The "SeptNotTrueAgint" Recap & Additional Notes

[@scripturequest]

2:13 People aren't claiming that Christ quoted the LXX specifically, but rather the Masoretic text has been corrupted overtime, and that the Septuagint in places preserves what the Jews corrupted, which is why we see a lot of New Testament quotations of Scripture, line up with the Septuagint as opposed to the much later Masoretic.

[@debrapaulino918]

Unless stolen the original Septuagint burned with the synogogue it was in. The Great Library did too. 1000s of papyri on every topic including literature. The Port of Alexandria caught on fire as the result of Egyptian defense against Julius Caesar. This was 200 something BCE.

[@debrapaulino918]

The original was of course in Hebrew and just 5 books of Moses; Torah.

[@scripturequest]

@@debrapaulino918 But what is ‘Hebrew’? What people call ‘Hebrew’ today would be better described as ‘Jewish Aramaic’ because the Jews abandoned the original written language of the Hebrews and replaced it with their own modified form of Aramaic. If you travelled back in time with these so called ‘Hebrew’ scriptures, Moses, David etc wouldn’t even be able to read it, it would be mindless gibberish to them. As a separate issue, the Jews modified their Jewish Aramaic texts and introduced errors, which is why the New Testament quotations of Old Testament scripture can often better reflect the Septuagint, not the Masoretic. The fact that the Masoretic is written in ‘Hebrew’, doesn’t give it any weight over and above the Septuagint.

[@PhillipOnWater]

It’s very easy to refute KJV onlyism. Did the apostles have the KJV? Simple question

[@Pootycat8359]

Of course! That's the version Paul used! Just ask any Fundamentalist...😛

[@MichaelTheophilus906]

KJV says it was good enough for Jesus.

[@damonking76]

ONLY THE "TORAH" INITIALLY LATER GATHERED WRITINGS\LETTERS ETC OF THE FIRST EARLY QAHALS\KAHALS!!! BY THE TIME ROME USURPED THE ORIGINAL TRUE ASSEMBLIES ALL THE CHURCHIANITY DOGTRINES DEVELOPED

[@green-eyedgimlet5250]

Josephus must be taken with a shaker of salt. He was not Christian and he was looking to build his wealth and prestige. Check out his historical writings, and personal letters. Isn't it amazing how he inserted himself in events when he wasn't even around.

[@MichaelTheophilus906]

"church fathers" cannot be trusted. Jesus, Peter, and Paul warned us about these false teachers.

[@MichaelTheophilus906]

The KJV is an extremely poor translation. Get yourself a Greek-English Interlinear.

[@christal2641]

King James had a few axes to grind and insisted on his peculiar opinions be included in the Bible for the Church of which he was the head. #1 King James Insisted that the phrase "thou shalt not allow a POISONER to live" be translated to "Thou shalt not allow a WITCH to live." When a witch was accused, the Crown, the Witch finder, and the accusers each got a portion of the accused's property, just as it was in Salem Village, MA. This policy made Witch hunting very profitable.

[@scripturequest]

10:43 Refugees from the northern kingdom went down into the Jerusalem, I think it is Chronicles that records this. There would easily be 6 tribes in 285 BC still.

[@decay-154]

2nd Esdras says the 10 tribes were in Ar Seret

[@scripturequest]

16:45 There is no pure Hebrew text though. What you consider to be Hebrew isn't original, it is a gentile Script that replaced the original Hebrew script. In addition, the Masoretic has blatant errors. Exodus 12:40 is mathematically impossible!

[@johnpaul3759]

Just as the Septuagint is not inspired, according to you, so also is the 1611 not inspired

[@alanwatts9232]

Another informative video on an important topic, thanks Dr. Margus.

[@karlawoodruff4280]

Thank you

[@stclairjones815]

the Creed of Constantine and Constantinople at 325 ad. And all you have to do is read Hebrews to really find out who he is

[@scripturequest]

8:33 It's worth noting the Jews did change the Torah though, they abandoned the original Hebrew script for a Jewish Aramaic script they created. The idea that the Torah is unchanged isn't quite true. Moses, David, Solomon etc wouldn't even be able to read the 'Hebrew' of today or Christ's time, because it isn't really Hebrew.

[@madeirafonseca6383]

The change from Paleo-Hebrew to Masoretic-Hebrew amounts to a font change; it didn't change the words or meaning of the text.

[@scripturequest]

@@madeirafonseca6383 It is an entirely different script, not a different font. The Samaritans retained the Hebrew script with the style, or font, changing slightly, but the original script is still there, whereas the Jews abandoned it for their own modified version of a gentile script. Ultimately, the Masoretic is not the original, nor a copy of the original, it is itself a translation from the original script used by the Israelites. Separately, the Masoretic has errors, it can’t be used in isolation.

[@madeirafonseca6383]

@@scripturequest You missed my point. The point is: the words are still the same. Do you have evidence that the actual message was changed? I would like to see examples where completely different words were replaced as a result of changing from Paleo to Masoretic. An example would be where the KJV "translators" changed the Hebrew word כאר׳ in Ps. 22 to the English word "pierced". We know they knew how to correctly translate that word because 4 of the 5 times it appears in the Tanach they translated it correctly to "like a lion". However, they intentionally mis-translated it in Ps. 22 to promote their pre-conceived theology.

[@Silverheart1956]

Dear@@madeirafonseca6383 , It was more that just a font change - it is a change it the shape of the characters of the alphabet. Moses very likely wrote the torah in Proto-Alphabetic (also know as Proto-Sinaitic, or Proto- Semitic) Later Proto-Alphabetic evolved into Paleo-Hebrew, which later changed to using the block Aramaic script. It is doubtful that Moses would be able to walk in and read the torah in Modern Hebrew without becoming accustom to the radical character change in the alphabet. Be Well, DZ

[@Silverheart1956]

Dear@@scripturequest , I would not consider the change from Porto-Alphabetic to Paleo-Hebrew to be a "translation" from one language to another. Nor would I consider the change from Paleo-Hebrew to the Aramaic Block script to be a "translation" In both situations, it is a change in the characters. but the actual sounds the characters represented was unchanged. That would not be what you would call a translation from one language to another. Be Well, DZ

[@geelamar3542]

Can you read Biblical Greek?

[@MaryTruthSeeker]

I am not KJV only. I would like to know where it is written in the texts that any of the approved apostles had authority to alter the word. I don’t remember there being an exception clause for anyone to add to or take away from the word.

[@MichaelTheophilus906]

The pagan catholic priests added whatever they wanted. Fortunately, we have manuscripts from before they adulterated the bible.

[@Silverheart1956]

Dear @MaryTruthSeeker Yes ! Since the KJV adds to, and takes away from, the actual Word of God, then people need to be careful when using the KJV for serious, deep study of the Scriptures. This is why the translators of the KJV told us to use a variety of translations of God's Word to understand the meaning of the Scriptures. We need to listen to their wise advice if we considered them to be competent. The Transmission of the text and the translation of the text of Scripture is an effort of man. Just like every pastor, they are not perfect, but God can use them for His glory. DZ

[@Jase-ij5cm]

Dr ammon hillman!!!!!!

[@Rob-lu2ns]

The truth you're sharing is really getting under the skin of all these "wise" people in the comments.

[@yahawahsblessed9892]

ShaLaWaM.. appreciate the study material.. but peddling the matthew to revelation bible foolishness book , is still peddling the matthew to revelation bible foolishness book

[@dr.nickmargusd.th.s.2511]

Shalom Aleichem

[@decay-154]

how boring