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

Septuagint: In my previous video, we uncovered some jaw-dropping agreements between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint, sparking widespread interest and discussion. Little did I know, that was only the beginning. Since then, I've discovered over 72 additional alignments-minor on their own but extraordinary when viewed together. These connections reveal a stunning pattern that reshapes how we understand the relationship between these ancient texts.
In this video, we'll explore standout examples that illuminate this pattern, including a variant in 1 Samuel 1:24 that changed how I've viewed a familiar verse for years. We'll also dive into fascinating details from Isaiah 49:17 and Hosea 14:2, showing how the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint often converge against the Masoretic Text, sometimes in ways that modern translations reflect.
Stay with me as I reveal the entire list of alignments and share how you can download it for FREE. These variants might seem small, but they collectively point to something big. Let's dive in and uncover the hidden gems in the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls!
Helpful book on the LXX: amzn.to/4eRFcVS
Video on Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint: • Dead Sea Scrolls: The ...
To find out which is more reliable the Hebrew Bible or LXX click here: • The Ultimate Showdown!...
If you have already signed up for my mailing list you will find a link for the document mentioned in my video in your inbox.
My landing page: mailchi.mp/2f8...

[@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.)

[@joeythemonk007]

Spot on. Well said. This has been my thoughts for a long time. Glad to hear it said by others.

[@markdagley4213]

@@RichardSpeights All translating involves interpreting, since words have different multiple means in different languages. Martin Luther got his 'revelation/insight/break through' while 'on the pot.' (in a 'depression')('in a depressed state')('down in the dumps")('in great distress')('under deep conviction')('at the end of his rope'). Each one having a different nuance. But I do not think he was in an outhouse! Although I do know a fellow who 'met Jesus'(his words), ('got saved', (my interpretation) in a port-a-potty!

[@RichardSpeights]

@@markdagley4213 Well, in Hebrew or in English, ancient and transference are words wholly unrelated. In Judges 9:23, the KJV interpreted spirit of evil into evil spirit, the former a euphemism (metaphoric statement) and the latter a literal being. In Matthew 5:5, Jesus did not say the meek shall inherit the earth (or Earth), which is meaningless drivel. He said something with similar words but with a deep, abiding meaning. (What Jesus actually said (and King David wrote in Psalm 37:11) flies in the face of Catholic ideology, which is the foundation of Catholic doctrine. So, the Catholics (and Church of England) influenced the translators to interpret instead of translate.) Paul did not write the love of money is the root of all evil or all kinds of evil. The translators, wanting to add readability to the text, destroyed his use of the antecedent / proform to turn a passive sentence into a strong one, perverting the text into meaningless, untrue nonsense. The list goes on and on and on and on. Yes, sometimes the translators must work the words to make the original meaning clear to the modern reader. However, language does not change that much. We all base our languages on the same foundational grammar. Interpretation should be limited to the occasional necessity and not become the mainstay of translation. Otherwise, you get the King James Version (and, well, all the other versions of the original texts).

[@PhuManchew]

What he said!

[@williambrewer]

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

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Thanks my friend!

[@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

[@SusanBeaubien]

I do too, but I didn’t come to that conclusion until I watched this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jHqUqoWKeJuefacsi=9jbEHVYe8vlK5bL6

[@tabletalk33]

You are almost certainly right in this. However, it does NOT FOLLOW THAT elevating the MT over the LXX makes sense, primarily for this reason: The MT was compiled BY JEWS (not Christians!) during the Christian era when the Jews would have had ample motive for altering the text in order to exclude Messianic prophecies, thereby denigrating Christ and his Church. The same cannot be said of the GOT (Greek Old Testament), having been compiled by Jews living centuries before the time of the MT who were innocent of such alterations.

[@veneroantonio905]

@tabletalk33 Matthew 2:15 is a quotation from Hosea 11:1 “Out of Egypt I’ve called my Son”, however the Septuagint has “Out of Egypt I’ve called my Children”, whose correct? Here the Septuagint has it incorrect because Matthew 2:15 clearly states Son and not Children,hence I said there’s errors in both the MT and LXX.

[@M.Kingsley-zy7dn]

@@veneroantonio905 Very easily explained when understood with context. Matthew 2:15 is understood as Jesus being called out of Egypt after King Herod the Great wanted to kill the Messiah. Hosea 11:1 Is understood from the LXX "Early in the morning they were cast off, the King of Israel has been cast off; for Israel is a child and I loved Him, and out of Egypt I have called His children." Jacob is earthly and spiritual Israel in the OT- both culminating in Christ Jesus/Jeshua. Genesis 37 Both point to the Messiah of ancient earthly Israel and to the world, to fulfill the old covenant commandments and the new covenant commandments. The only 'special' ones today are those who call Christ Jesus/Yeshua Messiah the true Messiah for the whole world. They are the ones who go into eternal life with God the Father. 1 John 2:22-23 No other way!

[@tarafox6618]

​@@tabletalk33the question is, which 'jews'. Pharisees, Saducees, or Zadokite priesthood at qumran.

[@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

[@carlbruno5181]

Exceent esposition. My question for the past few decades has been who is responsibe for the Masoretic usurpation of the Septuagint, the very underining authority for the N.. T. writers? Sorry for the missing 'etter on my computer.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

@@carlbruno5181 I think Jerome is mostly responsible for the shift.

[@tbishop4961]

Is it safe to say that you don't think jesus spoke kjv English?

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

@@tbishop4961 - 🤣 If the KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it's good enough for me! 🤣

[@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

[@mwdiers]

@@Durnyful A majority then, certainly. But this is not the claim being made. Since the vulgate had become the bible of the western church by the 5th century, one can trace the use of the MT vs the LXX by the spread of western Christianity. Thus to say that the MT was only considered the chief source in the last 500 years is just inaccurate. The East / West split regarding the LXX / MT remains to this day. As for myself, I side with Augustine contra Jerome.

[@carlbruno5181]

Who argued for the supremacy and authority over the Septuagint. Have not been abe to find any imformation of that. Sha we say "An enemy hath done this?"

[@edbaker7490]

I found a channel 'follow the lamb today' that uses the Septuagint with the prophecies and its amazing how clear Scripture is now.

[@SethEdwards-hq9pm]

We should compare the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Masoretic text along with the Dead Sea Scrolls to discern the original text.

[@1LSWilliam]

This method cannot guarantee that we can ever recover the Original Biblical TEXT. We only can speak of PROBABILITIES! PLEASE!

[@Yaliveloeerah]

@@1LSWilliam There is only one unchanged original text and it is the one God's chosen people have had for millenia. It is Hebrew and never did change.

[@spartanastas]

@@Yaliveloeerah god’s chosen people are the ones who translated the original Hebrew text to Greek in the Septuagint version. 70 different scribes translated the text and all of them were identical. Tell me that isn’t God’s work! Israel are God’s people which are now the Church.

[@SpeculativeEschatologist]

My favorite example is sited by James in Acts 15 as a prophecy from Amos 9 that was being fulfilled. KJV of Amos 9 being sued by James reads completely different from Septuagint. James followed Septuagint.

[@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?

[@Yaliveloeerah]

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

[@RepairerOfthebreach-zf5th]

Even if council of jamnia wasn't canonical by the 2nd century in tossefta 2 the rabbis made their canon saying which they considered sacred or not.. didn't include ecclesiastes or Sirach etc. Some say it's based upon that.. st Justin Martyr talks about different readings like jeremiah 11:19, the wood will be upon His bread in the Greek for example

[@RepairerOfthebreach-zf5th]

But dead sea scrolls support MT.. there is 1 scroll of jer 11:19. So definitely wasn't changed after Christ, same with psalm 22;16 you can find bith readings, targum has like a lion like MT but rest agree with lxx.. also hebrew it's a noun translations it's a verb.. and it's acrostic with a sword... in verse 21 I think. Again they are 2 readings in hebrew with 8 masoretic texts saying kaaru(dug out) like lxx or a body has prepared vs my ears you have opened.. Greek has both versions.. so I think we need to read both , even the pshitta

[@fyrerayne8882]

One of the most important ones, particularly for witnessing to Jews, is "pierced" vs. "like a lion" in Psalm 22:16

[@r.p.8179]

Stehen Hackett, Thank you for your intelligent and balanced approach to the Scriptures! Keep up your careful analyses of the sacred and imperishable Word of the Living God!

[@joannc147]

Excellent! I’ve so much to learn…

[@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.

[@DS-ru6rj]

Great work. I like your channel!

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Thanks!

[@isaacstropes3091]

Thanks for all the great work! I use Logos, can I ask what specific resources you are using to compare the Septuagint and Dead Sea scrolls. I would love to learn to do this kind of comparison! I’m currently starting to learn Greek and love studying the Bible. Thanks for any recommendations!

[@TheBiblicalRecord]

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting!

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Thanks for watching!

[@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

[@bereanborn888]

@@makarov138other than the first rebuild was only Hebrew skill and labour. Many claim “the street and wall..or moat” to justify the timing to the triumphant entry…rather than the beginning of Jesus ministry.

[@j7489]

Every messianic prophecy had an immediate and distant fulfillment

[@Resist.Tyranny]

@@makarov138 That is just ignorant.

[@malcolmdavid722]

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

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Thanks for your encouragement!

[@kathrynleaser5093]

An interesting video for an advanced biblical scholar. Your points were interesting, however , with out more knowledge of the various texts I was lost . Ill keep the video and revist it for the future . Thank you.

[@todddavidmoore]

Thanks for the pdf from your landing page. BTW - Add this to the list of witnesses: apparently Josephus version of 2Sam 4 also agreed with the LXX against the MT. Josephus' version is recorded in Ant. 7.46-52. I also checked the Antiochene text of the Greek Bible ("El texto Antioqueno de la biblia griega") and that text also reads the same as Rahlfs in 2Sam 4:1.

[@PhuManchew]

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

[@carlbruno5181]

What's it doing there and who's responsibe? I now now use the GREEK ORTHODOX STUDY BIBE.. Do we have any names of those who thought the Masoretic Text was better? I thinkk we've been hoodwinked or bamboozed. Sorry my 'etter is not working. Sha we say "An enemy hath done this?"

[@PhuManchew]

@@carlbruno5181 The Catholic Church prefers the MT. The MAJORITY of OT quotations and allusions in the NT are from the LXX.

[@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.

[@Yaliveloeerah]

Greek texts are NOT reliable. That is the reality. It is like dropping a clean white sheet in mud and expecting it to remain clean.

[@Resist.Tyranny]

Here is a question for all of you who care about manuscript variation, textual accuracy, etc. I started a work years ago and ran out of time to complete, on a "consistent" version. The core text was started from the KJV. Then, using all the places the NT quoted the OT, I began generating Hebrew/Greek equivalent words list. Obviously deep Septuagint use and comparison here would be good, but I did not get that far at the time. The end product was to be using the list to apply the words consistently across New & Old testament, so the reader(scholar or serious student) would always know what original word was being used WITHOUT having to be able to read Greek or Hebrew. For example: OT KJV translates sheol into grave, hell and pit. The NT uses hades as the equivalent. So EVERY time hades or sheol appears in the original text it would be translated hell. Whether it is that or Elohim/Theos or other word pairing in Grk/Hbr, it would be consistently rendered. Then ideally, there would be added extensive bible notes about manuscript variations. Then add all your typical cross references, and notes where NT quotes OT and such. So, the question is, what do you think of the concept? Obviously, it would not be the translation for someone who is primarily interested in ease of reading, because for consistency ease would sometimes be sacrificed. But since this audience would likely be the intended audience of such a translation, I would like to hear your thoughts.

[@sorenpx]

It seems the problem you would run into with consistent translation of words is that of semantic range. A word's meaning can change depending on context.

[@Resist.Tyranny]

@@sorenpx Thank you for your thoughts. That really hasn't been my experience with Hebrew and Greek. They tend to modify the actual word so that it comes up with a different diacritical or letter(s), and a different Strong's number.

[@Papasquatch73]

2 Sam 4:1 Thoughts as you requested in the video. In considering 2 Samuel 4:1, I find myself uncertain as to which interpretation is correct; it truly could go either way depending on the focus. Until now, I had not given this passage much attention, but the exercise has prompted me to reflect on the nature of biblical inerrancy and its implications. I understand inerrancy to mean that the perfect message of Scripture will always be preserved for the audience to whom it is addressed. This perspective recognizes that while all Scripture is inspired and valuable, it was not originally written to us, even though it is undeniably for us. Consequently, not every detail or passage directly pertains to our current context or questions. This distinction reminds us to approach Scripture with humility, striving to discern the intent and purpose behind each text as it was delivered to its original audience. At the same time, we must hold fast to the timeless truths and principles that transcend the historical and cultural boundaries of the biblical text, remaining relevant to us today. Supporting text Textual Traditions Supporting "Ish-bosheth": 1. Masoretic Text (MT) - The standard Hebrew text used in Jewish tradition. 2. Syriac Peshitta - An early translation into Syriac based on the Hebrew tradition. 3. Targum Jonathan - Aramaic paraphrases of the Hebrew Scriptures that follow the MT. Targum Onkelos and argum Pseudo-Jonathan only covers the Torah. Talmud/Midrash: These Jewish commentaries do not directly reference this verse. Textual Traditions Supporting "Mephibosheth": 1. Septuagint (LXX) - The Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, which reflects a textual variant. 2. Old Latin Versions - Translations derived from the Septuagint, retaining the LXX reading of "Mephibosheth." 3. Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) - Some DSS fragments reflect the LXX reading of "Mephibosheth," though this is not consistent across all DSS manuscripts. Comparison of the Two: Ish-bosheth: When Ish-bosheth, Saul's son and a figurehead ruler over Israel, heard of Abner’s death at Hebron, his courage failed, and all Israel was gripped with dismay. Ish-bosheth had relied entirely on Abner’s strength and political maneuvering to sustain his fragile claim to the throne. The news of Abner’s assassination left him exposed, vulnerable, and unable to assert any semblance of leadership. The nation, sensing this power vacuum, became paralyzed by uncertainty and fear of what might come next. Tone and Meaning: Tone: Politically charged and tense. It highlights Ish-bosheth’s weakness and dependency, reflecting a failing dynasty. 1. Meaning: The narrative underscores the inevitability of Saul’s house collapsing, paving the way for David’s rise. Ish-bosheth is portrayed as a tragic, ineffectual figure whose reign was always doomed because it lacked divine approval. 2. Ish-bosheth’s story places the focus on the political and public failure of Saul’s line. It portrays David's rise as a divinely ordained correction of weak and illegitimate leadership. Mephibosheth: When Mephibosheth, Saul's son and grandson of the once-mighty king, heard of Abner’s death at Hebron, his hands grew weak, and all the men of Israel were filled with anxiety. Mephibosheth, who had already suffered from physical disability and lived in obscurity, reacted not as a political leader but as a symbol of Saul’s house’s impotence. The death of Abner, the last protector of his family’s legacy, marked the final blow to any hope of the dynasty's restoration. Israel, seeing the complete collapse of Saul’s line, trembled at the uncertainty of the future. Tone and Meaning: Tone: Personal and tragic. It shifts focus from political instability to familial and personal suffering. 1. Meaning: The narrative evokes pity for Mephibosheth, whose life symbolizes the complete unraveling of Saul’s dynasty. It emphasizes human frailty and the consequences of divine judgment on a fallen house. 2. Mephibosheth’s story emphasizes the personal and familial tragedy of Saul’s household, presenting a more sympathetic view of those left behind in the wake of God’s judgment and David’s ascension.\ The Septuagint (LXX): A Providential Bridge Between Hebrew Revelation and Greek Culture The Septuagint (LXX) was far more than a mere translation for non-Hebrew-speaking Jews; it stood at the crossroads of Hebrew revelation and Greek intellectual rigor, playing a transformative role in the transmission of divine truth. By rendering the Hebrew Scriptures into Koine Greek, God orchestrated a providential meeting of cultures, enabling both Jews and Gentiles to engage deeply with the truths of the Hebrew Bible through the precision and accessibility of the Greek language. This translation emerged during a period of vibrant Hellenistic Judaism, producing significant works like 1 Enoch and Jubilees in Greek. These writings reflect an intricate intermingling of Greek philosophical thought with Hebrew theology, a process I term Conceptual Amalgamation-the blending of distinct theological and philosophical frameworks into a cohesive whole. This synthesis allowed for theological concepts such as justice (dikaiosynē), grace (charis), and covenant (diathēkē) to be articulated with precision, reaching audiences in both Jewish and Greco-Roman contexts. The translation of the Scriptures into Greek also marked a critical moment of Theological Consolidation-the unification of fragmented theological ideas into a more cohesive and accessible narrative. The Septuagint provided a unified scriptural framework that could resonate within the cultural and intellectual environment of the Hellenistic world. By synthesizing Hebrew revelation with Greek linguistic precision, it prepared the way for the universal message of the gospel. Greek Influence and Apostolic Ministry The providential influence of Greek culture is evident in the ministry of the Apostle Paul. As a Pharisee steeped in Hebrew theology and simultaneously trained in Greek rhetorical traditions, Paul epitomized the fusion of these two worlds. His epistles demonstrate his mastery of Hellenistic rhetorical techniques while remaining rooted in Jewish scriptural traditions. Paul’s reliance on the Septuagint further underscores its central role in spreading the gospel; of the 418 Old Testament quotations in the New Testament, approximately 81% align with the LXX. This dependence reflects both the influence of Greek culture and its alignment with divine preparation. Paul’s ministry highlights how Greek cultural elements facilitated the gospel’s dissemination. For instance, Greek philosophical concepts, such as the Logos (John 1:1), provided a framework to explain Christ’s divine nature to both Jewish and Gentile audiences. The term Memra in Jewish Aramaic traditions, which describes God’s communicative Word, seamlessly integrated into the Greek Logos, illustrating a profound theological and cultural bridge. A Universal Gospel Through Greek Language Had the Scriptures been confined to Hebrew or Aramaic, the gospel’s reach would have been significantly hindered. A Hebrew-only text would have isolated divine revelation within an ethnic boundary, limiting its accessibility to a broader audience. In contrast, the Greek language’s universality during the Hellenistic era allowed for the rapid spread of Christian teaching. The LXX’s creation and adoption reflect God’s providential preparation, aligning language, culture, and theology to ensure that the gospel resonated across the cultural and intellectual boundaries of the Greco-Roman world. The Septuagint’s development demonstrates a divine strategy of Theological Consolidation and Conceptual Amalgamation, integrating diverse theological ideas and cultural frameworks into a cohesive narrative. This process not only preserved the depth of Hebrew theology but also adapted it for engagement with the broader Hellenistic world. It illustrates how God sovereignly aligned the cultural and linguistic conditions of the ancient world to prepare it for the universal proclamation of the gospel. In the Septuagint, we see the perfect melding of Hebrew truths and Greek expression-a testament to God’s wisdom in ensuring the preservation and dissemination of His Word for all people and all times. The LXX remains a pivotal example of how divine truth transcends cultural and linguistic barriers, preparing the world for the transformative message of Christ.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Thanks for the thought provoking comment. I really appreciate you engaging so deeply with this content!

[@flindersmj]

Christ said "other sheep I have which are not of this fold, they also I must bring". Wouldn't that statement also imply that God taught other cultures personally, and thus transcend cultural and linguistic barriers through his personal visitation?

[@michaelsullivan6868]

Have you considered the LXX use of kairos (the appointed time” in Deut. 32:35; Dan. 9:26-27; 12:4; Joel 3:1? When the appointed time would come the fulfillment would be “near” and the NT authors (like the Dead Sea Scrolls), correctly see fulfillment coming “near” in AD 70. I’m writing a book on Deut. 32.

[@davidch880]

The LXX was renowned as the most accurate translation of the Paleo-Hebrew temple scrolls at the time. The DSS tend to prove that in my opinion. To claim the MT is superior in accuracy to the LXX, DSS &/or Syriac renditions is in my opinion incorrect, for reasons I have outlined elsewhere in this thread.

[@trabob4438]

A translation is never more accurate than the original, also the Masoretic text is not a translation it is the masorites adding the vowels and punctuation to the already text.

[@davidch880]

@@trabob4438 Yes, the MT is Hebrew, but it's NOT the original temple scrolls. The MT was a rewrite of the temple scrolls from memory and also from a Pharisaic point of view by Rabbi Akiva ben Yoseph (C. 50 - 150 AD) because the original temple scrolls were destroyed along with the temple in 70 AD. This is why there are notable differences between the LXX and the MT. The reasoning of the Pharisees was to denounce the reality of Jesus/Yeshua being the true Messiah. The reason for their knocking 100 years each off the begetting ages of the pre and post-flood patriarchs was to enable them to present Shem as Melchizedek, which would be impossible according to the LXX timeline. All this to deny the claim in Hebrews (NT) that Jesus/Yeshua is a priest of the order of Melchizedek. If one researches, it correctly one will find that all the differences between the LXX and the MT are likewise specifically to deny the deity and Messiahship of Jesus/Yeshua.

[@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.

[@JoseGarza-n5b]

Insightful. Thanks

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Thanks so much!

[@Rhmadz-s8l]

📙THE GOSPEL OF THE WORD OF ALMIGHTY GOD "the last age is the Age of the Kingdom or Word that Christ brought to purify man" Only Those Who Have Experienced God's WORK Really Believe in God Almighty God said Although many people believe in God, few understand what the MEANING of FAITH in GOD is WHAT they MUST DO to FOLLOW GOD'S HEART. This is because, ALTHOUGH people KNOW very well the WORD "God" and phrases like "the work of God," "they DO NOT KNOW GOD, much less do they KNOW His WORK.🙏 No wonder, then, that all those who do not know God hold a confused belief. People are not serious about their belief in God because belief in God is too unknown, too strange for them. In this way, they cannot meet God's demands. In other words, then they are not fit for God's use, much less can they fulfill God's will. "Belief in God" MEANS BELIEF that God exists; this is the simplest understanding of faith in God. 🔴 Additionally, BELIEVING THERE IS A GOD IS NOT THE SAME AS TRUE BELIEF in GOD; BUT, this is a KIND OF SIMPLE FAITH with STRONG RELIGIOUS MEANINGS. TRUE FAITH in GOD MEANS EXPERIENCE the WORDS and ACTIONS of GOD based on a BELIEF that GOD has the HAND of POWER over ALL THINGS. That way you will be FREED from your BAD DISPOSITION, WILL FULFILL what GOD desires and KNOW God. Only THROUGH such a journey can you be said to believe in God. However, people often see belief in God as something very simple and insignificant. The belief of such people is meaningless and will never gain God's approval, because they are walking the wrong path. Today, there are still those who believe in God through letters, in empty doctrines. They did not realize that their belief in God had no substance and that they could not gain God's approval and yet they prayed for peace and sufficient grace from God. We must stop and ask ourselves: Could believing in God really be the easiest thing on earth? Does believing in God only mean receiving many graces from God? 🔴 Can people who believe in God but do not know Him, and believe in God but oppose Him, really be able to fulfill what God desires? GOD and MAN CANNOT be said to be equal. His substance and His work are the most unfathomable and unfathomable to man. 🙏 IF GOD DOESN'T FORGIVELY DO HIS WORK and SPEAK HIS WORDS in the WORLD of man, then man will never understand the WILL of GOD, and thus, even those who dedicate their whole lives to God will not may attain Hisconsent. Without God's work, no matter how good man does, it will be ignored, because GOD'S THOUGHTS will ALWAYS be HIGHER than man's thoughts, and GOD'S WISDOM IS NOT. HUMAN BEINGS. And so I say those who "read" GOD and His WORK are useless, they are all arrogant and ignorant. Man should not interpret God's work; moreover, man cannot interpret God's work. In God's eyes, man is lesser than an ant, so how can man dig into God's work? Those who keep saying, "God doesn't work this way or that way" or "God is this way or that way"----aren't they all arrogant? 🙏 We MUST ALL KNOW that PEOPLE, who are of the FLESH, are ALL CORRUPTED BY SATAN. It is their nature to oppose God, and they are not equal to God, much less can they offer advice for God's work. HOW GOD GUIDES PEOPLE IS TO BE DONE BY GOD HIMSELF. 🔴🙏 MAN SHOULD BE SUBJECTED, and should not have such and such a view, ALTHOUGH MAN is only DUST. Since we are trying to find God, we should not single out our understanding of God's work for God's consideration, much less should we use our evil dispositions to deliberately try to oppose God's work. Wouldn't that make us ANTICHRISTS? HOW can such people say they believe in God? Since we believe that there is a God, and since we desire to satisfy----Him and SEE Him, we MUST FIND THE WAY OF TRUTH, and MUST FIND a way to be ACCORDING to God. We should not persist in opposing God, what good can such actions produce? 🙏 From "The WORD Appears in the Flesh" holy book This prophecy was given actual meaning in (John 1:1,14 The Word / The Word Became Man). "When he began the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God." .. "The word became man and He dwelt among us. ... (Revelation 18:9,13) The "Savior" came already in 1991 like a thief, so He prepared us then to be like those waiting for the return of his Lord so that when he comes and "knocks" we can immediately open the door. He came to "save" us by purifying with His Word the kingdom He brought down to earth with His holy name and His totality engraved on, "THE CHURCH OF ALMIGHTY GOD" 💐 This is the fulfillment of "The Letter to the Church of Philadelphia" (Revelation 3:12)"The one who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will not be removed from it forever. I will engrave on him the NAME of my God, and the name of the CITY of my God, the NEW JERUSALEM that will come down from HEAVEN to My God. I will also engrave my NEW NAME on him." ... And in (Matthew 16:18-19) "And I say to you, you are Peter, and UNDER this rock I will BUILD my CHURCH, and not the power of death will prevail over him. I will give YOU the KEY to the kingdom of heaven: what you forbid on earth you will forbid in heaven and what you allow on earth it will be allowed in heaven." ... The fulfillment of His return is everything recorded in the great book of Revelation (such as these important ones, The Seals, The Bowls of God's Wrath, The Millennium, and The New Heavens and New Earth.) This is the beginning of A Thousand Years of Gathering Spirits that have becomeperfect because of His Word, and the beginning of the 144,000 (Revelation 14:3-4) "The Song of the Redeemed") from the twelve tribes of Israel who faithfully serve the Lamb, the first offerings until the number of 200,000,000 became perfect. (Revelation 6:10-11 and 9:16 "The Seals"). ... Because the Lamb in the middle of the THRONE will be their PASTOR .... (Revelation 7:17)💐

[@sandyhardy3419]

The Holy Spirit alone can be trusted… Thank you for this breakdown

[@Resist.Tyranny]

Not sure how that statement is at all helpful or meaningful. 2 Pe 3: " 15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." It seems the Berean thing to do based on this passage is that with "hard to understand" scriptural teaching, is to "grow in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord" or Acts 17:11 "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." Seems a bit different from what seem like throw your hands up in the air in defeat- "the holy spirit alone can be trusted".

[@Randy-v9x]

Thank you! I believe that each step taken toward the most accurate and faithful to the original Holy Spirit-Breathed Word of GOD is a step taken toward a more true and faithful love-walk with HIM. Since GOD is perfect, all diligence should be applied toward this end. Thanks again for your diligent work.

[@xberzerkk]

You should look into the differences between the LXX and the MT when it comes to the book of Esther. To me, it's pretty obvious which text is correct and which one was purposely manipulated.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

The prologue alone in the LXX is pretty dynamic, right? I led a group through the Greek text several months back.

[@xberzerkk]

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Yes, it's incredible. I firmly believe that, and particularly the prayers of Esther and Mordecai, were purposely removed as the MT scribes did not want the text to show it's possible for individuals, other than prophets, to have a personal relationship with God. This idea would support Christianity rather than the religion of the MT scribes.

[@markreynolds6715]

Psalm 51:18-19 were added later. They completely contradict the previous verses and the history of when it was written.

[@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.

[@kellymontgomery1293]

Excellent! Thank you. I suspect the Essenes are far more important than what they get credit for. It is an ongoing mystery to me why they are never mentioned in the NT.

[@matthayes533]

Thank you so much for your work. On your "Three-fold-chord analogy" - I like it, but it makes me wonder why we, knowing what we know, still place the MT so high in our minds that we look for 3 witnesses to really feel good about not using it. I mean Jesus, and literally everyone in the first century church used the Septuagint and no one ever said there was a problem with it. Is Church tradition that hard for us to overcome? I'm also glad you pointed out that the LSB, my new translation of choice, leans on the Septuagint more than the NASB. I am really surprised we don't have a modern translation that relies more on the Septuagint for it's old testament text.

[@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.

[@carlbruno5181]

Speaking of Stephen, the indictment of Saint Stephen in Acts is a tota use of the Greek O.T. Bibe, not a shred of what might be ater caed the Masoretic Text.

[@Resist.Tyranny]

Logos Bible software has the full 6 volume unabridged set available

[@solonkazos1379]

as time goes forward it dawns on people that all the New Testament quotes of the OT come from the Septuagint. once told this the whole NT takes on a deeper meaning. the Greek influence was greater than the Jewish in as far as OT textual reading was going on. this is why we don't even see a Hebrew canon until about 100 AD. everyone was using the Greek at the time.

[@tabletalk33]

Hebrew was a dead language by that time, and even before the NT period. That's why we have a Greek OT, and why we have a Greek NT.

[@solonkazos1379]

@@tabletalk33 i think that is what i was saying. everyone spoke Greek. so it just makes sense that the OT and NT would come to us in Greek.

[@johnuitdeflesch3593]

Many perhaps, but not all.

[@solonkazos1379]

@@johnuitdeflesch3593 i'll refine my statement. all the NT quotes come from the Greek. even the ones from extra Biblical sources. so Septuagint plus a few other Greek books.

[@johnuitdeflesch3593]

@@solonkazos1379 there are some quotes that have the Hebrew text as their source. Not the LXX.

[@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.

[@vlatter9537]

Where is this link?

[@KarlsKronicles]

Pretty cool stuff. Just downloaded the paper.

[@hannahbaker3080]

The Septuagint vs masoretic texts also influence the Old Testament canon, the Old Testament canon of all Christians from Christ to the reformation were much longer than after the reformation.

[@mattpalsky2353]

In light of the Christmas season I would love to see your take on these text comparisons to Isaiah 9!

[@biancarandolph2480]

🔴Christmas is Pagan and is not of our heavenly father Yahuah it is the 🔴big deception that this world has fooled us into thinking is a good thing to do and Christmas wasn't about our messiah Yahusha ha'Mashyakh it was about the Sun God diety and it was actually a combination of Christianity and pagans getting together and combining their traditions into one. 🧶It was Christ Mass a mass crowd of people having wild orgy's in the street sacrificing babies etc I know it may be strange to hear this info if you didn't know this before , but it's true Christmas is not of Yahuah at all and it was never about our messiah Yahusha the tradition was called Saturnalia you can research that. . The other popular holidays in the land is also pagan and has demonic origins , I pray that you reading me explain this to you ,helps you want to dig more into the history of how Christmas came about. But even though these holidays are false and pagan Yahuah does have his own holidays that are real and supposed to be followed...it's called Holydays a few of them are the feast of tarbernacle The day of attonment Feast of trumpets etc. it's sad that not a single bible based holiday is celebrated publicly in a big way in the world but every man made horrible holiday is all up in the world and widely celebrated. The truth is that 🛑The truth & what's right is often hidden & not popular but what's False& bad is more popular.

[@markschuebel6653]

What do you expect form catholic translation of kjv

[@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).

[@joycedecker6880]

This is my first time on this site, but I've been researching Matthew24:36 in KJV, which DOES NOT include "not even the Son". However the KJV DOES include it in Mark 13:32. Most newer "translations" have it in both places. This has always bothered me because it conflicts with our LORD's own testimony about Himself, that He is One with the Father. Obviously God knows when His return will be. Every time the Jews picked up stones to stone Him it was because He claimed to be God. And, He was the Angel of the LORD in the OT. Do you see the diety of Christ in the OT, fulfilled in the New, as proof that these verses have been tampered with?

[@ejames3183]

To me, there is no doubt that the original Hebrew text has been lost. That text was certainly used by the Judahite scribes in the translation they did for Ptolemy Philadelphus. I suspect that, during the days of Herod the Edomite, those Hebrew scriptures were handed over to the Pharisees. It was the descendants of these Pharisees who had the motivation to erase from the original Hebrew as many verses as possible that refer to Jesus as the Messiah. The result of that agenda is known as the Masoretic Text. Since the KJV is based on the MT, it cannot possibly be inerrant. All Christians should be aware of this. -- Eli

[@josephholliman6006]

And yet the NASB For your number 3 references a three-year old bull which is similar to the Septuagint, but I expect differences as the NASB uses the Masoretic text and not the Septuagint. Right?

[@SusanBeaubien]

The link you dropped does not work.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

I’ve tried it. It seems to work for me. You can email me directly if you are still having trouble.

[@tuvoca825]

What is interesting is how the DS Scrolls shed light and the diffs you don't see elsewhere. It seems like everyone is quoting Enoch. But not all Enochs are the same... the Ethiopic is different from the Qumran version and the others. But they all preserve some of that record. And it's quoted by Jesus when he says they error not knoing the scirptures, as well as the apostles and extra-biblical hebrew texts and the old testament. It's all over the place... an older book we lost that should be in the Bible in it's original (correct) version, not the corrupted forms.

[@lelivredesrevelations]

Thank you for your research.

[@eliastillery8137]

I’m curious as to if there’s any(forgive my ignorance)record of how many Levites we’re working in the temple at this time? Could any one chime in?

[@TerryChambers7]

I worry more about actually doing and following the commands and examples in the version I use most. Very few actually obey and follow the version their manuscript studies have led them to choose.

[@munbruk]

So what happened? Who corrupted the texts?

[@somosisraelencristo]

Satan's synagoge

[@Yaliveloeerah]

@@somosisraelencristo Satan synagogue does not exist. But he has many churches.

[@somosisraelencristo]

@@Yaliveloeerah "I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou are rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan." Rev 2.9 El que tenga oídos, oiga.

[@littlefishbigmountain]

@@Yaliveloeerah Revelation 2:9, 3:9

[@Yaliveloeerah]

@@littlefishbigmountain Perfect example of translators' bias. Every other time that word is used it is translated as church.

[@josephholliman6006]

For your number 3, the Lexham English Septuagint, in 1 Kingdoms as there is no 1 and 2 Samual, refers to a three year old calf.

[@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

[@markdagley4213]

Concerning the ' Mephiboseth, Saul's son', how are we to view the correction? You point out the context appears to be Ish-bosheth. Seems likely! (But I believe, no manuscript has Ish-bosheth in vs. 1, does it?) What text did the MT use to make their text? My question would be, did the MT 'correct' their text because of the context? (Did MT use a DDS 'descendant' and went about, for whatever reason, 'correcting it'?) Is taking what appears to be a 'corrected' text a safe procedure? What text did the Dead Sea Scrolls get their version from. Is it more likely that the copiers of the DSS 'corrected' the text to read ' Mephiboseth, Saul's son', when the version they were copying from had just, "Saul's son". Not likely! It does appear that the LXX was not making a 'correction, but were following the DDS or its antecedent. (That would be a plus! They were actually translating, not 'correcting' based on context)! Isn't it more likely that the MT changed 'Mephiboseth, Saul's son' to "the son of Saul", by just omitting the name, rather than the other way around? The argument could be made that the 'original' text had it wrong; it was incorrect. And 'we' should, using the context, 'correct' the text. Is that a good procedure, is my question? Or perhaps the case could be made that the copiers of the DSS used the LXX to 'correct' their copy to add 'Mephiboseth'? Is that likely? I personally would put weight that the original Hebrew text had the ' Mephiboseth, Saul's son'. Of course, this is not conclusive and an earlier manuscript 'find' would need arise to settle it. Of course, if one doesn't believe that the original manuscript could have (seeming??) errors, that would be an issue. But we do not have the autographs, do we? It appears that God did not want it so! We are stuck with copies of copies! I wonder why?

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Well you raise an interesting point. I had considered that as well. My argument only works if you accept biblical inerrancy in the autographs. If one is not committed to that, then they could accept that the original had an error. But how could the author himself mess that up?

[@markdagley4213]

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Perhaps v 1 is an introduction about Mephiboseth, Saul's (grand)son (similar to other genealogies). And the following explains how Mephiboseth came to be feeble in those troubling times for Israel. That would preserve the inerrancy and the knowledgeableness of the author. Such gymnastics have been done! (M's dad was executed in bed and M needed to be gone in a hurry so the accident!) Fun! Fun!

[@knowone-sts2263]

It is a new age of information my friends. History and metaphorical scriptures contain wisdom but it is time for us to embrace change and find our own truth within Let the old books rest so they don't become a crutch and slow your evolution. Peace and love family.

[@SusanBeaubien]

This video will blow your mind: also touches on the variations between LXX and MT and WHY… kzbin.info/www/bejne/jHqUqoWKeJuefacsi=9jbEHVYe8vlK5bL6

[@CarmenRizzo-k8q]

Very good ❤

[@shawnbrewer7]

Great video! I really wish a publisher would modernize the Brenton translation with updated typesetting and annotated footnotes. While the translation itself is solid, the Hendrickson edition is poorly executed. They should use alkaline paper, omit the Greek text, upgrade the font, and include comprehensive footnotes.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

That's a great idea!

[@tabletalk33]

I was wondering when somebody was going to comment on this issue. We really need more LXX OTs around, whether bilingual, Greek only, or English only, with all the study notes and critical apparatus necessary to understand it fully and deeply. An exhaustive concordance would be in order as well. We need a good study Bible which uses an updated translation of the LXX for the OT. The Orthodox Study Bible is ok, but it has flaws which need fixing.

[@bradb2680]

Lexham press has the LES and LES2 thw later of which will be published in a really nice edition by New Rome Press soon.

[@shawnbrewer7]

@ I know! I can't wait!

[@tabletalk33]

@@shawnbrewer7 I can't either! The day of its publication will be glorious, will it not?

[@truthinchrist4427]

Both the Masoretic text and the Septagint are correct where Paul is quoting 75 oppose to the 70 in Exodus. Here is why! Paul and the disciples were clearly reading from the Septuagint scrolls, so both languages of Greek and Aramaic Hebrew were spoken in Judaea with Hellenist (Greek speaking Israelites). The reason both 70 and 75 are correct is because the 75 include the 2 sons of Joseph born in Egypt and their 3 children so 5 in all is how it tallies to 75. The proof is in the Septuagint book of Genesis 46. Both are right depending if your reading the Masoretic text or the LXX Septuagint. LXX Genesis 46:20 And there were sons born to Joseph in the land of Egypt, whom Aseneth, the daughter of Petephres, priest of Heliopolis, bore to him, Manasses and Ephraim. And there were sons born to Manasses, which the Syrian concubine bore to him, Machir. And Machir begot Galaad. And the sons of Ephraim, the brother of Manasses; Sutalaam, and Taam. And the sons of Sutalaam; Edom. LXX Genesis 46:27 And the sons of Joseph, who were born to him in the land of Egypt, were nine souls; all the souls of the house of Jacob who came with Joseph into Egypt, were seventy-five souls.

[@margomoore4527]

What is LLX? I never understood “the calves of our lips”. Glad to see something that is clearer.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

LXX is the Septuagint.

[@ill_EL]

Lxx is 70 , it was written in 70bc

[@francescoaccomando7781]

@@ill_EL 70 was in reference of 70(or 72) elder jews which translated in greek the hebrew scriptures for non hebrew speaking jews at the time of the diaspora (the scattering of the jew population across the known world that spoke the lingua franca which was greek)

[@ill_EL]

@@francescoaccomando7781 nope, LXX is roman numeral for 70, LXXII is 72

[@Non-Assumpsit]

The book of Jubilees Chapter 44:33 And all the souls of Jacob which went into Egypt were seventy souls. These are his children and his children's children, in all seventy, but five died in Egypt before Joseph, and had no children.

[@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

[@ohtaren8052]

As with 1 Samuel, I would think it three bulls because that would make sense. The age of animals are not used except in regards to sacrifice requirements surrounding being in their first year, etc. A bull being of three years age is irrelevant.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

That seems to be a good point to me. This one isn’t as clear cut, but a good example of the kinds of differences you’ll find. Thanks!

[@willscholten1737]

If you read the Preface of the Septuagint, it will tell you only the first 5 books of the OT were translated by the 72 scribes Someone else wrote the rest, I hear, probably Origin. This is big!!!

[@lufknuht5960]

The Legacy standard version is common??? What is the proof for that one?

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Common is a relative term. More common than The Apostles' Bible by Esposito, but less common than the NIV.

[@kellymika4208]

What are your thoughts on the Ethiopian Bible?

[@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.

[@MrzGodivaCouture]

That’s what worries me about the King James Version of the Bible. So much can be lost in translation when interpreting another language

[@frankcraig3734]

I Do not use Drop Box

[@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

[@revv45acp71]

Informative. Subscribed.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Welcome aboard!

[@AnnB-m3f]

Hosea 14 v 2 Take words with you, and return to ADONAI; say to him, "Forgive all guilt, and accept what is good; we will pay instead of bulls [the offerings of] our lips My complete Jewish bible by david stearne. Love this. ❤

[@oneman2dj]

I actually downloaded his list and was quite dismayed that I "think" he missed a very important one. Exodus 12:40, Brenton's has "And the sojourning of the children of Israel, while they sojourned in the land of Egypt and the land of Chanaan, was four hundred and thirty years." Young's has "And the dwelling of the sons of Israel which they have dwelt in Egypt is four hundred and thirty years;" This is why so many think the Israelites were in Egypt for 430 years, yet the Septuagint has them in Egypt AND Canaan for a TOTAL of 430 years--huge difference! Excellent paper, though!

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Thanks for the compliment on the document. I actually didn’t miss this one. The LXX (while it could be right here) does not find support in the Dead Sea Scrolls on this point (at least none that I could find) and so was not included in the document. Blessings!

[@oneman2dj]

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Hmmmm, I thought it did--may have to find it again. It does fit chronologically into the big picture much better than 430 years in Egypt. I believe the Septuagint actually had the Tetragrammaton (which they may have translated "Jehovah," but there was no "J" until a few hundred years ago)?

[@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.

[@Yaliveloeerah]

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews There is not even one translation based on the LXX that is correct.

[@tomjull1106]

NETS

[@Resist.Tyranny]

For what it's worth The Companion Bible by E.W. Bullinger, which is the 1611 AKJV, has the best notes on manuscript variances that I have seen anywhere in a Bible. Yet, unfortunately, it was published before the Dead Sea scrolls were available for his commentary.

[@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.

[@garyhinchman8029]

...for the scholars out there, read the Pseudepigrapha by James Charlesworth....most of it is online.........I love the Ascension of Isaiah........gh

[@Nobody-zq8bl]

Forgeries based on prior civilizations.

[@godsjxwlry]

those vowel points didnt exhist until they intermingled yiddish germanic slavic tones, the khazars became the masorites. I am definately with you on the Dead Sea Scrolls !!! Good work What do you think about the final cosmic war in war scroll 1Q?

[@tyronecox5976]

People saying 22 16 proves everything, Septuagint LXX only goes up to 22 6,that proves the rest are fake,Psalms is OT too.

[@timpczman]

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

[@matthewwood2638]

Stephen quotes the Samaritan Torah.

[@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.

[@charlespackwood2055]

Bible nerds are so cool.

[@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

[@Project-OriginalReiteratedHoly]

Very good! The math in the totals of each tribe doesn´t add up in the Masoretic text. Jesus, Peter, Paul and Stephen quoted from the Septuagint.

[@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.

[@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.

[@ForbiddenHistoryLIVE]

THANK YOU STEPHEN Peace & Enlyghtenment Alwayz Dezert-Owl from OHIO USA Author / Translator / Journalist Polymath / Professional Speaker / Available for Interviews

[@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.

[@truthseeker9070]

@MrSeedi76 in the Greek the nomina sacra still doesn't point out if that is the divine name or the usual kurious title but in the Aramaic it is clear and it point out that the Messiah is indeed the same almighty of the Scriptures, many will not believe it but always remember the "Shema" which is the Greatest of all commandments As for me it is silly to say that the Gospels was originally written in "Greek" remember the Goods news came first to the Jews, not all Jews can speak greek and in fact learning greek is being discourage unless its for political reasons (mostly for elites)

[@rosemarietolentino3218]

I have a copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls. They are almost identical to the modern day Bible you are reading now.

[@garyhinchman8029]

.....simply stated, the Essenes used a version of the Septuagint...........obviously.........Mark and Luke used the Testament of the Twelve Apostles for their source of information to write their gospels.......which modern scholars call the Q source or document......we know it exists for we have a few scraps that survived........John was the scribe for the twelve Apostles of our Lord, and he kept a daily record for 3 years........which became the Testament of the Twelve Apostles......it will come forth in these Latter Days.......gh

[@tbishop4961]

4:21 *you're wrong here* Just an attention getter. I'm not sure you're wrong, per se. But I think it's more than just vowel points. His children is בניך and his builders should be בנאיך. So there would be a missing aleph I'm just a novice and still learning the binyanim (building blocks) which coincidentally sounds alot like my son's name (benjamin). I'm pretty sure the roots are related

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Thank you for your comment! My PDF delves into this topic in more detail than the video. In Isaiah 49:17, the Masoretic Text (MT) reads בָּנָ֑יִךְ (“your sons”), but the critical apparatus of the BHS notes that the Qumran text (Dead Sea Scrolls) reads בֹּנַיִךְ (“your builders”). The emended Masoretic text would point it as בֹּנַיִךְ, which is a vowel-pointing variation. Interestingly, the actual Dead Sea Scrolls reading includes a ו (vav) as the second letter (בוניך), acting as a consonantal marker for the “o” sound. This reflects the fuller orthography often seen in the DSS, which predates the Masoretic vowel system. Ultimately, whether the MT should be understood as “builders” or “sons” depends on how one interprets and points the vowels, making it a fascinating case of textual nuance.

[@tbishop4961]

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews the dead sea scrolls do not use vowel points

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

@@tbishop4961 correct. I did not cite the Dead Sea Scrolls as having vowel points. I cited what the BHS said the Dead Sea Scrolls reading was and then I provided what the actual reading from the DSS was without vowel points. The BHS updated the orthography and provided vowel points for clarity. Hope that makes sense.

[@tbishop4961]

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I see. I misunderstood

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

@@tbishop4961 it’s a bit confusing. Thanks for watching so attentively!

[@amalialovesicecream]

I swear by the Septuagint, it was translated by Jewish scholars for Greek speaking Jews.

[@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 in those instances.

[@Yaliveloeerah]

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews There is but one version of the Hebrew Bible.the actual one as you say.

[@muskyoxes]

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Yeah, dead sea scrolls are one cord, septuagint is another cord, but that's all the cords

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

@@muskyoxes ahh I see what you mean. To me the NT gives a divine stamp of approval on the LXX at that particular point. I’m overstating this a bit, but it’s like God himself is testifying that the LXX got it right on that point. There are times when the NT doesn’t follow the LXX.

[@lufknuht5960]

We have no Septuagint. For $64,000 identify even one document which says on its face: "This is the Septuagint." What we have are 4th century AD Greek Bibles with Old Testaments. So far as I have seen the only dead sea "septuagint" is a couple of tiny fragments (or no more than a few) of Greek OT which also do not say "Septuagint" on them.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

You might like what I say here about that: The Ultimate Showdown!! Septuagint vs Hebrew Bible kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y53JipmGgpqIosk.

[@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.

[@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!

[@1traumacowboy]

The original Septuagint was only the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures.

[@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.