go" is an argument Dr. Stringer should probably abandon, because Jesus also "went where he wasn't supposed to go." To Egypt as a child. By that logic Jesus should be disqualified from being "used by God."

[@jwatson181]

Good point.

[@joshlane9878]

Or perhaps He can go wherever He wants because He’s The Lord Jesus Christ and it was God’s plan. The manuscripts from Egypt are very corrupt. Erasmus threw them out completely. Egypt is always a picture of the world and sin in Scripture. Jesus fleeing from Herod to Egypt is a picture of the Jew’s future persecution from the antichrist. I don’t think it had anything to do with Christ approving the manuscripts that would come from there. Historic fact proves that they are unreliable.

[@warnerchandler9826]

Unless it was in fulfillment of OT prophecy that I will call my son out of Egypt.

[@GodisGracious1031Ministries]

It was suppouse to be a refrence to Moses leading people out of Egypt.

[@TheGreatPanicker]

And the Sept was written after Jesus was here in the flesh!

[@PhantomNites]

Why does everyone or most people claim the Septuagint was written 100-250 years before Jesus Christ came in the flesh?

[@ronester1]

The version we have today go back to the 4th century but it was written originally 2 centuries before Christ

[@johnuitdeflesch3593]

@@PhantomNitesbecause numerous historians in the 1 and 2nd century AD refer to it as existing and make no mention of it being “new”.

[@chriscurtis1578]

I have used a KJV Study Bible for almost 30 years and would never use anything else because I have hundreds of handwritten notes in it but with that being said there are some serious issues with the Masoretic Text. Being translated by Jewish scribes who were biased against Christianity should throw caution into the wind for anyone who studies seriously. Many of the Old Testament quotes made by the apostles that were recorded in the New Testament match up with the Septuagint more than the Masoretic Text. The prophecies regarding Christ are different as well so the KJV is not the perfect Bible as so many say but I'll still use it along with the Septuagint.

[@wawabbit]

"throwing caution to the wind" generally means that someone will move forward in spite of any cautions.

[@amercyreceived]

Liked and saved to playlist.

[@luvbowhunting]

It has been proven that the So Called Septuagint is NOT A 250-300 BC production.

[@luvbowhunting]

My belief, is definitely OVER 50 AD invention.

[@PhantomNites]

Can you send me link please thx

[@JR-lg7fd]

@@luvbowhunting I hope you are better at bowhunting than doing research.

[@luvbowhunting]

@@PhantomNites Don’t have a link to share. David W.Daniels is who has proven the supposed Septuagint is NOT a BC invention, but a 1st century AD to early 2nd AD. He wrote a book on it..”Did Jesus Use The Septuagint?” Get you a copy!

[@luvbowhunting]

@@JR-lg7fd I’m definitely better at Bowhunting than research! Order you a copy of “Did Jesus Use The Septuagint”, by David W.Daniels. He gives all the info about the Septuagint NOT being a BC, but a 1st-early 2nd century AD invention. Great information! He’s done all the research. I’m not sure and don’t remember why I said 250-300 ad..may had been a misprint, then said what I believe in a comment under original comment. He has great vlogs too, to watch.

[@kjvnews8326]

This is a GREAT video. It's the truth.

[@jamesdawson4800]

He's just paraphrasing the words of better men who came before him concerning this LXX/Masoretic text nonsense...Read Psalm 40:6-8 and then the direct quote in Hebrews 10: 5-7...the LXX translated from the original Hebrew, preserved this to show that Yashua/Jesus, came in the flesh to be the sacrificial lamb... Masoretic scribes changed this by 900 ad

[@InfinitelyManic]

Seems that even the KJV Translators affirmed the value of the LXX; so were they confused or in error? The Translators to the Reader: "... it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek Prince (Greek for descent and language) even of Ptolemy Philadelph King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek. This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal."

[@dlbard1]

I have watched all of David Bercot videos and they are very good. I been using the LXX for several months now since I've learned about it.

[@KathrynBriley]

David good point!

[@brucedressel4523]

@@dlbard1 Sad ...

[@brucedressel4523]

@@lavalleeverdun Up to date ? why because Gods word is ever changing ? thanks for the laugh heathen ...

[@brucedressel4523]

@@lavalleeverdun You are simply a Bible doubter, people like you always think there is a newer and better understanding to be had ... it is you that is in error when it comes to the holy scriptures ... LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. Psalm 119 89 KJV

[@SpritMatterMan]

The 1611 King James Bible has the apocrypha translated from the LXX.

[@robertjeffery1415]

Between the old and new testaments, never considered an inspired part of the canon

[@malcolm4887]

The Jews adopted just the 24 non-messianic books at Jamnia 90ad rejecting both the 14 ITB and the true Hebrew 70 (or DSS) According to Humphrey Hody, Aristeas and LXX are false, only Epiphanius tells the true story of the 70 which Rome later substituted with their LXX

[@aridian7787]

Exactly!

[@mauricerose3082]

...little boy Jesus understood God's Word...

[@JR-lg7fd]

@@mauricerose3082 stop being creepy about it

[@tecnolover2642]

Oh...and guess what? The kjv translators also used the Septuagint! Suprise suprise! The kjv translators were only to translate and not to alter words based on their beliefs. If they had only used the Masoretic text then in Isiah we would have lost the miracle of Christs birth! But kjv preserves it which proves the kjv scholars used other texts and the Septuagint preserves the miracle of Christs birth!

[@brianmoore581]

Exactly. Also, the King James has "they have pierced my hands and feet" in Psalm 22, taken from the Septuagint. The Masoretic text has instead "like a lion my hands and feet", weirdly worded as that is. Jews have insisted for centuries that they have the right wording and that the Psalm has nothing to do with the Messiah. They are wrong. The correct version from the Septuagint was confirmed by recent discoveries in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Christians had it right all along, but we would have lost another fulfilled prophecy if the King James translators had trusted the Masoretic text.

[@brianmoore581]

@@lavalleeverdun exactly. The LXX has been preserved in Christian hands for two-thousand years. The Masoretic text was completely in Jewish hands over the centuries when those same Jews witnessed the growth of Christianity from obscurity to the dominant religion in the world, or certainly that part of the world where the Jews were living. They had to alter their texts in order to survive as a distinct people. They had to alter their own prophecies that pointed to Christ. It is sad that some would choose their own cultural identity over their God, but that's what they did.

[@AnHebrewChild]

I find it odd that KJV onlyists like this speaker denigrate the LXX. The translators were sometimes led by God to use a Masoretic reading (most the time), sometimes the Septuagint (less frequently), and occasionally even used Syriac or Latin or Aramaic readings (fairly infrequently, but they did). For the record, I'm firmly convinced the Authorised King James is _The Bible_ for the English speaking world. I defend it to the hilt to friends who use the aberrant modern versions, but to think that defending the KJV necessitates a defense of the Jesus-rejecting Orthodox Jews' text is very strange. It's an indefensible position, and one that undercuts the authority of our English Bible. Folks, do your own research (I mean, actual research.) Cheers.

[@raymack8767]

Many KJV Onlyists are unaware that the Apocrypha remained in King James Bibles for centuries and was not officially removed until 1885 by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Not only did the King James Bible include the Apocrypha, but it also included numerous references to it in the margins [of books considered canonical], treating it the same as other Scripture: ● Matt. 6:7 references Ecclesiasticus 7:14 ● Matt. 23:37 references 2 Esdras 1:30 ● Matt. 27:43 references Wisdom 2:15-16 ● Luke 6:31 references Tobit 4:16 ● Luke 14:13 references Tobit 4:7 ● John 10:22 references 1 Maccabees 4:59 ● Rom. 9:21 references Wisdom 15:7 ● Rom. 11:34 references Wisdom 9:13 ● 2Cor. 9:7 references Ecclesiasticus 35:9 ● Heb. 1:3 references Wisdom 7:26 ● Heb. 11:35 references 2 Maccabees 7:7 “The Onlyists claim, ‘The King James translators knew the Apocrypha was not scripture, so they placed it BETWEEN the Old and New Testament...’ [James L. Melton, “Fables And Facts About The King James Bible”, Bible Baptist Church: Sharon, TN, 1996; www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/fables.html, accessed July 7, 2015.] "But if they knew it was not Scripture, then why include it at all? And if there was nothing wrong with it, why take it out later? In contrast, most of the MODERN versions [NIV, NKJV, RSV, etc...] criticized by the KJV-Onlyists do not contain the Apocrypha at all... and never did!” There is no widely-accepted reason for the removal of the Apocrypha in the 1880s that has ever been officially issued by a mainline Protestant denomination.” [“English Bible History”. www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history

[@raymack8767]

The original 1611 King James contained the Apocrypha, and King James threatened anyone who dared to print the Bible without the Apocrypha with heavy fines and a year in jail. The books which are in the KJV Apocrypha are: Prayer of Manasseh (MAN) - Esdras (1ES) - Tobit (TOB) - Judith (JDT) - additions to Esther (ESG) - Wisdom of Solomon (WIS) - Sirach (SIR) - Baruch (BAR) - Letter of Jeremiah (LJE) - additions to Daniel (S3Y, BEL & SUS) Up until the 1880s every Protestant Bible (not just Catholic Bibles) had 80 books, not 66! The Inter-testamental books written hundreds of years before Christ called “The Apocrypha” were part of virtually every printing of the Tyndale-Matthews Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Protestant Geneva Bible, and the King James Bible ... until their removal in the 1880s! Only for the last 120 years has the Protestant Church rejected these books, and removed them from their Bibles. This has left most modern-day Christians believing the popular myth that there is something ‘Roman Catholic’ about the Apocrypha.

[@PracticalBibleStudies]

Here is how we KNOW the apostles and Jesus quoted either the Septuagint or a DIFFERENT version of the Hebrew we don't have: If you look at all the new testament quotes of the old testament such as in Hebrews 8, you'll see that it agrees more than 90% with the LXX versus around 50% for the Masoretic OT. Not to mention the genealogies that agree with the Samaritan Pentateuch and Josephus and NOT the Masoretic.

[@daniel.d2150]

The Holy Ghost Himself bears witness to the truth that the KJV is the Word. 1 corinthians.2:9-16 9But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

[@jamesdawson4800]

@@daniel.d2150 The guy is misinformed... Psalm 40 and Hebrews 10. The LXX preserved the truth, whereas the Masoretic writers changed it because they saw their fellow Jews converting to Christianity, BECAUSE of the part saying, "but a body you have prepared for me.."

[@daniel.d2150]

@@jjpetkusiii AMEN! 100% Shalom and many blessings in Christ Jesus our Lord.

[@roddumlauf9241]

This guy never deals with the actual text and ignores the Dead Sea Scroll evidence.

[@lizicadumitru9683]

alpha draconis what do you mean by using thus scripture?

[@robertgreatsinger9179]

Check Sam gipp/ the LXX

[@bhec7715]

Yep, he also ignores the fact that the Septuagint matches the Samaritan Torah and that’s a completely separate community.

[@brucedressel4523]

Dead sea scraps ...

[@malcolm4887]

The truth to this debate and riddle is found in 2 Esdras 14:20 The 24 books became the Jewish OT the other 70 are the true Septuagint, later corrupted by both Judaism and Rome to what we think the LXX is today. The Esdras 70 are the DSS !!! See my video ‘false septuagint’ - Esdras & Epiphanius evidence by malcolm david, for complete explanation

[@Papasquatch73]

This is not hate. This is facts. Lengthy but it often takes more words to refute something then to say a one liner that’s not true. Hope this quick review helps. I did not check spelling for punctuation or grammar. I’m doing this from an iPhone.It is not exhaustive but gets the point across. He said at 35:15 the other side doesn’t like to read your side of the argument he suggests they read more. I agree read what I have below. That’s the other side. Live by your own words. But seriously thank you for the video it’s always nice to know what other people believe and why they believe it. 6:30 you talked about loose translation. No the LXX was from different Hebrew witnesses. How do we know this?. The early church fathers wrote that the Jews were changing the Scriptures. Those scriptures later became the Masoritic text. At 7:26 you talked about the apocrypha. But the 1611 king James had apocrypha in it and it was only removed by some after king James himself died. Although it remained until 1825. I mention this later. Martin Luther was one of the reformers. Yet the Lutherans still have the apocrypha. At 9:40 you said why would Christ use the Greek Septuagint to teach Hebrews in Israel. Because Rome occupied Israel since for centuries. The lingua Franka of the day was Greek. Alexander the great make sure of that. At 11:08 you said a reason why people believe the Septuagint existed back then was because of the Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates. It’s not whether they believe the letter and if the legend was true of the 72 scribes. Over twenty Greek manuscript copies of the letter are known to survive, dating from the 11th to the 15th century. The letter is also mentioned and quoted in other ancient texts, most notably in Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus (c. 93 AD), in Life of Moses by Philo of Alexandria (c. AD 15), and in an excerpt from Aristobulus of Alexandria (c. 160 BC) preserved in Praeparatio evangelica by Eusebius. 13:21 you said if you do not believe in the Letter of Aristeas you have nothing. Early church fathers talked about the LXX. Why did they talk about it? They said the Jews were changing the Bible. Justin Martyr (A.D. 160) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.1 pg.268. Irenaeus (A.D. 180) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.1 pg. 467. Tertullian (A.D. 198) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.3 pg. 156, 166, 340. Notice this list is different than the list mentioning the letter of Aristeas. Post-Nicene Jerome yes Jerome quoted from it and said it was inspired. He would even defend it. "What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn't relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us" Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402] He at first seemed to want to go to the Hebrew text but he changed his mind after more reflection. Even Early Christian writers such as Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine portrayed Susanna as a type of Christ which is in the LXX. 14:25 You said Jerome knew that Orgen corrected corrupted the text. That is so far from what happened. Origen made the Hexapla to compare the Hebrew text, transliterated Hebrew text into Greek, Aquila, Symmachus, LXX and Theodotion. Nobody knows why he made the Hexapla other than he was comparing the text. I guess you can say he was comparing all the other text to see how far off they were from the Hebrew. Or he was comparing the Hebrew and everything else to the LXX. Aquilo Symmachus and Theodotion all made a Greek translation from the available Hebrew that was more in line with a Hebrew. This was after the NT was written and in the sexond to third century. But as we already said they are in the church fathers were saying the Jews were changing the Hebrew. By the way the Hebrew that was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls closer aligns with the LXX then the MT 15:34 You talk about the quotes. I would say according to Gleason archer work “Old Testament quotations in the New Testament” he compares in depth the Greek NT to the Greek LXX and MT it is estimated that as much as 90% of the NT quotes line up with the LXX better than the MT. Judge for yourself. Find a quote of the Old Testament and turn to it in both the Septuagint and the MT. More times than not it’ll be extremely clear which one it came from without even having to know the original languages 28:55 You say that no Jewish council ever excepted it. I have three things to say about that. First is the Septuagint exists and it existed before Christ and it was by Jews. Second is everyone who did not like the Greek Bible was after Christ. Christians were using the Greek Bible to lead to many people to Christ so the Jews tried to put a stop to it. The Qumran community were the dead sea scrolls where found had LXX manuscripts. Third the earliest rabbinic sources present the Greek translation (the Septuagint) in glowing terms. In the Mishna, Megillah 1:8, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is quoted as having said that Greek is the only language, other than Hebrew, in which it is permissible to write scrolls of the Torah. Commenting on this, the Jerusalem Talmud (Megillah 71c) says that the sages checked and discovered that Greek is the only language into which it is possible to translate the Torah with its exact meaning. In the Babylonian Talmud (Megillah 9a), the origin story of the Septuagint is presented, and one which testifies to the miraculous nature of its composition. You mentioned the council of Jamina. The reason why the council took place in 90 A.D. was because Christians were using the Septuagint to lead to many Jews to Christ so they had to put a stop to it. 31:54 he says you’ve had a authoritative king James in place not for decades but centuries. Well I guess that’s sort of true. The originals 1611 king James has the apocrypha. The apocrypha were still being printed in King James until 1825 when the British and foreign Bible society decided to cut cost on Bibles so they deleted the apocrypha section. The 1611 king James was revised multiple times. Pretty much no one uses to 1611 everyone uses to 1769. But the problem is the Oxford in the Cambridge 1769 KJV do not match Word for Word so now what do you do with that. Which is the exact word of God as you stated. Earlier he talked about the received text talking about the TR. Well funny thing is the Texas receptors didn’t exist before they translated to king James. What they did was a took Greek scriptures from Erasmus, Stephanos, and Beza. They compiled in 1633 all of these bits and pieces of scripture they pulled from put it together and called it the received text. By the way, the king James deviated from the Hebrew in Isaiah 7:14. The king James says virgin like the Septuagint says. The Hebrew says young woman. The order of the books the grouping of the books into four parts instead of three like the Jews all comes from the Septuagint. Even the names of the book like Deuteronomy follow the septuagint. Deuteronomy means second law but the Hebrew Devarim means words. Where did they get that from? Answer the Septuagint we organize the books based off of the Septuagint. At 35:15 you said other people don’t read other people stuff. I would advise you to do the same because what you’re saying on this video is from a king James only perspective. It is extremely biased and non-factual.

[@malcolm4887]

Have you read Epiphanius Weights and Measures which gives a more detailed account of the translation ?…. 24 public books and 70 hidden for the temple. Its far more detailed and accurate. This also accords with 2 Esdras 14:20 -v46 (RSV version) that there were 24 public books that became the tanakh and OT of 39 and the 70 hidden being the true LXX whereby Rome took only 14 of them for their deuterocanon ? Nicodemus 22 (Acts of pontius pilate) also confirms the true book of 70 kept in the 2nd temple copies of which were held by the exiled Zadokites at Dameshek monastery right next to the dss caves. Any thoughts ?

[@TT-kx9lg]

Thanks for citing your points with timeslots and keeping it factual, unlike the speaker.

[@lindarobey8935]

Approximately when was the LXX Septuagint written?

[@AmillennialMillenial]

27:55. How did non Levite Englishmen produce an infallible translation if only Levites are able to? Why is believing that Jewish scholars in the 2nd century BC divinely produced independently identical translations so implausible but believing that a bunch of anglicans 1600 years later produced an infallible translation completely reasonable?

[@roobaba5415]

Haha, good one!

[@AmillennialMillenial]

@@roobaba5415 thanks I thought so.

[@genesis1156]

Cause in bc they were still under the law?

[@2HarveyCee]

excepting Moses, Jeremiah, and Ezekial, and Hosea being unknown, the other writers were not Levites so they must have had Levites record for them. Would be tricky for Job to arrange for one

[@johnuitdeflesch3593]

He's claiming it was done in 250 AD--that is 250 years after Christ's birth (roughly). Not under the law then!@@genesis1156

[@geoffrobinson]

I would like to say I'm not a King James Only person, but he makes some good points. However, the Septuagint (as we have it) can sometimes be a good textual witness to the original Hebrew. You have to take everything on a case-by-case basis honestly.

[@robertgreatsinger9179]

Check Sam Gipp/ The LXX

[@robertgreatsinger9179]

Check Sam Gipp/LXX

[@Ben6Strings]

At least you're honest unlike the KJV-hate club.

[@paulflannigan888]

For example, Hebrews 10:5 quoting Psalm 40:6 except the Masoretic text omits "but a body hast thou prepared me." This is included in the LXX, which was written in 250 BC to 100 BC, before the Pharisees had an axe to grind.

[@bryanthurmond3935]

I have to strongly disagree, because that FACT IS THE SEPTUIGENT IS FICTION!! YOU NEVER USE FICTION TO PROVE FACT OTHER THAN TO SAY THAT THE FACT IS THIS OR THAT IS FICTION!!! The FACTS presented here ARE SUFFICIENT to show the RIDICULOUSLESSNESS OF EVEN SAYING ANYTHING POSITIVE ABOUT IT. It is EXACTLY RIGHT to simply refer to the Septuigent as the FICTION IT IS!!! It is ACTUALLY a HILARIOUS STORY how others have tried and continue to try to PROVE it is LEGITIMATE, BECAUSE 72 70 Jewish guys ALL PRIVATELY AND SEPARATELY WROTE DOWN FROM MEMORY THE COMPLETE OLD TESTAMENT AND LOW AND BEHOLD, ALL OF THE MANUSCRIPTS WERE IDENTICAL!!!! Actually, I think they could have invented a better, more believable story, if they would have just tried harder!!! But you see, ARROGANT people ALWAYS SLIP UP SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE WHILE THEY ARE LYING EVERY STEP OF THE WAY, and in their own little puny, prideful hearts think they have EVERYONE FOOLED!!! SO THANKFUL THE PRESERVED WORDS OF GOD IN THE KING JAMES BIBLE!! Also, you erroneously referred to these guys as King James Only. You ARE WRONG!!! There are ACCURATELY translated Bible Translations in other languages and the King James Translators had access to view and verify them!! But, the King James Bible IS AND WILL ALWAYS BE THE ONLY ENGLISH TRANSLATION ACCURATE TO AND EQUAL TO ALL THE MANUSCRIPTS AND MANY ACCURATE FOREIGN TRANSLATIONS!!! IT NEEDS NO IMPROVEMENT!!! LITERALLY OVER A 1,000 ATTEMPTS HAVE TRIED TO REPLACE IT AND THEY ALL HAVE THE SOME SIN-ADDICTED FLAW; THE ALEXANDRIAN TEXTS!!!

[@tommypeter7859]

Ok, thank you, I will do that! God bless you!

[@normmcinnis4102]

I remember back in the 80's reading about Origen and his odd beliefs and gnosticism, so I never considered him being a reliable source on anything. I also found the septuagint too shady historically. I appreciate this video. The only objection I have is that the audio level (volume) is weak and hard to hear in some places.

[@aridian7787]

Does this guy really not know that the MT was intentionally altered to undermine the divinity of Christ?

[@robertgreatsinger9179]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y2bZmKWoabmZl5I And check Sam Gipp/ the LXX

[@larrywarner1630]

I hope he doesn't, because if he does, I am astonished he can stand there and give this speach.

[@JmesFloyd76]

I have noticed in the letter to the Hebrews, the author quoted from the LXX, not the Masoretic text of the Tanakh (Old Testament) when the author was talking about angels worshipping the Son of God, the Son of Man. Heb rews 1:6 The Greeks detest Jews for mistransscribing the Torah. The seventy Hellenized Jews were commissioned by Ptolemy II Philadelphus to translate from the original Hebrew to Greek to get seventy copies of the OT. They were totally unbiased concerning the first coming of Christ (Messiah), they were clueless, period. But the Masoretes, the Jewish scribes, having heard Christians talking about Jesus being of the order of Melchisedek, decided to drop just one letter from the genealogy of Shem and there were 7 generations after Shem to Abraham and the years shortened by 7 hundred years and now Jewish boys can show that Abraham met Shem as Melchisedek. This is why Greeks hated Jews. Be that as it may, I love reading the Hebrew in the Masoretic Text, but I always keep in mind the discrepancies where it is written in the Shem genealogy as well as the 430 years of affliction, and 75 Israelites of Jacob's family came to Egypt (LXX) instead of 70 (MT). On the balance, the Jews have survived to this day all the oppression by the Gentiles over 2000 years after the crucifixion of their Messiah. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.

[@fredgillespie5855]

The production of the Masoretic text began late 1st early 2nd century AD and wasn't completed till the 7th or 8th Century AD. That is the Hebrew version that the KJV was translated from. Therefore it is impossible that the various writers of the NT were quoting from the Masoretic text. They were either quoting from the Septuagint or the paleo Hebrew and that is why quotations in the NT are not to be found in the Masoretic, the Masoretic didn't exist at the time of writing the NT. Watch - "The Old Testament and Rabbi Akiva" by Barry Setterfield on YT.

[@fredgillespie5855]

The Jews, along with Israel (Northern Kingdom), have survived to this day not because or their righteousness but because God made promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob regrading their descendants. Neither will fulfil their purpose until after they are redeemed when Messiah returns. Zechariah 8:13.

[@fredgillespie5855]

@@jjpetkusiii - Go back to Genesis ch.11 and the genealogies. According to the Masoretic text there is a little less than 300 years between the Flood and the birth of Abraham. 100 years after the Flood we find a guy called Peleg and it says that - "in his days the Earth was divided." This is generally taken to mean the division of the nations at the Tower of Babel. So in that 100 years Noah and his family settled around Ararat, then when their numbers were sufficient they moved to Sumer, made bricks and built the tower and a city, saw it destroyed and were then scattered. Is that feasible in 100 years? Now move forward 270 years to the time Abraham enters Canaan and what do we find? We have varying degrees of civilisation from the British Isles to China and from Egypt to Anatolia. There were the city states of Canaan and Mesopotamia and the city of Ur was a trading hub with goods coming from Afghanistan and the Indus Valley in one direction and from the Mediterranean in the other - quite a busy and populous little world to have developed in 270 years. Again, is all of that feasible in that time? However, if we consider the timeline of Genesis 11 in the Septuagint we get something like an other 700 years or around 1200 years from the Flood till Abraham enters Canaan and that does make it more feasible. Apparently the Rabbis changed the timeline in Genesis 11 so as to identify Melchizadek with Shem - who according to the Septuagint was dead by Abraham's time. That wasn't the only scriptures the Rabbis changed - and you will either have to admit they changed the scriptures that God entrusted them with or you will have to accept their argument that it was Christians who changed them.

[@GodisGracious1031Ministries]

Doth it have to be in the scripture he is quoting? Or did Holy Ghost inspire him to know?

[@fredgillespie5855]

@@jjpetkusiii - You just don't get it. For the sake of understanding we will forget about the Greek Septuagint. What follows concerns the KJV, not the NKJV which has been edited to correct some of the alterations made by Rabbis. The KJV bible you have was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text. This Masoretic text did not exist during the time of Jesus and His Apostles, they used an earlier text and whether it was Greek or Hebrew is irrelevant. That text was used by Christians to prove that Jesus was the promised Messiah and this upset the Jewish establishment who had rejected Jesus. At some point after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD the Rabbis began to change the relevant parts of the text and in all likelihood these changes would be mostly completed early in the 2nd Century AD. the final version of the Masoretic text wasn't completed till much later. So what is the relevance of all this? The main problem arises with anti-missionary Rabbis. They will take quotes from the Old Testament made by Jesus or His apostles and tell you "it is not there" - and neither it is - for the simple reason that neither Jesus or His apostles were quoting from the Masoretic text, they were quoting from the original and whether that was in Greek or Hebrew is irrelevant. These Rabbis will tell you that the relevant quote not being in the OT proves that Christians made it all up, that the NT is based on lies. So your dilemma is - did Christians make it all up - or was the Masoretic, on which your KJV is based, corrupted by Rabbis. watch kzbin.info/www/bejne/iYrSlYGprq5-gJY

[@tsomers]

This argument is so debilitatingly stupid that it actually lends further creedence to the already overwhelming case for the superiority of the Septuagint text.

[@risermoreriser4237]

The reality of the LXX is not based upon some "letter". This is a lie that is repeated over and over again by the One World Bible Onlyists who support the KJV. These types of people refuse to debate the subject with anyone that actually knows the subject well. There is a simple question that must be answered. What Scripture did the Gentiles search? There is no evidence whatsoever that the Gentile nations that ultimately spread the Gospel throughout the world had to learn Hebrew to study the Scriptures. When Paul wrote to those in Rome.... he wasn't writing to a people that had converted to Judaism and learned the extraordinarily complex Hebrew language to know the Scriptures. God had already prepared this world to have the Scriptures in a common languages that both Jews and Gentiles could use TOGETHER. The NT has survived challenges to this very day in the Greek Language. The writers of the NT wrote in the Greek language. Josephus LEARNED Greek and later, first wrote extensive in Greek because of this very fact. It is extraordinarily reckless to preach this type of nonsense.

[@risermoreriser4237]

@@jjpetkusiii No authoritative Hebrew text can be found anywhere. The dubious history of the Hebrew text is clear. God's word hasn't passed away. It is contained in extant LXX manuscripts themselves. BTW..... What is going to happen to the KJV when this world "passes away"??? You KJVOnlyist charlatans can't think past the end of your noses. You all live in half truths and rudimentary constructs that mean nothing. King James is dead. Do you KJVOist even realize "KING" james is competing with King Jesus. You can't have but one. King James can't be your king while claiming Jesus at the same time. Remember when Jesus asked what inscription was found on Roman coin? Do you remember the answer? You're rendering to James what is only due James. Why should Jesus care one thing about the "King's English". It isn't His language. It is language of dubious men.

[@risermoreriser4237]

@@jjpetkusiii Yes they are. They are many Hebrew copies of the so called "apocrypha". You need to stop listening to someone and go find the information yourself.

[@bryanlovesjesus2204]

Even the KJV translators in the preface “Translator to the reader” In the original 1611 KJV, said that the apostles used the LXX “…for the letter of Scripture does witness to the words of *the Apostle, who saith, that the Septuagint was sound and good* , though it was not very sound and perfect. Nay, it is certain, *that the Apostles used it, and the Greek Fathers used it for their purpose* . And therefore, as S. Augustine saith, The very translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; …*The Apostles* and inspired men of God did not think it unworthy to use a translation. The Seventy were interpreters, the Apostles were interpreters, and there were many interpreters among the people of God in former times.” Paul said this about the Old Testament, while writing his letter in Greek, and quoting from the LXX in his epistles “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” ‭‭2 Timothy‬ ‭3‬:‭16‬ ‭KJVAAE‬‬

[@bryanlovesjesus2204]

@@jjpetkusiii You guys worship and idolize a translation, repent

[@fr.johnwhiteford6194]

The Dead Sea scrolls contain Hebrew texts that match the Septuagint. So we know there was an older Hebrew text that was the basis for the Septuagint. The DSS also have a Hebrew text for the Wisdom of Sirach, and the Rabbis frequently quote from it in the Talmud.

[@dlbard1]

Also, they had 1 Enoch

[@malcolm4887]

@@dlbard1 I agree, All the DSS are valid scripture, the contents of the LXX was amended by Rome, see my video false Septuagint which shows how this happened

[@MitzvosGolem1]

The DSS copper Isaiah scrolls from 220bce match the Tanakh... There is no "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14. Also kindly explain 1 John 5:7-8 Trinity admitted insertion

[@wyattsteel411]

​@@MitzvosGolem1 The Copper Scroll is basically a treasure map lol, it's not biblical text. The Dead Sea Scrolls have textual variants that support the LXX, MT, Samaritan Pentateuch, and even other witnesses like Josephus sometimes. It's not as clear cut and would be lying to say they 100% support the Masoretic Tanakh. Obviously 1 John 5:7 as present in the KJV and other Bibles is not textually supported and obviously not legitimate.

[@roobaba5415]

@@malcolm4887 The DSS were not the manuscripts preserved in the temple but variants circulating amongst the various Jewish sects of that era. The first 5 books (atleast) of the LXX were translated from the official temple manuscript. With the utter destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, there no longer is any original unmodified hebrew Bible. We only have a Jewish reconstruction post Christ based on variant texts and scibes memories which finally became the masoretic text of today (how much did this match the originals, how much was badly changed, no one knows) AND the septuagint family of manuscripts based on translations of the official temple manuscripts (but after that no one can prove or disprove edits or changes that changed meanings).

[@fr.johnwhiteford6194]

The LXX matches the Textus Receptus NT... it's just that the quotes from the Textus Receptus do not match the Hebrew Massoretic Text, which is far more recent in origin than the LXX. For example, in Acts 7:43, the Protomartyr Stephen quotes from the book of Amos as follows: “Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them” (KJV). But when you look this quote up in Amos 5:26 in most translations, you will find that the quotation doesn’t match: "You also carried Sikkuth your king and Chiun, your idols, the star of your gods, which you made for yourselves.” (NKJV). Compare the above with the Latin Vulgate: "But you carried a tabernacle for your Moloch, and the image of your idols, the star of your god, which you made to yourselves” (Douay-Rheims translation of the Vulgate). And then with the Septuagint: “Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Raephan, the images of them which ye made for yourselves”

[@mattyboyahoy2326]

P.S BEWARE OF CORRUPT TRANSLATORS/EDITORS/PUBLISHERS, THE PHARISEES ARE STILL HERE, JUST AS IN JESUS DAY, WHEN A TRANSLATOR DIES AND OR COPYRIGHT ENDS IT HAPPENS

[@mikha007]

fr john white ford i checked out the hebrew and melekh (king) has been translated as molokh and sikkuth means tabernacle. the only different word is remphan...just saying

[@awatchwoman]

Pity the sound is so low.

[@awatchwoman]

+awatchwoman Thank God for headphones! lol I have been reading Sam Gipp's book "The Answer Book" and he agrees with this teaching. The LXX is a fake at best and non existent at worst.

[@admonitionmedia176]

+awatchwoman Crank it up homeslice

[@awatchwoman]

James White! hahahahahaha

[@awatchwoman]

Whatever!

[@interpretingscripture8068]

What i find interesting is that the KJV translators were NOT KJV onlyists :)

[@Obediah002]

KJV translators did not have all these leavened Alexandrian source text versions we do today either, but they did as did Erasmus a hundred years earlier reject Rome's Alexandrian text for the Traditional source text. They were not compromised dumb dumbs back then.

[@Obediah002]

@Mr. Rich B.O.B Of course; the Apocrypha was not in the Masoretic and they were well known and rejected all way back to Erasmus we know for sure.

[@Cheryl64014]

Interpreting Scripture - What is your evidence for _that?_ Besides, how could they be KJV onlyists when they were only in the process of translating it. Furthermore, they hadn't read any "modern" translations because those hadn't been written yet, either. smh

[@Obediah002]

@@Cheryl64014 Your argument is a straw man argument. The preserved word of God was always out there, as has been the corrupted Alexandrian sourced texts upheld by the Papacy and their sword. Thee LORD used the translators of the KJV, their translation this is obvious by the history of the Authorized Version they gave us and the text they rejected in their translation.

[@Cheryl64014]

@@Obediah002 Straw man argument? What do you think I said that is a straw man argument? I've given every one of your comments a thumbs up because I agree with you. I think you misread or misunderstood my comment.

[@stepandmitriyev5706]

What a weak argument. I just became a believer in the Septuagint.

[@robertgreatsinger9179]

Check Sam Gipp/ LXX

[@nohandle257]

Spend an hour here and you may change that opinion. kzbin.info/aero/PLhmAbEGx-AnRh2YgrQvayYlEItaAoISWA

[@Obediah002]

Then you have become a Romanist, by default as the Septuagint proves the RCC argument that Rome is the one true church! Revelation 18:3-4 King James Version (KJV) 3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. 4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

[@jamesancliffe]

Obediah002 is this from the 1611 translation?

[@Obediah002]

@@jamesancliffe, not sure exactly what you mean by your question but the KJV does not support the claims of those who support the Septuagint- Jesus did not quote the septuagint but in the use of the Alexandrian translations; they all were translated in and from Alexandrian source texts so they will confirm Jesus used Septuagint. The preserved text line, the Received Text line, the KJV does not. I personally believe the Septuagint is a fraudulent text in the line of the False Decretals of Rome.

[@nibs1989]

Read Deuteronomy 32:43 in the MT, then read Hebrews 1:6, then read Deuteronomy 32:43 in the Septuagint.

[@christopheryetzer]

Hey Brother, hope all is well. My only question is what proof is there that the current Septuagint was not made to read like Hebrews 1:6? Is there evidence that the LXX read like this before the time of Christ? This is what Dr. Stringer was saying. Have a great day.

[@nibs1989]

@@christopheryetzer that begs the question as to how Paul would have quoted that in the first place. It is an argument that does not follow. What can be deduced is that Paul quoted a text that clearly stated exactly that. Furthermore, it is a clearly inspired text that he quoted. While some may like to claim that the LXX was changed to mirror the NT, the reality is that there were multiple recensions of the Greek to me more in line with the MT than any other text. So, the opposite for later editions would have been true. Furthermore, the verse in Deut. 32 is a little longer in the Greek than in the MT and contains parts Paul did not quote, "Rejoice, you heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him; rejoice you Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will render vengeance, and recompense justice to his enemies, and will reward them that hate him; and the Lord shall purge the land of his people." It is impossible to say that the LXX was changed to fit Hebrews because the LXX has more words than Hebrews would allow to be added. If anyone tries to claim that the LXX was invented later, that also begs the question as to why... it is difficult to claim due to evidence left by the the earliest church fathers who were very much in favor of the Greek OT because it gave the Jews such fits. Some were furious with Jerome for using the MT because of the virgin passage in Isaiah 7. The NT writers quoted from a combination of texts, sometimes not even verbatim, but generally what a text said. They did not strictly use the MT, the Greek was widely used amd valued, as has been demonstrated by the presence of Greek texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

[@christopheryetzer]

@@nibs1989 I appreciate your opinion and am sensitive to these ideas. The way I see it is that someone wanting to clear up difficulties in the NT could have easily "helped" out by changing the LXX and therefore frustrating the Jews. Many scholars have talked about Hebrews 1:6 and found no need of using the Septuagint. See Diodati, John Gill, 1645 English Annotations etc. Albert Barnes who notes that not all manuscripts of the Septuagint include this phrase, disagrees with the idea that the author of Hebrews would have quoted it from that context anyway. In the second paragraph, what Greek are you talking about, the LXX or the NT? If the NT can you give an example? and what does that prove? I am confused how the NT drifting to a more Hebrew base would prove that the LXX was not changed, when many scholars throughout the centuries and even today, say that it has at least in some points. If it is the LXX which has drifted to Hebrew what would that say about those changing it and what they thought of it? I really don't get why it is impossible for Deut. 32 to have been changed because it is longer. Why is that impossible for someone to make a longer verse? Isn't that what a lot of modern scholars believe happened in 1 John? In fact there are many verses in the Septuagint that are longer and as far as I am aware most if not all scholars do not include them in the modern Bible translations. Not a big deal, but just curious how a long verse proves that it couldn't have been changed? I would say you answered your own question about why "the earliest church fathers who were very much in favor of the Greek OT because it gave the Jews such fits". Which fathers are you referring to by the way? I honestly don't know what the Dead Sea Scrolls prove about manuscripts of Greek Scripture since there were so few (6 if I'm not mistaken, all of the Pentateuch except 1) and since there is so much confusion over the community and the scrolls themselves. It certainly indicates that at least some passages were translated in Greek by someone, but what else I'm not sold on. I hope nothing I have said comes across as aggressive. I appreciate getting to chat with you about it. I know your dad well and I'm sure you are the same quality of man. God bless you.

[@nibs1989]

@@christopheryetzer I would again say that assuming someone went in and changed it is begging the question. Who, where, when? Those are not arguments any can make that are in any way strong. Lets take a church father from the second century, Iranaeus, who wrote in Book 3, chapter 21, section 3, that the Greek translation of the Penteteuch was accurate. The LXX technically only can refer to the Penteteuch because those are the only books the supposed 70 translators had worked on. He believed them to be "unadulterated." Furthermore, he states, "For the Apostles, since they are of more ancient date than all these heretics, agree with this aforesaid translation; and the translation harmonizes with the tradition of the apostles. For Peter, and John, and Matthew, and Paul, and the rest successively, as well as their followers, did set forth all prophetic announcements, just as the interpretation of the elders contains them." In that same chapter, which I encourage you to read, Against Heresies: Book III, Chapter XXI, Iranaeus explains the prophetic announcement in Isaiah, and quotes the Greek translation of it. This was in the 2nd Century AD, and telling from his writing, it was something he would have held in his possession. Irenaeus was born in AD 130 in Smyrna and died in AD 202 in Lyon current day France.

[@christopheryetzer]

@@nibs1989 Iranaeus is actually one of my favorites. I don't prefer much some of the others, so I was just curious which ones you were referring to. I have heard and read that some of the Christian's up to Jerome followed the LXX. I would like to put a quote here from Allan Menzies Ante-Nicene Fathers, "Origen's most important contribution to biblical literature was his elaborate attempt to rectify the text of the Septuagint by collating it with the Hebrew original and other Greek versions. On this he spent twenty-eight years, during which he travelled through the East collecting materials. The form in which he first issued the result of his labours was that of the Tetrapla, which presented in four columns the texts of the LXX., Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. He next issued the Hexapla, in which the Hebrew text was given, first in Hebrew and then in Greek letters. Of some books he gave two additional Greek versions, whence the title Octapla; and there was even a seventh Greek version added for some books. Unhappily this great work, which extended to nearly fifty volumes, was never transcribed, and so perished." Are you positive that some Christians didn't use one of these other Greek texts, or even that the LXX of today is truly only that one that went back to Christ? Just because Iranaeus had a Greek OT does not mean it was "the LXX". Just look at the way Bibles are dealt with today, or even how there were different Latin Bibles throughout the centuries. God bless you!

[@awakenedbyyhuhassembly6015]

We know the messiah used the Septuagint because practically the majority of the nt quotes from the Septuagint not the masoretic

[@awakenedbyyhuhassembly6015]

The earliest source for the masoretic text did not exist until 100 ad

[@awakenedbyyhuhassembly6015]

This is a historical fact. The KJV is full of errors in the old testament because they use the masoretic. Anyone who is a KJV onlyist I challenge you look up the messianic prophecies in your bible

[@awakenedbyyhuhassembly6015]

@@jjpetkusiii my information is not from surveys it's from studying the actual Septuagint and masoretic text among many other old testament manuscripts

[@awakenedbyyhuhassembly6015]

Your own church fathers bear witness against you many are quoted to put the LXX- on the highest esteem over the hebrew used by the KJV . You simply have 0 evidence to say that the KJV is inerrent but by blind faith which is not a way you test a English translation

[@mikha007]

it would have been the hebrew txt that the lxx was translated from

[@shawngoldman3762]

Jeremiah himself went to Egypt (Jer 43). Anyone looking at the DSS realizes that even in the ancient Land of Israel there was no "definitive" version of Scripture as the DS Scrolls contain Hebrew, Aramaic, Paleo-Hebrew and Greek. Yes, Jesus would have read the Hebrew, but also read the targums in Aramaic. Also, is it not concievable that Christianity spread through the Mediteranian world with the use of the LXX? Pagan converts would not have read the Hebrew, and St. Paul would not have used it. Finally, the Jewish rabbis of Jabnia did not reject the Apocrypha because they were "false" but because they came after the end of the age of prophecy.

[@erics7992]

Actually my friend Dr. Phil Stringer here might be interested to learn that his precious King James Bible was actually heavily influenced by the CATHOLIC Douay-Rheims translation AND that its first two editions contained the seven books that the Protestants ripped out of the Old Testament which he refers to as the so called 'apocrypha.'

[@tonydiaz545]

No, it is known as the English inqusition, Catholics were not allowed or priest in England, for they were hanged, drawn & quarted.

[@kayharker712]

The Lord told me about infallible Catholic Doctrine - like the Papal Bull "Cum nimis absurdum" issued by Pope Paul IV in 1555 to ensure The jews of Rome were walled up in the Roman Ghetto. It takes its name from its first words: "Since it is absurd and utterly inconvenient that the Jews, who through their own fault were condemned by God to eternal slavery..." The Ghetto was a walled quarter with three gates that were locked at night. Under the Papal Bull, Jewish males were required to wear a pointed yellow hat, and Jewish females a yellow kerchief - up until 1870 when the Italian risorgimento abolished Papal rule in Italy. Mmmm ... sounds familiar ....reminds me of the actions of a certain Catholic German ruler in the 1930s and 40s, 10,000 of whose followers managed to get to Argentina a bit later with the help of the Vatican..... errr....where the Pope is from. Funny that !!!

[@ljmousel]

FALSE> The apocrypha was placed between the the OT and NT for historical reference which it is useful for. It was never part of the canon of the 1611 as explicitly stated by the translators.

[@globalnettuber]

The apocryphal books were Jewish books in Greek which were not recognized as scripture by Jewish authorities. And they were not officially recognized and listed as canonical by the Roman Catholics until the Council of Trent in 1546. So they have not been "ripped out".

[@micvili7527]

good point it also should be known that the king Jimmy is derived from the masoretic text its also known the masorites hated the Yashua and it was written around 9 to 12 hundred years after the LXX so i wonder which scriptures Apostles used and when i read the NT it seams to me that it lines up with the LXX but hey each to their own

[@tecnolover2642]

The Septuagint was the most common bible at that time when Jesus lived. So yes most likely he did read from it as well as his apostles. One thing is for sure the Septuagint has more correct OT dates and preserves the miracle of Christs birth. The masoretic text decieves and totally takes out the miracle of Christs birth which is shocking!

[@robertgreatsinger9179]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y2bZmKWoabmZl5I

[@robertgreatsinger9179]

Check Sam Gipp /TheLXX

[@jamesdawson4800]

This guy never talks about the actual quotes... Here's one that is earth shattering, and the MOST important scripture in the ENTIRE bible... Psalm 40: 6, 7 Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but you have prepared a body for me, you did not require burnt offerings or sin offerings. Then I said, 'Look, I have come, in the book it is written about me..." Now let's look at the quote... Hebrews 10: 5-7 "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but you prepared a body for me, you did not require burnt offerings or sin offerings, then I said, Look, I have come, in the book it is written about me..." The first quote was from the LXX, and not what we have in our bibles today. I am not saying that the LXX is the inspired word, but it was translated from the original Hebrew and preserved. So why does the KJV and ALL other version have the LIE '...but you have pierced my ear...' because this is the Masoretic text finished in 900 A.D. by Christ hating Jews. They literally changed the scripture in Psalms because many Jews were converting to Christianity because of it...

[@jamesdawson4800]

@@jjpetkusiii wow, I literally just quoted the verses in Hebrews 10, and you still call call it dubious, while praising the Masoretic text. Look into the history of the Masoretic text, friend, it was written by Jews who hated Christianity, and saw their fellow Jews converting to Christianity BECAUSE of the verse in the LXX psalms that literally says, you have prepared a body for me. Let's remember what Paul says about christ coming in a body for sacrifice. If anyone says he didn't, they are lying...

[@jamesdawson4800]

@@lavalleeverdun You are 💯% correct. I too want a real debate, but the kjvo people don't know the history of their bible, and would rather remain ignorant. The #1 reason Jews were converting to Christianity was because of psalm 40 which in the LXX says, "but a body you have prepared for me". The Masoretic scribes changed it because of the conversions. KJVOnly say it's not important, but they are very wrong...(In my humble opinion...lol)

[@jamesdawson4800]

@@lavalleeverdun That is an excellent way to put it... Hitler said something along the lines of "if you tell a lie long enough, and loud enough, people will eventually believe it.." not quoted exactly, of course. I do think it's interesting that jj never replied to the actual video, just to those of us who refuted his words. I too went through the comments and it was the same thing, with QED? (I actually have no idea what that means.) As for me I'm not going to say the LXX is inspired, like in the first reply, but Yashua, Paul, Peter, and James quoted from it...but I am convinced the OP is WRONG.

[@chrislopez8652]

KJV = The Living Word Of GOD.

[@fernandobarreto9494]

please give a list, what I must read on king james only side material? I'm Brazilian and here critical text dominate!

[@christopheryetzer]

I believe in the King James, but I don't actually read a lot of KJV only books. I read more from the other side probably. As far as KJV material, I would recommend stuff by D.A. Waite, Phil Stringer, J.A. Moorman, John Burgon etc. God bless you friend!

[@Obediah002]

Here in America the dominant text is critical sourced, the KJV is rejected by most but not all of course. One must search and study carefully to sort through all the misrepresentations and lies against the KJV/Traditional text, I figure anywhere today, the leavened text is everywhere accepted welcomed for sake of unity.

[@NorCalGospelPreacher]

Some good authors that defend the KJV in their books are Peter S. Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, Sam Gipp, just to name a few.

[@jonpaia5111]

Come to think of it, something does not jive in the so-called history of the septuagint. Six scribes, from the twelve tribes, 72 or 70 whatever, around the 2nd or 3rd century B.C.? Granted, it is possible that over the years handfuls of people from the 10 tribes, who disliked the ungodly northern way of life migrated down to the southern kingdom; in which case they'd probably reassimilate with the two southern tribes left, and cease calling themselves by their former tribe's name, at which point they would strictly speaking be called "jews", from the kingdom of Judah. God had wiped out 10 of the tribes centuries prior, so that there were technically no "jews" in the northern kingdom of Israel (except maybe a handful of backslidden ones who might have migrated northward to "enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season", to get wiped out later on?) So how do we know ? To me that's one more reason to disregard the LXX. Its very history is questionable. And the fact that the romish popish Pagan Heretic Cult likes the LXX, should be enough to arise suspicion.

[@kjvnews8326]

The story about the Septuagint is nothing more than a fairy tale for adults. To believe that the Pharaoh Ptolemy II of Egypt around 260 B.C. wanted to know all about the Jewish bible, the plagues and how all the Egyptians were killed just begins the insanity. In his so-called letter to Philocrates (PHILO? born in 25 BC) he requests 72 Jewish Scholars to come to Egypt and translate the O.T. into Greek without even knowing whether these JEWISH Scribes even spoke or knew how to speak or read or write in Greek. All of these scribes would have spoken and written in Hebrew. Then, after being warned by God over and over again in that Old Testament that they, as Jews, were not to return to Egypt under any circumstances, all 72 of these Jewish Scribes disobeyed God & returned to Egypt anyway, and all with the approval of their High priest. Yea Sure! Give me a break. Then all 72 scribes complete the task which probably would have taken years in just 72 days and they all match exactly, word for word! Alleluia! Praise the Lord! Then, for some unknown reason they call it the SEVENTY instead of the SEVENTY-TWO. That's the story. Here is a note from Wikipedia concerning the letter to Aristeas: The narrative is "open to the gravest suspicion, and the letter abounds with improbabilities and is now generally regarded as more or less fabulous," observed The Classical Review 335/6 (August-September 1919:123), reporting H. St.J. Thackeray's The Letter of Aristeas, with an Appendix of the Ancient Evidence on the Origin of the LXX.. The reason why some of Jesus words match the Septuagint is because when the LXX was done in the 3rd century A.D. CENTURIES after Jesus died and was resurrected, they had the entire New Testament right in front of them to look at and they then went back into the O.T. and made it match the New Testament as they were completing it. The LXX IS the last column of Origin's Hexapla, and No extant (EXISTING) copy of the LXX exists before the 3rd century A.D. Also ask yourself, If this were true, why would Ptolemy, the Pharaoh need all of these scholars, 72, to come to Egypt to complete it in the first place? Wouldn't he much more likely ask the high priest to have it translated into Greek and send him a copy when it was completed? He certainly didn't need 72 copies. Although he spoke Greek, everyone else in Egypt spoke Egyptian until the 6th century when they began speaking Arabic. Nothing but a FAIRY TALE FOR ADULTS, and this B.S. is taught in almost every Christian School.

[@texastrojan3343]

The king James New Testament isn’t wrong. However, the argument is that the Old Testament ( masoretic ) is what is wrong. If you cross reference the New Testament to the Septuagint it’s far more accurate.

[@christopheryetzer]

To which Septuagint? The current edition? Is that what existed at or before the time of Christ? Those are the questions most people are not willing to confront.

[@texastrojan3343]

Christopher Yetzer Well any LXX still has way more direct quotes associated to it and the New Testament than any masoretic version. So I would argue that any version is still a more accurate version of what the New Testament authors used as their Torah.

[@texastrojan3343]

Christopher Yetzer there is no version of the Old Testament that can be attributed to the time of Christ with certainty. However, I’ll follow the book that more directly quotes the New Testament, and that’s the LXX

[@christopheryetzer]

@@texastrojan3343 From my own research (meaning not perfect, but an honest effort) I found 277 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament. 28 matched Hebrew and did not match the LXX (10%), 79 matched LXX and not Hebrew (29%), 83 did not match either (30%), 61 were not a literal quote (22%), and 101 agreed to some extent with both (36%). With the amount of variants, I just do not support the "The Apostles quoted from the LXX" narrative, as if they were carrying around the LXX in their pocket and memorized it from front to back. To me there are still too many questions. Why quote from it just 30% of the time? Why are there so many differences in the sources quoted? Are we sure that what exists today is the LXX they had? I am sure you also aware with the current theory of textual criticism which says the harder reader is to be preferred or in other words if it is too accurate it is probably changed to be that accurate. If that theory is used with Greek New Testament manuscripts, why can it not apply to quotes from the New Testament. Just a few thoughts. Have a great day !

[@Thomasrice07]

Some folks want Christians to have a book like the Torah is to the Muslims: a dictation of the words that are in heaven. Not the way Christian inspiration works. Christ is to be worshiped, not the version of scripture.

[@theologist5166]

If Jesus is God's Word in the flesh, what do you mean by worshipping the version? Jesus only said what His Father said and did not stutter so I want what He said, not what some editor thinks He meant.

[@mksje]

The initial translation by the Scholars in Egypt was only of the Torah, not the whole OT. Your statement about translating the “whole” OT in 72 days is misleading.

[@johnuitdeflesch3593]

This is an important point.

[@fredgillespie5855]

But the rest of the OT was included over the following 50 years or so.

[@xmm103]

I've come to realize like most of these Christian squabbles; it's not about the evidence, its about the heart. The bible has a lot to say about a prepared heart ready to receive the truth, and a hardened heart that won't.

[@johnuitdeflesch3593]

Faith/heart response is pulled up when the facts don’t fit the position.

[@larrythrasher9713]

The only thing infallible about the King James version of the bible is the fact that it has thousands of translation errors. I don't agree with James White on much of anything, but he did write a good book called the King James Controversy, and I recommend that you read it.

[@newbirth7616]

Because all you have to do is read all the OT prophesies quoted in the NT and compare them to the KJV 9th century AD masoretic text and the 3rd century BC SEPTUAGINT. They match up to the 3rd century BC Septuagint and not the KJV masoretic. Duh

[@bobdylan1677]

I am a TR man. We believe that God preserved some readings in the Latin Vulgate. Why couldn't God preserve some readings, therefore, in the LXX???

[@mikha007]

so if the masorites added pronunciation marks in the year 800 CE then what did Yeshua mean when he said 'not one yod or tittle pass away from the Torah...' most people think jot and tittles were letters and vowel marks. if that were so then maybe theres an ancient pointed hebrew text hiding somewhere

[@ThisMyhandlenow]

Why do you say yeshua instead of Jesus when you are speaking in English?

[@mikha007]

Why not? its not that hard is it? Yeshua is his Hebrew name and what the angel said to call him. Matt 1v21 you shall call His name Yeshua (salvation) for he shall Yoshia (save) His people. @@ThisMyhandlenow

[@johnuitdeflesch3593]

Jot and title refer to the smallest letter (consonant) and the smallest part of the consonant. It is not a reference to vowels at all.

[@mikha007]

@@ThisMyhandlenow why not? that's what everyone called Him in His day and its my choice

[@Philisnotretired]

The King James Translators wrote in their preface: “The Septuagint dissents from the original Hebrew in many places, and does not come near it in terms of clarity, gravity, and majesty. Yet did any of the apostles condemn it? Condemn it? No, they used it (as it is obvious, and as St. Jerome and most learned men affirm). And they would not have used it-nor would they, by setting such an example, bless its use and commend it to the church-if it had been unworthy of the name ‘the word of God.’”

[@makarov138]

Excellent!!

[@TrueM-qc7kd]

Masoretic text dates to 1000 years after Christ. The Septuagint agrees with dead sea scrolls which goes back to time of Christ. The point is Christ and disciples did not quote from masoretic text. Don't know Christ quoted from Septuagint but it certainly was not masoretic

[@navigatingel6104]

After....literally AFTER the NEW Testament. Thats whats so hilarious. The "Old" Testament" is using a yonger language than the New" Testament. The original Hebrew, if it even exists is gone correct? Unless we call Phoenician "Paleo-Hebrew" we really don't have the original Hebrew. Thus we lean on the Greek. These are Judiazers spreading lies.

[@MortenBendiksen]

…it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment … in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? … They that are wise, had rather have their judments at libery in differences of readings, then to be captivated to one, when it may be the other. From the Original KJV introduction

[@ByteDigitalPeru]

I need a captions in spanish...please..!!

[@bhec7715]

The Septuagint closely matches the Samaritan Torah. Why is that, exactly, when they’re separated communities? That looks like proof that the Septuagint can’t simply be dismissed.

[@christopheryetzer]

I'm not that familiar with the Samaritan Torah, what is the oldest extent manuscript? Is it possible that one is a translation of the other and they were done after the time of Christ?

[@GerardKushner]

The KJV was inspired at that time. For hundreds of years early Christians, they sang Psalms and went to the lions with Septuagint, also many Christians lived and served God in the middle aged with the Vulgate. If u r listening to God he will speak to you. Moses didn't come off the Mountain with the King James bible.

[@johnuitdeflesch3593]

I will be commenting some further details, but for now, the summary of Stringer is… “There is no such thing as an OT quotation in the NT”. 🤔🧐🙄

[@AmillennialMillenial]

The New Testament references to specific passages in the Old Testament that match up exactly with the Septuagint aren’t quotes, they are new revelations from the Holy Spirit that just happen to be the same as the Septuagint, which is an evil text from Egypt. That seems to be what he is saying, and my mind isn’t flexible enough for those mental gymnastics.

[@johnuitdeflesch3593]

Stringer says "Aristeas is the only ancient reference to the Septuagint.” This is patently false. Philo, Josephus, Aristobolus, Ephiphanius all reference it. Aristobolus and Ephiphanius include details the Letter of Aristeus does not contain.

[@johnuitdeflesch3593]

Let's consider the two theoretical timelines: 1. OT Hebrew text--Septuagint LXX--Greek New Testament. The Hebrew was finished roughly 435-400 BC (Malachi). The Septuagint was done around 250-200 BC in Alexandria Egypt. The Greek New Testament was written between 37-100 AD. What historical facts, dates, and markers harmonize with this layout? Alexander the Great lived from 356-323 BC. He took over the known world and spread the Greek language all over, including Israel. A translation date of 250-200 makes sense here. the Bible speaks of proselytes to Judaism (God-fearers, etc). The Pharisees made them, Pentecost had thousands of them--they existed all over the Roman Empire. Are we to imagine that they did so with no OT Scripture in their tongue? The cross of Jesus shows Pilate communicating to the masses through Hebrew (ethnic tongue), Latin (military tongue), and Greek (trade language). While the Romans were well-acquainted with Latin, many of their conquered people's were not. The Greek from Alexander's time predominated for a long while. Another leading question is this--would God in his sovereignty have not prepared *the entire region* for the coming of Christ with a translation of the OT into the common tongue? 2. OT Hebrew text--Greek New Testament--Septuagint LXX. The Hebrew was finished roughly 435-400 BC (Malachi). The Greek New Testament was written between 37-100 AD. The Septuagint was done around 250-200 *AD* in Alexandria Egypt. This suggested timeline leaves alot of questions. Why is it 500 years after the time of Alexander? How did the proselytizing happen with a vernacular OT? Where is the evidence for this timeline? There is historical evidence against it. Philo (30AD) and Josephus (70AD) both make mention of the Greek Septuagint. In fact there are multiple and varied quotes from a variety of sources--all pre-200AD making mention of the Septuagint. What is being suggested in position two is that neither God nor man saw fit to have the OT put into the common language of the day until *centuries* after Christ's birth. The 2nd position claims that the LXX translators copied *certain* verses out of the Greek NT in order to harmonize them. This is absurd on its face for several reasons. 1. Why didn't they harmonize every quotation? Even within the same Biblical book (for example Hebrews) not every quotation matches the LXX. 2. It is a translation of the Hebrew. This was done by JEWS. Not Christians. Jewish people hated the NT. They idea that they harmonized with the NT is laughable. Where did this idea come from? I don't know precisely where, but I do know for a fact that Peter Ruckman specifically spread the idea that the LXX was post-Jesus. He wrote an entire book on the subject.

[@johnuitdeflesch3593]

early church father justin martyr lived from about 100 to 165 a.d and wrote right around 150 a.d 12:17 his writings here we're going to talk about are found in volume 1 of the antoniosine church fathers pages 278-279 12:26 justin martyr mentions ptolemy he mentions the library in alexandria egypt 12:31 he mentions 70 wise men from jerusalem that were sought after by the by the high priest and and came 12:39 to alexandria egypt he mentions miraculous agreement between the translators and he mentions that 12:45 ptolemy was struck with amazement and believed that the translation had been written by divine power Link to video where text was derived is found here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nqXOqZ-InLuArbc

[@johnuitdeflesch3593]

Stringer says: “Greek was forbidden in synagogues. No ancient copy of Greek has ever been found in a synagogue.” (27:35) The link below shows a Greek inscription from a synagogue in *Jerusalem* around 100 BC from a Greek named synagogue leader. (The very term “synagogue” is a Greek word!) kzbin.info/www/bejne/qqqoi2ejmtyXetUsi=_6w70pELwR-17D1L Time stamp 21:00

[@qd4192]

Great message. Keep up the good work that the Christians in the pew be not deceived.

[@henrydavis331]

He spoke Hebrew

[@MarpleZoss]

Jesus used the septuagint? Don't think so. Matthew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. Matthew 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. Here the Lord refers to the LAW and the PROPHETS. The Hebrew scriptures are divided thus: 1. The Torah (תּוֹרָה, literally "teaching") consists of five books, commonly referred to as the "Five Books of Moses". (Law) 2. Nevi'im (Hebrew: נְבִיאִים Nəḇî'îm‎‎, "Prophets") is the second main division of the Tanakh, between the Torah and Ketuvim. It contains two sub-groups, the Former Prophets (Nevi'im Rishonim נביאים ראשונים, the narrative books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings) and the Latter Prophets (Nevi'im Aharonim נביאים אחרונים, the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel and the Twelve Minor Prophets). This division includes the books which cover the time from the entrance of the Israelites into the Land of Israel until the Babylonian captivity of Judah (the "period of prophecy"). Their distribution is not chronological, but substantive.(The Prophets) The septuagint in contrast is divided into four parts: law, history, wisdom and prophets with apocryphal books interspersed within the last three divisions. If Jesus used the septuagint why did he not use the phrases "wisdom" and history" to refer to these divisions within its structure? Since Late Antiquity, once attributed to a Council of Jamnia, mainstream rabbinic Judaism rejected the Septuagint as valid Jewish scriptural texts. Several reasons have been given for this. First, some mistranslations were ascertained.[29] Second, the Hebrew source texts, in some cases (particularly the Book of Daniel), used for the Septuagint differed from the Masoretic tradition of Hebrew texts, which was affirmed as canonical by the Jewish rabbis. Third, the rabbis wanted to distinguish their tradition from the newly emerging tradition of Christianity.[22][30] Finally, the rabbis claimed for the Hebrew language a divine authority, in contrast to Aramaic or Greek-even though these languages were the lingua franca of Jews during this period.[31] As a result of this teaching, translations of the Torah into Koine Greek by early Jewish Rabbis have survived as rare fragments only. Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Luke 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. If Jesus used the septuagint why the references to jot and tittles? The word "jot" itself is an English transliteration of "iota" which is the 9th letter of the Greek alphabet. "Iota," in turn, is the nearest Greek equivalent for the Hebrew yodh. The "tittle" is the small decorative spur or point on the upper edge of the yodh. If you can imagine a tiny letter with a slightly visible decorative mark: Tittle is used by Greek grammarians of the accents and diacritical points. It means the little lines or projections by which the Hebrew letters differ from each other. One example would be the difference between the letter L and I. The difference is only one small mark. We use phrases like "the dotting of the i, and the crossing of the t," and "every iota." It is interesting that the Jewish scribes who copied the MT (Massoretic Text) of the Hebrew Bible scrolls paid the greatest attention to the minutiae of detail and such marks attached to each consonant throughout the entire text. They even numbered every letter, word, sentence, paragraph, chapter, section, and scroll to insure that the total equaled that of the text being copied before allowing it to enter the holy synagogue. Why would Jewish scholars travel to Alexandria Egypt to translate the scriptures to greek?? Alexandria was the gnostic center of men like Philo, Origen and other lost "academics" who perverted the scriptures with greek philosophy. Biblical verses about Egypt: Revelation 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. Micah 6:4 For I brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of the house of servants; and I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. Hosea 12:13 And by a prophet the LORD brought Israel out of Egypt, and by a prophet was he preserved. Ezekiel 17:15 But he rebelled against him in sending his ambassadors into Egypt, that they might give him horses and much people. Shall he prosper? shall he escape that doeth such things? or shall he break the covenant, and be delivered? Jeremiah 44:26 Therefore hear ye the word of the LORD, all Judah that dwell in the land of Egypt; Behold, I have sworn by my great name, saith the LORD, that my name shall no more be named in the mouth of any man of Judah in all the land of Egypt, saying, The Lord GOD liveth. The septuagint contained the apocrypha which were not considered canonical for these reasons: 1. They were not written in Hebrew. 2. The writers of the apocrypha never claimed inspiration. 3. They were never acknowledged by Jesus or other New Testament writers. 4. They were rejected for the first 4 centuries. 5. They contain contradictions in relation to the canonical scriptures and between themselves. 6. They taught doctrines in opposition to the Bible. 7. They teach immoral biblical practices. Jesus read in the synagogues and preached to the Jews of his day while the land of Judea was under Roman control. Would God fearing Jews listen to Jesus gladly if he was speaking greek and not Hebrew and reciting Hebrew scripture. The Jews separated themselves from other cultures and detested Roman occupation. The sect of the Jewish population called Zealots confirm this fact. The Hellenistic Jewish population outside Israel after the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. may have used greek manuscripts, but Jesus? Sounds like catholic tradition to me. Lastly, the King James Version nullifies the septuagint.

[@tonydiaz545]

on #4, wrong it existed since day 1 of Christanity

[@MitzvosGolem1]

MarpleZoss It was against Jewish laws JC followed to study Greek Bible . Only allowed hebrew prayers.

[@luckycat5107]

james norse Not really Jesus Never once quoted the septuagint

[@MitzvosGolem1]

Tania Koen I reject the Septuagint or any non Hebrew scriptures anyway. My comment is about how many are unaware the original Septuagint was not the entire hebrew Bible just Genesis to Deuteronomy.

[@luckycat5107]

james norse Ok cool i rejecte the septuagint also

[@inTruthbyGrace]

God choreographed history for the spread of the gospel.. God was telling Abraham since Genesis 18:18.. "ALL NATIONS". By 400bc all nations in the civilized world, from Ethiopia to Spain, from Turkey to Italy, from Jerusalem round about unto Illyricum, the entire civilized world, including the Jews whom God had quite intentionally scattered *_into those nations,_* were ALL speaking Greek, for roughly 400y before Jesus got here!! The ONLY copies of God word permitted by the Sanhedrin, in common circulation, were the SANHEDRIN AUTHORIZED copies of the Greek OT called the LXX (see the "Septuagint" entry in Jewish encyclopedia). If you imagine it was a mistake that God had synagogues of Jews embedded in every major part of the Greek-speaking world and that it was just a cosmic error that God just happened to secure a Greek copy of His Word waiting for those shipwrecked, beaten, and fleeing apostles to just show up in any city and have a copy of His Word waiting in a language all the men could understand, then you are delusional and have not read how Paul and Phillip taught. God paved the linguistic highway for the spread of His Word EXACTLY as He said He would do in Zeph 3:9 and Daniel 7:6 ... At the dawn of literacy there was a copy of His Greek OT available in all major cities' synagogues, spread out like McDonalds for the disciples on road trips. Rather than lug copies of the scrolls around while they were shipwrecked and fleeing prosecutors, all they needed to do was SHOW up in a synagogue and reason from the Scriptures that were already there waiting for them to preach the gospel to BOTH the Greek-speaking Jew and Gentile in every region of the Greek and Roman empires...If you think that was a mistake, then you do not know how the gospel spread and when you read Matt 21:16 you can honestly tell Jesus "NO" and we do not care to read Psalm 8 as you quoted it Εκ στοματος νηπιον και θηλαζοντων κατηρτισω αινον and all other direct quotes of God's Word of the LXX texts because Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.... The Masoretic Text in your KJV is a 12th century Rabbinic emendation that eliminated as many references to Jesus as possible... even eliminating the virgin birth.... do not fall for this non-sense. God used GREEK for the spread of the OT and NT for the 3centuries BEFORE Jesus got here and the 3 centuries AFTER Jesus was here... do not believe the 12th century edits of those whom Paul says " both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:" (1Thes 2:15)... God has been warning you since Psalm 5:9 there is no faithfulness in their mouth; their inward part is very wickedness; their throat is an open sepulchre; they flatter with their TONGUE (language).... Beware. God used Greek on purpose and He meant to do that.

[@brianmoore581]

The exact wording of Scripture is always out of your reach unless you speak Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. If you speak English or any other modern language, you are stuck with a translation. All you can really do is try to find out which translation is most accurate. And yes, we know that Christ and the Apostles used the Septuagint because they quoted from it. This isn't rocket science. They quoted from it! Jesus probably spoke and read in several languages. We know Aramaic. Remember, he went to Egypt as a child, probably Alexandria, where most folks spoke Greek at the time, so surely He picked up some Greek. And He probably read in Hebrew as well. But really, the pastor's opinion is that one translation can't be right because another translation (King James) is perfect. What great logic!

[@savagetruthercritic8646]

Even then it'll be out of reach because we don't have the original texts.

[@Obediah002]

@@savagetruthercritic8646 Nonsense, the Original texts are gone for good reason, we do not need them. He has preserved His word to us as we are told in he scriptures (do we believe Him or do we not?), and we can, have searched this out and KNOW the KJV is this preserved text. Even the uneducated Biblical nave can see for themselves simply by opening the versions and comparing them verse by verse with the KJV. They will find serious changes and both deletions and additions that affect doctrine; have and still do so and KNOW of a certainty the KJV is His preserved word.

[@setxapart5505]

Alexandria was a Gnostic and occultic melting pot, with whom they brought their own corrupted text. Finding writings in Alexandria isn't exactly worthy of trust. Any remote possibility of the Son of God being in Alexandria - AS A CHILD, gives no credit to the finished work of all the text.

[@brianmoore581]

@@setxapart5505 there were no Gnostics when Jesus was a child. Christianity in any form did not yet exist.

[@setxapart5505]

@@brianmoore581 I didn't say there was at that time. You said he was "probably" in Alexandria as a child. The Alexandrian text...which were Gnostic corruptions of mostly Valentenians...were dug up years AFTER the time of Jesus and the original apostles. What you first posted reads like Jesus was probably there(Alexandria) as a child, and because of that and a form of Greek language was spoken there - than it was obviously Greek. There was Greek in both the Textus Receptus AND Codex Sinaiticus. No one is arguing Greek. There was the "Common Greek", as well as Aramaic in the Lord's time that was placed in the early manuscripts. Of the 40 something manuscripts dug up out of Egypt(Papyri), there was indeed Greek, but the Gnostics whom opposed the original apostles rewrote the scriptures to their liking - which damages the deity of Christ as the Son of God. The Septuagint is totally based off of Gnostic doctrine. "I" almost fell for that book too. I thought, "Well hey! Greek was common at Jesus' time - so why wouldn't I want a Septuagint?!"(I was watching too much Jim Baker😊). We have to remember the enemy - even at the time of Paul's writing was trying to corrupt the Word. I know how text can come across wrong, but know I mean all I say in kindness of heart. You are free to disagree, but know that I first thought like you, BUT I kept digging. Just never stop digging for truth, my friend. If in the end you are still convinced, then hey - say a prayer for your brother here. If by the will of the Almighty I am to think differently, then I am confident the Spirit will lead👍

[@vusumzingceke6518]

תּוֹדָה רַבּה

[@Nihit_Arora]

I agree too because oracles of God committed to the jews not to the greeks. “Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.” (Romans 3:2, KJV)

[@brock2443]

Problem being that the Masoretic text type didn’t exist until a century after Christ Jesus. And the gospel was preached to the lost sheep of the house of Israel not just the jews. There are 11 or 12 other tribes beside Judah, depending on if you count Joseph as one or two for Ephraim and Manasseh. James 1:1 KJV “1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.” Just an example of why Greek would have been used to spread the Gospel.

[@rykellim]

mitzvos Golem I have heard Jewish apologists make this serious claim - that the "original" Septuagint contained only the Pentateuch, but how true is this? Moreover, this seems like a modern day allegation... in other words, for nearly 2000 years since Christ, how often has this allegation been raised by credible scholars of time past? Just trying to ascertain the truth of the matter.

[@christopheryetzer]

If I remember right the "original" story Dr. Stringer references throughout the video mentions that they only translated the Pentateuch, but later on the rest of the books were added.

[@larrythrasher9713]

I wish James White would listen to Dr. Stringer!!

[@michaelwhite6505]

James white is wise in his own eyes

[@JR-lg7fd]

@@larrythrasher9713 Dr Stringer is a money chaser.

[@JonahGambrel]

KJV only folks, look at Genesis 46:27 and then compare it to acts 7:14. Then go look at the Septuagint Old Testament, same verse in Genesis and compare it to the KJV New Testament acts 7:14 again. There are approximately 300 verses quoted in the KJV New Testament that can only be found quoted correctly in the Septuagint. I’m a Christian, not catholic or any other thing, just a Christian. Love yuns, have a good one.

[@claytonlenhart6286]

I love how he claims to believe in the bible and all the miracles in the bible like the virgin birth, the resurrection, the ax head floating in water etc....but to believe that 72 translators had the same translation is false and crazy. Explain that to me. God doesn't perform miracles anymore? That was a dumb argument

[@claytonlenhart6286]

@@jjpetkusiii what does your comments and scriptures you gave have to do with the topic at hand?