What I Discovered About the Dead Sea Scrolls Blew My Mind!

[@veneroantonio905]

I use both the LXX and MT,I recognised that there is errors in both, I think it’s very dangerous to be an onlyist

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

The Septuagint translators could not possibly have had an agenda of steering their audience away from the notion that Jesus is the Christ (because Jesus hadn't been born yet). The Masorites cannot say the same thing. They had an agenda. Given the choice, therefore, I'd rather go with the translators who didn't have a bias against the Messiah.

[@RichardSpeights]

No, but they could have altered the text in certain places we now know concern the Christ. For instance, they assumed the words Othiq Uothiq had to do with God, so they interpreted the word to mean ancient (Dan 7, verse 9 and 13). These two words do not translate into ancient. They translated as transference and transferer respectively. See Isaiah 22:11. The word for ancient in Hebrew is eishne. It is possible the Jews (200BC) simply interpreted instead of translated Daniel 7:9 and 13, which led to the KJV having the wrong word to translate. (Interpreting instead of translating is a problem in almost all translations no matter the time and or place of the work. We must dig to find if they translated accurately or not.)

[@SDsc0rch]

I trust the septuagent more than the masoretic text

[@theodoreperkoski1951]

any thing that goes through the Council of Jamnia, I distrust. Because they had a reason to distrust the Septuagint

[@gabepettinicchio7454]

@@theodoreperkoski1951 Can you prove that Jamnia, actually happened?

[@ALAINDEGRANDPRE]

Than you are ignorant about Scriptures and are bound to be deceived.

[@danielmayer1977]

The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) and the Septuagint (LXX) highlight the diversity of textual traditions in ancient Judaism, challenging the assumption that the Masoretic Text (MT) is the sole authoritative version. The DSS reveal multiple text types coexisted: proto-MT, pre-Septuagintal, and independent texts. The LXX often reflects older Hebrew readings, as seen in Hosea 14:2-3, aligning with both the DSS and New Testament (Hebrews 13:15), as well as key texts like Isaiah 7:14 and Psalm 22:16, where LXX readings support central Christian theology. Historical context further supports this: the LXX served Hellenistic Jews and became the primary scripture for the early Church, quoting it extensively. Examples like Jeremiah (shorter in LXX/DSS) and Deuteronomy 32:43 (divine council references preserved in LXX/DSS) confirm that the MT reflects later theological standardizations. Scholars like Emanuel Tov emphasize the LXX’s role as a critical witness to ancient traditions, while MT vowel pointings (added centuries later) demonstrate interpretive shifts. These patterns reveal a theological trajectory where the LXX-DSS alignments often preserve readings that the MT muted, shaping both Jewish and Christian theology. The textual plurality of the Second Temple period reminds us that scripture’s transmission history is far richer and more complex than often assumed.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Very thoughtful comment. Thanks for contributing to the discussion

[@PhuManchew]

I prefer the LXX for the majority of OT work. The MT has a clear anti-Christian bias regarding selective passages.

[@matthaeusprime6343]

The Church has used the Septuagint since the beginning. It has only been the last 500 years that the MT was considered a chief source. That is why the Vulgate and the Septuagint match so closely.

[@fnjesusfreak]

Except the Vulgate aligns much more with the Masoretic. Jerome was an "ad-fontes" translator and took a lot of flak from people for this, but he actually translated a proto-Masoretic Hebrew.

[@mwdiers]

It has been a LOT more than the last 500 years. The move away from the Septuagint in the western church was mostly completed by the 5th century.

[@Durnyful]

@@mwdiers But not in the Eastern churches who were the vast majority until at least 1000

[@malcolmdavid722]

Excellent study ! The DSS take precedence over later Masoretic changes.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Thanks for your encouragement!

[@makarov138]

Jerome's Latin Vulgate was published in 405AD from 300s AD Greek texts. And the Septuagint was used for the OT, and the Hebrew was also at least looked at. Many scholars today believe that the Hebrew OT has been "edited" a bit from the original in the early 900AD. There is too much Greek evidence to ignore it.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Thank you for your thoughtful comment! It's always great to engage with viewers who appreciate the intricacies of historical texts. Your input adds to the discussion!

[@gabepettinicchio7454]

It was the Septuagint that had been edited ... by Martin Luther in the 16th Century. The Septuagint OT had been used by Jesus & his apostles, quoting from it roughly 200 times. The Septuagint was also the OT that includes the Dueterocanonicals. That adds up to 73 books in the Bible. The same books that were canonized by the Catholic Church, at the Council of Rome in 382AD. Stay honest with yourself, Stephen. Continue to be the "truth-seeker" that you are.

[@timkittle5418]

Yes. I believe the Masoretes were invested in writing Yeshua out of their scriptures, whereas the LXX translators, writing about 300 years before his birth, had no such agenda.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

@ I don’t understand the comment that the Septuagint had been edited by Martin Luther. What do you mean ?

[@markjeffries7150]

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I think that @gabepettinicchio7454 is using a Catholic Church point of view.

[@williambrewer]

Your videography and presentation are getting really good. Your content is always been great. Thank you!

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Thanks my friend!

[@irataylor5083]

Why is it that most bibles published in English use the MT as primary source for the Old Testament rather than the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls? Particularly since both predate the MT.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Here is my answer to that kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y53JipmGgpqIosksi=hIVVEkQTxrSgNMuA

[@ChaseRoycroft]

I think it would be nice if you mentioned whether each variant is found in Hebrew/Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls or only in Greek ones.

[@tomjewett5839]

I've come to realize that some of the newer translations are unlocking some of the prophecies, to where we can understand them now. My for instance is how Michael told Daniel to seal up the prophecy until the end times. In Daniel chapter 9:25 through 27 it talks about Jerusalem being rebuilt plz and Moat even in times of distress. other versions say st and wall. Well in that same prophecy it says from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem there will be 70 sevens. That turns out to be a dual prophecy. Suleiman the magnificent also made a decree to rebuild Jerusalem in 1537. And there are plaques written in stone with the decree at the plaza and in the moat. Exactly where the prophecy happens to mention? It all starts to make sense. I suggest you check out dr Christian Wideners videos here on youtube.

[@makarov138]

There exists no duality of prophecy in the scriptures. That is a modern theory.

[@tomjewett5839]

@@makarov138 kzbin.info/www/bejne/bqKsYXl3n9Fljas

[@mikerichards8400]

Hello Stephen. It has been an extremely busy year. Your library looks impressive! I have an important question for you: Do you have an extra set of the Jameison-Faucett-Brown commentary as published by Hendrickson publishers? I am looking for a set in order to do an indepth review of it in both Old and New Testaments. Thanks friend!

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Hi my friend, sadly I don't have an extra set. I treasure the one I have. I think they are out of print again. The abridged set is easy to get, but not half as valuable.

[@mikerichards8400]

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews thanks for a gracious response. I agree that the abridged set is not comparable to the unabridged set of Jameison-Faucett-Brown! Even though it is an old set there is value on its pages.

[@scripturequest]

If you haven’t already seen it, Exodus 12:40 is corrupt in the Masoretic.

[@TheBiblicalRecord]

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting!

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Thanks for watching!

[@mikebrown9850]

Does the text being sought fulfill prophecy in the past or presently? That is the only way to determine God’s inspired Word (2 Peter 1:19-21).

[@DS-ru6rj]

Great work. I like your channel!

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Thanks!

[@MikeyMikey410]

Hi Mr. Hackett. Just a couple weeks ago the Torah study group I attend went through the Noah portion. I use the LXX and Gen 7:11 states that Noah and family went into the Ark on the 27th day of the second month and in Gen 8:14 they exited the Ark on that very same day, one year later. Everyone else has them entering on the 17th of the second month and exiting on the 17th of the second month one year later. I have checked every Bible I have plus the Bibles from E-Sword I have on my computer and they all say the 17th except for the ABP (Apostolic Bible Polyglot). Is there a difference in the DSS or is this a mistake in the LXX? Thanks.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

It’s something I’m aware of but haven’t made a detailed investigation into. So….I have to be honest and I don’t know.

[@onceamusician5408]

I am a recent "convert" ( So to speak) to the LXX. so you tell us it is not perfect. that is useful to know but you would still hold it is better to the others I am still quite new to this issue, only a few months in fact

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

The good news is that, most of the time, the Septuagint and the Masoretic Hebrew text are closely aligned. My default position is to rely on the Masoretic Hebrew text. However, the value of the Septuagint cannot be overstated. There are moments when the evidence, in my judgment, becomes overwhelmingly in favor of the Septuagint over the Masoretic text. For more details, check out the video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y53JipmGgpqIosk

[@onceamusician5408]

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews thanks

[@stevelee6688]

Gen. 46:26-27 says 65 and 70 respectively; and Stephen in Acts 7:14 says three score and fifteen (75). So who is being counted differs depending upon the category: Jacob's 'posterity' who came down into Egypt (65); vs. 'all the souls' of Jacob who came down into Egypt, which included Jacob and Leah and Bilhah, and Zilpah (69), because Rachel has already died but should not include Joseph because he is already in Egypt. But I'm not sure how to reconcile with Stephen totaling Jacob's posterity who are in Egypt, which would include Joseph and his sons Manasseh and Ephraim (73). But the numbers are off about Stephen. The Berean Study Bible says: "The number "seventy-five" is significant in the biblical narrative. While the Masoretic Text of Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 mentions seventy, the Septuagint, which Stephen likely references here, records seventy-five. This discrepancy is a point of scholarly discussion but does not detract from the theological message." Ellicott's commentary says, "Here, however, Stephen had the authority of the LXX. of Genesis 46:27, which gives the number at seventy-five, and makes it up by inserting the son and grandson of Manasseh, two sons and a grandson of Ephraim. With them it was probably an editorial correction based upon Numbers 26:26-37. Stephen, as a Hellenistic Jew, naturally accepted, without caring to investigate, the number which he found in the Greek version." Jewish Rabbinic tradition is that Dinah, the daughter of Jacob and Leah whom Shechem defiled, was then sent to Egypt and her name was changed to Asenath, a she was a daughter of a 'priest', who married Joseph. And counting her gets you to the 70 souls of Jacob who came into Egypt.

[@blain20_]

None of that is accurate. Stephen had access to the Hebrew text read to him in the synagogue throughout his upbringing. That number would have been 75 in the Hebrew text of the time. The Septuagint was used by the Hellenistic Jews in Egypt and Jerusalem, not the Judeans and Galileans. The two numbers are 70 and 75, not those other numbers. Dinah was not Asenath. The difference between 70 and 75 are the people that were already in Egypt, namely Joseph, his sons, and his grandsons. The text explicitly states those numbered came from the loins of Jacob, which did not include Asenath.

[@stevelee6688]

@ I cited the actual Scriptures I reference - Genesis and Acts. You state the "number would've been 75 in the Hebrew text of the time." You state, "the two numbers are 70 and 75, not those other numbers." On what basis do you make your claim? What is your source? You stated Asenath was not Dinah. What is your source? I indicated it is a Rabbinic tradition. I would be interested in discussing it but you so far have not provided any facts to support your statements.

[@blain20_]

@@stevelee6688 Have you ever read the MT or LXX? They clearly list 70 and 75 people. The difference is clearly the people that were already in Egypt being included or not. None of those other numbers are in those two Bibles.

[@stevelee6688]

@@blain20_ All this time I thought Genesis was from the Masoretic text.

[@munbruk]

So what happened? Who corrupted the texts?

[@somosisraelencristo]

Satan's synagoge

[@EmmanuelObbo-u8x]

Hello, Stephen! I request Bible scholars and Translators to reconcile the whole Old Testament by using the many available witnesses (e.g; MT, LXX, SP - Samaritan Pentateuch, Syriac Targums, & DSS; and 1st Century AD Historians like Josephus)

[@not_milk]

I have that same greek NT + OT as you. Such a great find, and very difficult to obtain in the west

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Mine came from Athens

[@Matthew-307]

So based on your research on that LXX, which translation follows the LXX the most?

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

I’ve begun a research project to determine which translation of the LXX is the best. However, I haven’t yet explored which Bible translation, primarily based on the Hebrew text, most consistently acknowledges and incorporates readings from the LXX. The ESV does quite a few times…but that is an observation without a lot of comparative study.

[@timpczman]

Those 3 that you mention, are footnoted as such in my NKJV!

[@awakenedbyyhuhassembly6015]

Im not Septuagint only but i use it as my primary authoritative scripture for the old testament. I do consult other manuscripts for reference sake the masoretic though is the least trustworthy version in my opinion. So the order i go by is 1. LXX, 2. Targums, 3. Vulgate, 4. Peshitta, 5. Samaritan torah, 6. Masoretic

[@alanr745]

Stephen, good information. The issue with Mephibosheth (sp?) is incorrect in 2 Samuel 4 in the LXX/DSS. How? 5 chapters later, Saul's son Mephibosheth is brought to sit at David's table due to the kindness David showed to the house of Saul. Things like that are easily correctable if we know the OT like we should, as chronology proves it incorrect; however, much of what is quoted by the writers of the NT aligns much more with the LXX or a proto-MT....but I'm not sure the Masoretes are at fault given the leaps of destruction taken by the Pharisees before 132 AD to consolidate the text and clearly tamper with it due to how Jesus wrecked their world. :D

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Thank you for your thoughtful comment-this is precisely the kind of engagement I was hoping for on this point! I would love to be wrong about this one, but here’s why I think the Mephibosheth reading in 2 Samuel 4 is problematic: The Masoretic Text doesn’t explicitly name Ish-bosheth here; it simply says “the son of Saul.” However, the context strongly suggests it refers to Ish-bosheth. He is the one reacting to Abner’s death in 4:1, and the entire chapter focuses on his vulnerability and assassination. Mephibosheth, on the other hand, is introduced later in 4:4 as a young child fleeing after Saul and Jonathan’s death, and he reappears in chapter 9 as a dependent recipient of David’s kindness. Chronologically, it’s difficult to reconcile Mephibosheth as a reigning figure in 4:1 when he’s explicitly described as a child in 4:4. The narrative coherence seems to demand that “son of Saul” here refers to Ish-bosheth, Saul’s heir and rival claimant to David’s throne. While the LXX/DSS readings are often valuable, this seems like a case of scribal confusion, potentially arising from similar consonantal structures between the names. The Masoretic Text’s implicit identification of Ish-bosheth aligns much more smoothly with the broader context and chronology. Thanks again for raising this point-this is exactly the kind of discussion that sharpens our understanding of the text! Let me know if you see another angle I might be missing-I’d genuinely love to hear it.

[@derekk1]

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews the Wycliffe Bible explicitly says Isboseth, the son of Saul in 2 Samuel 4:1. Also, regarding the 3 calves vs one 3yo calf. If it says they sacrificed “a” calf, then I would lean towards 3 calves being correct (sacrificing “a” calf of the three). If only one calf was brought, it should say they sacrificed “the” calf. Just my thought on those two points. I’ve only watched the segments on those two passages so far.

[@tony.biondi]

Hi Stephen, the landing page isn't working for me for some reason.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Try this mailchi.mp/2f83838c05df/biblical-studies-and-reviews. Let me know if that doesn’t work.

[@jperez7893]

it should be noted that the MT was not finalized until the 9th and 10th century. there is evidence that the vowel pointings, nikkudot, were added and standardized simultaneously along with the invention of the vowel markings for the arabic language during the abbasids in baghdad. it is well documented by early christians that the jews, after the bar kokchba revolt, systematically rewrote the jewish texts to remove or obfuscate the bases for the messianic proof texts for jesus ; case in point: aquila. it should be the default position of any christian who is genuinely faithful to christianity, to believe in the septuagint first, instead of the MT, for the sole reason that the DSS, peshitta, NT, and church fathers, are convergent with the text of the LXX. an ideal situation would be to reconstruct the the MT to align it to the other ancient sources, especially the LXX. there is only one truth, and that is Jesus Christ. moses, the prophets, and the writings must only point to Him, for that is the purpose of their existence.

[@undergroundpublishing]

I feel like the only conclusion you can come up with, the more you stidy, is that there has never been an inerrant maniscript tradition. Both the LXX and Masoretic are translations from a different alphabet that was no longer in use by the time of the captivity, so there was discepancy in teansmission between the Jews in Egypt and the Jews in Babylon. its like the disagreements in the Latin vs Greek scribal tradition that bleeds into the TR/Byzantine vs Origenist/Critical Text traditions. I think the only reaaonable conclusion is to abandon the idea od "divine preservation" in the sense of a single tradition and look at each variant on a case by case basis.

[@trappedcat3615]

Jesus often said "have ye not read". The implication is that no scribe errors prevailed against what was written in His day. Preservation does not mean no errors exist. Rather they do not prevail against or destroy what is written.

[@alanr745]

Agreed. I think the smartest thing we can do in the 21st century as Christians is be honest about the evidence and correct the MT where it needs to be corrected. The entire reason we in the West follow the MT is because of ignorance by translators that began at least with the KJV translators or perhaps with King James who apparently secured a copy of or secured the Leningrad Codex for the Authorized Version.

[@blain20_]

That's what Satan said.

[@blain20_]

​@@trappedcat3615We can safely assume that Jesus and the 1st century Jews had inerrant scrolls. All errancy came afterwards to bury Jesus' teachings and Messiahship. The DSS are the scrolls of the Zadokites, who were the rightful priests of the Temple, ousted by the Maccabees. John and Jesus knew them as the Essenes. John and Jesus were descendants of Zadok.

[@SteveWH978]

Have you considered the Samaritan Pentateuch? I've recently been reading (more research to be done) that it's the oldest known Paleo Hebrew Torah and matches the DSS better than the MT. All modern transcripts including MT and LXX came from the XIV which was translated from Paleo Hebrew into Aramaic Block after the Babylonian captivity. Just a thought at this time because I have more research to do.

[@cranmer1959]

The DSS contain three of the Apocryphal books as well. Are you now going to accept them as Scripture?

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

I think you might be interested in what I say at the last 5 minutes of the video. It might surprise you.

[@buzzard6410]

That's a nice looking set of books over your right shoulder. 😜

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

I thought you would like that! Thanks again

[@buzzard6410]

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Thanks for putting them where I could see them. I appreciate it.

[@lc-mschristian5717]

Thank you

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Thanks for watching!

[@JR-rs5qs]

Do you cover the difference in Isa 65:22 on any videos?

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

I do not. Funny you should ask though, I was just looking at that a few days ago

[@JR-rs5qs]

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I'm very glad you've seen it! The connection back to Genesis and forward to Revelation in terms of the Tree of Life (Christ) in the old and then the new heavens and earth are astounding.

[@betawithbrett7068]

4:30 brother, good stuff, thank you, but you are misspelling Isaiah. You spelled it a couple of times as Isiah.... it is Isaiah.

[@robertcain3426]

The LXX spells it Esias. Cheers

[@markjeffries7150]

In today's world, many - if not most - Christians consider the Bible to be the "infallible" Word of God. This comes from a misreading of 2 Timothy 3:16, where it says, "All Scripture is inspired by God." If it was infallible, there would not be so many variations in the different manuscripts.

[@mikepoulin3020]

Catholic theology considers the original text as inspired. but particular translations are not "infallible" and can be subject to error. This is why, even after Saint Jerome finished his Latin Vulgate, and is was accepted for liturgical use, it was still being corrected in later centuries... It would be foolish to believe that an English language translation could ever be "infallible" since English did not exist when the Scriptures were first written.

[@Durnyful]

​@mikepoulin3020 That doesn't address the point made re the underlying text variants. Without an authoritative church to sift the variants & also correctly interpret them you are left in a sea of varying interpretations & doctrines where each individual is effectively forced to become their own Pope. Rather ironic really.

[@veronica_._._._]

Do metaphorical variants matter? All examples seem trivial.

[@Durnyful]

@veronica_._._._ You should investigate more if you are interested, they are not metaphorical. A lot of the variants in the Hebrew texts particularly target passages that attest to Jesus being the messiah.

[@truthseeker9070]

But the problem with LXX is if you only based everything on it, the divine name is most of the times gone and substitute by a title (the same goes in the Gospel which cause confusion about the identity of the Messiah) which follows the tradition of the sages removing the name, while the Masoretic text has some have it but most of the they have footnote to indicate the the divine name was there ans was substitute Also the names, in Masoretic text the tradition shorten some names to hide the divine name on it but the footnotes are there that suggests "this is the full spelling". While the LXX has completely obliterate these in the names because the names of the Greeks always ends with "us" or "s" and some argue about it that this is to honer their pagans "God" as most or if not all ends the name in "S" The Hebrew names when change to Greek has no meanings. Just like the "Jesus" a hybrid name, you can't tell the meaning of it unless you try to find its origin.

[@MrSeedi76]

The divine name was never in the new testament. But there's the so-called "nomina sacra" which indicate in the manuscripts who is thought of as divine in the text by abbreviating the names and sometimes putting a line over it. "Iesous" becomes "IS" which indicates His divinity. Unfortunately most translations never indicate this. It's a clear sign that Jesus was considered divine from the very start in the earliest manuscripts. It completely debunks some of the conspiracies surrounding the "development theory" peddled by some "scholars" who try to spread doubt in the hearts of the believers.

[@emiljohann88]

Its 3 year old bull. We must follow the evidence.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts! It's important to stay focused on the evidence as we navigate through this topic.

[@undergroundpublishing]

The 70 vs 75 issue is not a discrpancy. One is just cointing the 70 men that came from the loins of Jacob. The other is counting Jacob, his three remaining wives and Dinah. So, one is 70 sons, and the other is 75 souls.

[@buzzard6410]

70 men or 70 souls?

[@blain20_]

All 75 come from the loins of Israel. The difference in count is between counting those who were already in Egypt or not. Do research first.

[@blain20_]

​​@@buzzard6410Men and women, as it says in the text. Gen 46:7 His sons, and his sons' sons with him, his daughters, and his sons' daughters, and all his seed brought he with him into Egypt.

[@undergroundpublishing]

​@@blain20_ You need to check your pride in your tone, and take the log out of your own eye... All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob's sons' wives, all the souls were threescore and six; and the sons of Joseph, which were born him in Egypt, were two souls: all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten. Gen 46:26-27 Feel free to give a count if you think otherwise. That's just what Moses said.

[@undergroundpublishing]

@@buzzard6410 Souls. My mistake. It says "sons" in some parts of Gen 47, but "sons and daughters" in others. It looks like Serah and Dinah are counted but I don't think the two sons of Judah that died are counted. It's been a minute since I counted the names.

[@betawithbrett7068]

07:45 another misspelling "quotation" not "quatation"

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

I saw that too……after the video was already posted. My video editor…. English is a second language for him. But does good, right? Thanks for watching!

[@muskyoxes]

Doesn't the three-fold cord just have two cords? New Testament citations are basically just the Septuagint again.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

For me, that’s enough to say that the LXX has accurately translated or paraphrased the Hebrew, but it doesn’t tell me what the original Hebrew text was. The Dead Sea Scrolls provide the actual Hebrew text.

[@KyleSurette13]

Onlyism makes no logical sense really. The fact we have such an insane abundance of manuscripts from all sorts of time frames (more than any other book or ancient manuscript type to ever exist) says God preserved His word. And when you have an independant translation team starting a work from scratch, and then another team starting they’re work, and they end up with 99% of the same translated information that’s proof. Some of the differences are lost in translation (because there are different words than can be used and different philosophies.) And the old manuscripts contain easily identified spelling errors which change the wording, or inclusions/omissions. Overall they’re minor, and rarely change doctrine. By the way, I love the King James, and I like using it… and I hope no one takes this the wrong way, but for those who are King James ONLY, I feel they’re missing out. The scriptures really open up in a lot of ways if you look into other translations, at the very least, comparing them. I’d never tell anyone to not favor the King James above all other translations, but other translations REALLY open up some of the more obscure verses in the King James bible, and help you see certain things in a better light.

[@gkeith64]

6:49 Fruit of the lips, Words of divinity..... Qodesh words, win speaKING of YaH'UaH *= Sovereign Eternal Supreme Immortal Potentate in the shortest phrase..... Ayob 38:2-3, MatithYahu 12:36, Yahezqel 22 chapter 📖🦉

[@betawithbrett7068]

👏🙏🙌 bravo

[@2Timothy4.1.4]

Hi are you saved.

[@mikepoulin3020]

Jerome was a very careful and conservative translator... and he gave weight to the Hebrew scriptures of his time, but failed to realize the Jews did not canonize their Bibles until after Christianity began, and the Jews deliberately rejected texts they could only find in Greek. But the Septuagint, though written in Greek, was actually done by Jewish scholars for the Great Library of Alexandria's collections... So it is no surprise the Septuagint matches older Hebrew texts better than most.

[@darrellperez1029]

Even Jesus quoted out of them

[@samuelmatz]

List means adding a cloud app. I deleted the app. I don't like cloud storage apps. List 😂

[@H4KnSL4K]

They say the Bible is perfect and flawless. You've just disproven that... (at least, our English bibles)

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

I don’t think any of our English bibles are exactly perfect in every tiny nuance. But I do think they are generally reliable

[@H4KnSL4K]

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Thanks. I believe that a well; as a kid I grew up without any hint of these kinds of discrepancies. It is too bad our copies are not 100.000% perfect, but you can still say the word of God is preserved and available to us; these few minor things should not hinder anyone's salvation

[@mrsamurangx3030]

The scribes used to bury bad copies of the text. Just saying.

[@RockofAges-v5w]

The KJV onlyists back themselves into a corner with this because they operate backwards- it’s “the KJV is perfect, so e all it’s base texts are perfect.” Similarly to how the Masoretes operated- it was “Jesus is not the messiah” then working off of that. That is idolatry. The best and most scholarly way is to glean from the MT, LXX and DSS, and even the Samaritan Pentateuch; checked against the New Testament Greek. Great videos, sir.

[@tomnoyb8301]

You mention Deut32. In verse-8, most English-translations say that nations/peoples were divided according to the number of 'children of Israel,' while ESV says nations/peoples were divided according to the number of 'Son's-of-God' (on the Divine-Council). This verse appears to have caused strife, wars and even attempted genocides over the course of history. Some are saying a recently noticed fragment of Dead-Sea-Scrolls shows ESV to be correct. Context would also lead one to believe ESV correct. What are the true and correct Words of Deut32:8? (more...) Ascribing motive can be difficult; yet given the consequences, is it possible to say how, why and when this and other verses were corrupted? Jews make great fanfare about their meticulous Torah-copies from antiquity until today. They claim not one jot-or-tiddle's been changed over the centuries. Knowing "Why" changes were made (and subsequently denied) would go a long way toward restoring/confirming trust in Biblical interpretations.

[@danielmayer1977]

The original reading of Deuteronomy 32:8 likely refers to "sons of God" (DSS, LXX) rather than "children of Israel" (MT). The older texts align with the context of a divine council, where God apportions nations under angelic oversight. The MT appears to reflect a later redaction during the Second Temple period, aiming to emphasize monotheism and Israel's unique status. Variants like this reveal that while the Masoretic tradition preserved texts meticulously, earlier traditions (e.g., DSS, LXX) show that theological and doctrinal concerns influenced some changes. Understanding these differences enhances, rather than diminishes, trust in the Bible's overarching message.

[@tomnoyb8301]

@@danielmayer1977 - "Enhance?" Why would one think the second-Temple period was more accurate than Moses' own account directly from God? It's bad enough NT changed Son's-of-God to 'Angels,' now there's doubt in the OT too?

[@danielmayer1977]

@@tomnoyb8301 The variation in Deuteronomy 32:8 between "sons of God" (DSS, LXX) and "children of Israel" (MT) does not suggest the Second Temple text is “more accurate” than Moses’ original words. Instead, it reflects how different traditions preserved the text in response to evolving theological contexts. The Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint predate the Masoretic Text and confirm "sons of God" as the original reading, consistent with the ancient concept of a divine council (e.g., Job 1:6, Psalm 82). The MT’s "children of Israel" likely arose during the Second Temple period, emphasizing Israel’s covenantal role and avoiding polytheistic misunderstandings. This adjustment was not about accuracy but about safeguarding theological clarity for the Jewish community at the time. It does not contradict Moses’ original message, as the "sons of God" reading is still preserved in older traditions like the DSS and LXX. These differences enrich rather than diminish the Bible’s reliability, showing God’s providence in preserving its message across different contexts. As for the New Testament’s use of "angels," it reflects the Second Temple Jewish understanding of "sons of God," found in texts like 1 Enoch. Hebrews 1:6 emphasizes Christ’s supremacy over angels, aligning with this tradition. This is not a distortion but a theological clarification, showing how the NT builds on Jewish interpretations of divine beings while exalting Christ as Lord of all. The meticulous preservation of the Masoretic Text ensured its consistency over centuries, but earlier witnesses like the DSS reveal legitimate textual variants. These are not evidence of corruption but of theological nuance. The interplay between the DSS, LXX, and MT shows a dynamic preservation process, overseen by God to communicate His truth effectively. Deuteronomy 32:8, whether read as "sons of God" or "children of Israel," ultimately points to God’s justice, sovereignty, and His governance over both nations and spiritual realms.

[@dionholland2278]

Hosea and Isaiah was telling the Israelites that animal sacrifice doesn't please the lord but the fruits of the lips means fruit of knowledge of good of praising and prays to the lord and fruits of the lips of knowledge of evil of confessions and repentance of sins. At the time of Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac the light bearer cherub of Him the satan angel knowledge of fruit of evil saw a moment of lack in faith of Abraham with Gods power over life and death and he would have resurrected Isaac as he did yeshua. The satan tested Abraham's faith by suggesting to Abraham that a animal sacrifice would be sufficient to please the lord. Therefore a animal sacrifice worship was formed. The millennium temple of Ezekiel's in the wilderness of the mountains of Judea will be two altars of moshiach yeshua the high priest and moshiach Ben David the king of the south of house of judah between the dead sea and Mediterranean Sea with the new Jerusalem 72km ×72km of unwalled communities of peace of Israelites from out of the Palestinians and Israelites from out of the jews and other lost Israelites from out of many cultures and religions around the world that moshiach yeshua shall like a thief go through the air and snatch them away and gather them into the new Jerusalem and 9 cities of refuge that will be God's storehouse. The altar in front of the temple of moshiach ben david the king of house of judah will be where the written down offerings confessions for repentance ( fruit of the lips of knowledge of evil) shall burn day and night 7days. The altar of moshiach yeshua the high priest is front of God's throne and dwelling place on earth in holy of holies is where the written down prays of healing miracles ( fruit of the lips of the knowledge of good) is burnt day and night 7days. These will be twin pillars of smoke by day and pillars of fire by night guilding the Israelites and gentiles in the wilderness of gods mountain mt Zion herodion. 144,000 ( 12,000 from each tribe) priests of the kingdom shall go out over the world and gather these written fruits of the lips to offer up to God at the altars of the temple in the wilderness of Judea of Ezekiel's temple.

[@df2dot]

dead sea scrolls and Septuagint are heretical texts, they are missing or add ons that diverge from the word of God. 18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Revelation 22:18-19 “Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” Psalms 12:7

[@MrSeedi76]

You do realize that what you quote is in revelation? A text that has nothing to do with the LXX.

[@somosisraelencristo]

God bless you. ✝️

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

@@somosisraelencristo you too!

[@revcanada2147]

But what does the King James say? 😂😊

[@markjeffries7150]

The Old Testament of the KJV was translated primarily from the Masoretic Text, specifically the Ben Chayyim edition of the Hebrew Bible published by Daniel Bomberg in 1525. This text is also known as the Second Rabbinic Bible and was the most authoritative Hebrew text available to the translators. The translators also consulted: - The Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Old Testament dating to around the 3rd-2nd centuries BCE), particularly for passages where the Hebrew text was unclear. - The Latin Vulgate (St. Jerome's translation, completed in 405 CE), which was a standard reference in Christian theology at the time. - Other ancient versions, including the Syriac Peshitta, Targums (Aramaic paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible), and occasionally the Samaritan Pentateuch.

[@Curtis-qk2bx]

Does all of this mean we don't have an accurate English translation? This is so complicated why bother with reading the Bible?

[@somosisraelencristo]

2000 years after... impossible to trust in(all) men. God reveals the truth.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

This are mostly trivial matters. 3 bulls or a year old bull. Things like that. For the most part, there is large agreement. But I’ll try to do a whole video explaining why a person need to be overly worked up about these matters. To me it’s fascinating, not troubling in the least.

[@Curtis-qk2bx]

Is it not possible to just have the word of God without all this complicated stuff. I sometimes want to throw my hands and give up because its to much for me.

[@TheBiblicalRecord]

Don't give up! It'll be well worth the effort to see this issue to it's conclusion. The sweetest fruit comes from the hardest struggles - the harder it seems, the more pleasant the results. Follow hard in His will and I'll be praying for you!

[@MrSeedi76]

As someone with a theology degree and knowledge in Greek I wouldn't worry too much. My fall back Bible in English is still the KJV. Not because I'm KJV only or something but simply because I still consider it one of the best. Many modern translations insert modern words and thereby concepts into the text that were utterly foreign to the people who wrote those texts. Translation is tricky. Especially when you're dealing with old texts. But the essence of the teachings of Jesus doesn't change and can be taken from most modern translations. I'm German and the German translations I prefer are the older Luther versions like the one from 1912 or even the original 1545 version with modern spelling. Unfortunately I haven't found many English translations that actually would be able to replace the KJV for me. But I still have some versions on my "to buy" list 😊. I definitely need to work on my Greek however as it became a bit rusty over time.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Hey brother, I find these tiny nuances and manuscript differences absolutely fascinating. That said, I want to make it clear that these differences should never become a stumbling block. They have no bearing on matters of salvation. In fact, I see them as evidence of God’s providence. They demonstrate that no single group had centralized control over the text, allowing it to be copied freely and independently. Remarkably, despite this, the LXX and the Hebrew texts align closely in most cases. I’ll try to do a video to get past some of the complicated stuff.

[@stardel]

Tons of Black History being distributed to the world by the Gentiles.😢😢😢

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

I don’t know what this means. Sorry

[@somosisraelencristo]

By the Gentiles? Better said by Satan's synagoge.

[@karldegroot1800]

ofcóurse there are 'agreements' since the same evil seed produced the corrupt Septuagint as well as the dead sea drivel : Esau in his evil alexandrian Sanhedrin 240 BC. And he especially hated Isaiah : totally corrupted & sections cut-out and moved , is a heartbreaking mess .

[@Nudnik1]

The original Septuagint 72 rabbis were FORCED to translate into koine Greek was only Genesis to Deuteronomy not the rest of Tankah Hebrew bible. Apostates Apikoras Hellenistic Greeks later translate into Greek the Lxx . Church father Origen put together the Christian "Old testament" using hexapla method using parts of Hebrew Aramaic Greek etc . The Christian Old testament is very different than the original Hebrew scripture Tanakh. There are hundreds of variant versions of the Christian bibles none used match the earliest original koine Greek new testament or Hebrew sources. There is only one Orthodox Tankah bible in history all match word for word from Yemen to Russia verify that. תודה רבה שלום