William Lane Craig - Septuagint Vs. Masoretic Genealogies

Click here to view the original video:
• Life & Bio-Diversity -...
Click here to buy Doug Woodward's book "Rebooting the Bible"
www.amazon.com/Rebooting-Bibl...
Click here to view my other video "Were the Pyramids Built Before the Flood?" that deals more with this topic:
• Were the Pyramids Buil...
Click here to read an article that Creation Ministries International wrote on William Lane Craig, including the comments he made in this video:
creation.com/craig-flood
William Lane Craig says here that out of all the commentaries that he’s read (and he’s read quite a lot) he has never come across anyone who favors the genealogies in the Greek Septuagint over the Masoretic. They all seem to agree that the Septuagint’s numbers are altered and that the Hebrew Masoretic text is original.
That’s odd. I’m surprised that someone, as educated as William Lane Craig, has never read Josephus or Eusebius.
Josephus is a very prominent 1st-century Jewish historian, and when he lists off the genealogies in his work called “The Antiquities of the Jews” Josephus includes the extra 100 years on 6 generations, which agrees with the Septuagint.
Eusebius is a very prominent 4th-century church historian, and when he lists off the genealogies in his work called “The Chronicon” Eusebius favors the Septuagint, and includes the extra 650 years on the timeline. He condemns the Jewish Hebrew text, saying that it’s in error and that it is incorrect and unreliable. Eusebius says that the Septuagint is the most appropriate text to use due to being translated from old and accurate Hebrew copies.
But William Lane Craig says that he doesn’t know of anyone who favors the Septuagint’s chronology over the Hebrew Masoretic. Really? He’s never heard of Josephus or Eusebius?
Theophilus of Antioch and Julius Africanus were also early Christians from the 2nd and 3rd centuries, and they agree with the Septuagint too.
Never heard of them either?
It’s pretty tragic when our best scholars today don’t know what the early church taught, or what early Jewish historians taught.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Donate to NathanH83 channel: www.paypal.me/NathanH83

[@canadiankewldude]

Perhaps William Lane Craig has only read the books in his circle, that agree with him.

[@complex5372]

That crowd did a fantastic job challenging the status quo while being respectful to each other. Impressive.

[@Mariemoni4]

The man at the podium hasn’t done his homework

[@graylad]

Though I'm not a huge fan of William Lane craig, I think he disagrees with the written word far too many times, I would caution on what you say about the man because quite honestly you sound a little bit presumptuous and slightly arrogant. That man has studied the Bible more than most. He is a great and revered scholar. Just because you and I disagree with him does not mean he has not "done his homework." That's an extremely arrogant and presumptuous thing to say.

[@darinb.3273]

He, in other videos, thinks Genesis isn't really a 6 day creation. Exodus 20:8-11 destroys that ill conceived belief.

[@craigluchin4585]

-David Daniels, “When your professors lower the scriptures, they raise themselves.”

[@canadiankewldude]

William Lane Craig, like most academics prefer to side with the popular opinion with in academia rather than side with actual history supporting the Biblical view. They choose popularity of man's opinion over God.

[@allanlindsay8369]

Thank you Nathan, for yet more enlightenment. Your work is extremely valuable. Shalom.

[@wroughtironmgtow9558]

Nathan you're convincing me slowly but surely that the Septuagint is the best translation of the Old Covenant. Love your other videos as well.Keep up the awesome job!!!

[@NathanH83]

I’m glad to hear that. Now, what would you think if I started telling you about the apocrypha?

[@wroughtironmgtow9558]

@@NathanH83 Baby steps Nathan,baby steps,don't scare me the Old and New Covenants are enough.By the way since I have your attention,is there anywhere I can donate to you?That Back to the Future video is off the chain...

[@radtod]

@@wroughtironmgtow9558 If I may, were you raised Protestant or Catholic?

[@wroughtironmgtow9558]

@@radtod neither actually

[@NathanH83]

WroughtIronMGTOW I have a PayPal link. www.paypal.me/NathanH83 Thanks for asking. It blows me away how generous people have been. Yea, a lot of people love that Pyramids Before Flood video. I put a lot of work into it! And I REALLY tried to squeeze in the scene from Back to the Future about “1.21 Gigawatts!” But I just could not figure out how to get it to fit.

[@shihantemplet]

“Everyone says...” except 1500 years of Church Fathers/Historians including the ones saying that the Christians from the very beginning rejected the Masoratic text. Once again, this is exactly why I ended up in the Orthodox Church.

[@maryw9841]

How greatly God loves you that He has granted you, at your so young age, so much understanding, discernment, eloquence, knowledge and even humor, really humourous humor. etc! I have watched your videos on the time span of Israelites staying in Egypt, the pyramids and Great flood for 3 times, and every time humbled me much. God bless you more and use you share His truth more!

[@NathanH83]

Thank you for the encouragement!

[@DiggingForTruth]

Unfortunately, like most evangelical scholars, Dr. Craig's sloppy hermeneutics in Genesis 1-11 are dominated by external forces and not the sacred text and its canonical context. Symbolic interpretations, et al. are impossible once the text is carefully exegeted, and then understood in its larger context of Genesis, and the canon more broadly. Christians have been trying to get around the only possible meaning of the numbers in Gen 5/11 since the time of Augustine, and they come up with all sorts of convoluted reasons to do so. For more on this issue, readers can check out the Gen 5/11 Project here: biblearchaeology.org/abrprojects/4293-the-genesis-5-and-11-genealogy-and-chronology-research-project

[@normandennis9420]

The Septuagint was I think 200 years before Jesus and the Masoretic about 1,000 years after. I also read rebooting the bible and there was a strong motive to change the time line from early Jews.

[@tcavalo]

@@agadirand4four347 Jewish retort at its best....hahaha. Don't forget to take your meds, Murray.

[@bahi7134]

@@agadirand4four347 if you like talking religion, it is best not to disparage someone as an opening statement.

[@J0HN5AW]

Ethiopian Jews still use the Septuagint. They didn't get the memo to drop the LXX for the MT. Both Ethiopian Jews and Ethiopian Christians use Old Testaments reliant on the LXX, not the MT. The Masoretic Test was created after the New Testament was written.

[@str.77]

The septuagint was translated around 280 BC. However, while the Masoretic Text strictly speaking, with vocalisation, is from around 900 AD, it is based on the proto-Madoretic Text confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls. The DSS sometimes support the Septuagint reading (e.g. sons of God instead of sons of Israel in Deuteronomy 32) but more often than not they do support a reading in line with the Masoretes. However, the DSS are fragmentary and thus a lot of passages cannot be tested.

[@madcyborg1822]

@@agadirand4four347 what? Go to an Orthodox Christian church and repent.

[@elwar5]

Nathan you have a moral responsibility to write a book on the Septuagint chronology to educate people like me. God Bless

[@NathanH83]

hehe

[@NathanH83]

Eusebius did that. Maybe I could just work on getting his published

[@NephilimFree]

Dr. Craig has so much to learn about why his ideas are wrong and inferior to the biblical text.

[@user-jn9dl9px6r]

100%

[@LogosBKC]

I love your channel brother been following for over a year now keep it up

[@SuphaNinja]

Very interesting video, love your work

[@simonrgalesg]

Another great video. Thanks bro

[@elmajraz6019]

Another great video. Thumbs up. How can they blindly follow the Masoretic when it's clearly in error?

[@fumastertoo]

Yet another outstanding video, thank you and God bless!

[@andyezell5330]

After running into your videos, I found NETS(New English Translation of the Septuagint). When I got to Esther, I wept reading her prayer that was left out of the Masoretic. Thank you.

[@NathanH83]

Isn't it amazing?? I love the part where she says that she hates her crown, and considers her crown to be as disgusting as a menstruous rag (KJV words it that way). She really did not take pride in her position as Queen over Persia. That really gives an insight into her heart towards God.

[@sandycheney660]

I too found NETS last fall, and made sure my family here heard about it, found it on Amazon, and showed them. My hubby gave it to me for Christmas! I love it so much! Thank you, Nathan!

[@OrangeMonkey2112]

Over all I prefer the Septuagint for one reason. It’s what Jesus and the apostles quoted from. You can do a side by side comparison and find that out. Of course each person must verify on their own to be a true disciple. Berean vs Thessalonian. This is a great study for disciples of Jesus.

[@J.F.331]

My question for Craig is, why trust a Hebrew text that is almost 1,000 years after the time of Christ and the apostles? The errors in the Masoretic Text are very clear and we can tell without doubt that the prophetic texts about Christ have been altered to obscure Jesus as being the Messiah to come.

[@NathanH83]

Yea. And plus there’s the beliefs of so many in the early church who defended the Septuagint and believed the Jews took things out of their Hebrew that pertain to Christ.

[@J.F.331]

@@NathanH83Sorry, I am like 3 years late to your comment. I think a case can be made that after the destruction of the temple and fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 which gave rise to Rabbinical Judaism, Scribes (Christ rejectors) attempting to make wholesale changes to their Hebrew texts in order to obscure the Messianic prophecies we see in the Old Testament. I would not be surprised if the apostate Jews did what they could to get their hands on whatever copies of the New Testament they could and combed through them in order to make changes to their Old Testament texts that were cited by the New Testament writers. This is why the LXX is so very important because it proves that the citations from Old Testament are accurate and Jesus definitively is the fulfillment of those prophecies and in order to keep future Jews in ignorance they labeled Jesus and the apostles heretics and changed their Hebrew copies early on. Is it any wonder why we can’t find any Hebrew manuscripts from before the 10th century? I think the apostate Jews destroyed earlier copies to hide the evidence that Jesus is who He said He was.

[@JmesFloyd76]

The only thing I agree with Dr. William Lane Craig is that the LXX is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Text. Hebrew is the original language of God going back to Noah and therefore Adam. But the chronology of the LXX and the Masoretic Text is disparate. LXX came long before the Masoretic Text. Not only that, the LXX is an unbiased translation of the original Hebrew, 200+ years before the first coming of Yeshua. The 70 Hellenist Jews had no reason to mistranslate the Hebrew Text. Neither did Samaritans in transcribing the original Hebrew long before the coming of Christ. And now we have Flavius Josephus putting the history of the Jews, paraphrasing the original copy of the Torah into the language understandable for the Roman public showing how the Jews came into existence and where they spread throughout the earth like those settling in India. The Masoretic Text was transcribed nearly 800 years after the spreading of Christian letters and scrolls of the gospel and the scribes were aware of this and certainly are candidates of transcription errors. Otherwise, the Masoretic Text is a beautiful language of God. Every transcription error, the dropping of every jot and tittle of the Torah, will cause that scribe's name to be cut off or blotted out from the Tree of Life. Qof or the 18th letter of Hebrew alphabet is 100 in the number system and it is dropped six times in the genealogy of Shem. This is not good and the sowing and reaping principle took a toll on the Jews in the Diaspora, the pograms, the ghettoes, the Holocaust, and the numerous anti-Semitism attacks, verbally and physically. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem. God's Word is preserved. Thank you for your research. May this continue with discussion with Hebrew scholars and Biblical archeology. If it was not for the LXX, we could not know that Yam Suph is the Red Sea. Hebrew scholars translate Yam Suph as Sea of Reeds and does not think it is the Red Sea because reeds thrive in freshwaters. Nuts!

[@JmesFloyd76]

The "Sinai Peninsula" has since the building of the pyramids belonged to Egypt. You are NOT out of Egypt until you cross the Gulf of Aqaba part of the Red Sea. Mt. Sinai is in Saudi Arabia just east of the Gulf of Aqaba. Tradition was established by Queen Helena, mother of Emperor Constantine in the 4th century, that Mt. Sinai was located in the peninsula of Egypt. It was more convenient to go there rather than in Arabia. There are no artifacts or historical evidence that the Israelites camped near what is called Jabal Musa [mountain of Moses]. There is evidence found near Jabal al-Lawz with the blackened peak in west Saudi Arabia which is the ancient Midian. We need to put the Hebrew scholars on the "grill" and challenge every paper that supports the tradition over the Word of God. "Let God be true and every man a liar." Romans 3:4

[@georgehughes2576]

Touche'! More nice research work, Nathan!

[@MRUHY]

Good breakdown of a much needed discussion

[@rosiej.1473]

@NathanH83- Hello, I found your videos last week and I am hooked. Since then I have been on the hunt for both a Greek Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch. I need them in English as I do not know Greek or Hebrew. Which is an accurate translation of those? Thank you!

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

EXCELLENT WORK!!!

[@greyhoundlovesme]

The masoretic text was created in 160 to disprove the messsiahship of Yahshua. Read both for yourself- the gentleman making a comment in the beginning is 💯

[@cruxmihi]

Wow! You have done a wonderful job.

[@TyroneBeiron]

Thanks Nathan. You have done justice to the plain facts. 👍🏼

[@197615july]

"If you obey my teaching, you are really my disciples; you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." John 8, 31-32 "If the Son sets you free you will be really free." John 8, 36 - Jesus Christ God bless you brother! "Be on guard; dont be decieve. Many men, claiming to speak for me, will come and say, 'I am he!' and, 'the time has come!' But don't follow them." Luke 21, 8 I am he, this means men will say they are CHRISTians! But they are not, they are false prophets. The time has come, this means that Jesus would have be wrong when he said; " No one knows, however, when that day will come - neither the angels in Heaven nor the Son; the Father alone knows." Matt 24, 36 This means these people think they are God, or they know as much as God knows.

[@dustinberes6401]

His audience is way more informed than he is

[@finbartilderhaven]

The Genesis 11 begetting ages were 100 years less by the first century in Judaism, Rabbi Akiva, and Aquila of Sinope's Targum Onkelos. It is very conspicuous that Akiva and Josephus were contemporaries but differed on this. It is also conspicuous that there is no textual evidence of a pre-Akiva Genesis 11 with the younger begetting ages. It was not long after Eusebius that Jerome's Vulgate came to include the younger begetting ages. Moreover, St. Irenaeus and Jerome's contemporary, St. Augustine were diehard Septuagint-only backers.

[@fyrerayne8882]

Thank you God bless

[@CPATuttle]

You read what Ireneaus wrote in ‘Against the heresies’ Book III, Chapter 21. On the Septuagint?

[@canadiankewldude]

Brilliant research and presentation yet again Nathan. God bless.

[@GodFirstnl]

So good. So good!!

[@NathanH83]

Glad you liked it

[@GodFirstnl]

LOL saw this again after three years, thinking: this is amazing! Totally forgot I watched it before haha. Just good solid teaching.@@NathanH83

[@fitforfaith]

Great video, thank you so much Nathan. So valuable your teachings. WLC is very popular, but outmost problematic. Proponent of Theistic Evolution, rejects the Flood & Tower of Babel, does not believe in inerrancy of Scripture and has serious flaws regarding his interpretation of the Trinity and Incarnation. Stay strong for the truth. By the way, I recently updated my Septuagint study and have now a whole bunch of biblical facts that clearly prove the superiority of the LXX. I think you should do another video.

[@albundy59]

Interesting, Craig doesn't trust the Greek Septuagint because it's a translation and not the original language. So, does that mean he also doesn't trust the KJV because it too is a translation and not the original language?

[@NathanH83]

It’s a bad argument. The Samaritan Bible is also in Hebrew, but it’s corrupted in certain spots. Just because it’s in the original language doesn’t mean it’s true to the original text.

[@albundy59]

I was only talking about Craig doubting, questioning, the Septuagint simply because it's a translation and asking, wondering, if Craig also doubts, questions, the KJV because it too is a translation.

[@jondeibe2294]

All one has to do is look at the voluminous number of times the Dead Sea Scrolls agree more with the Septuagint (Codex Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and others all older than the MT) than they do with the MT, and on key messianic verses, to see the Septuagint is more trustworthy. Dead Sea Scrolls, plus Samaritan Pentateuch, plus the LXX is greater than the MT.

[@Morewecanthink]

Not men decides truth. God's word is truth.

[@maskofsorrow]

Mind you, William was probably referring to modern commentaries.

[@martinphilipson1124]

Nathan's insights and supporting evidence are so logical and clear. God's Truth as taught by His Spirit is NOT complicated - as He teaches us thru people like Nathan. Human logic and THIS world's theological ideas can easily deceive us. Thank you Nathan for giving us Scriptural TRUTH that is simple, supported with undisputable documents, and easily shared with others! GREAT presentation. May God bless your life and work!

[@NathanH83]

Thank you so much for the encouragement and kind words!

[@PracticalBibleStudies]

How are the Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch changed when their textual evidence is older? The Masoretic Text is only a thousand years old... Its too bad the Dead Sea Scrolls didn't contain the genealogies. Would have cleared this up a lot.

[@TedBruckner]

Read biblearchaeology.org/images/Genesis-5-and-11/Smith-Henry-Winter-2018-BAS_MT-SP-or-LXX.pdf

[@davidboyd8822]

I will bet that he supports the theory that Shem is Melchizedek (which I do not agree with) which is why he has to support the Masoretic genealogy. If the Septuagint was good enough for Jesus and the Apostles, then it is good enough for me.

[@braddefoor5933]

1679BC/2158AC- Shem died at the age of 600 (lived 500 years after he begat Arphaxad and 35 years after Abraham died) Gen 11:11. Note: Also known as Melchezedek (and Typho to the Egyptians) Gen_14:18-20; Jasher 16:11-12. Lived in Shâlêm (the early name for Jerusalem H7999, H8004) Jasher 9:5-6, 16:11-12, 24:17, 28:18

[@thumbstruck]

Cultural practices regarding age and social standing must be understood. The Masoretic Text came about after the Christian Era. The Dead Sea Scrolls agree with the LXX.

[@o-8205]

Regards,I follow you channel.Can you tell me what year was the analysis of the Septuagint (is it 5.508)???

[@NathanH83]

Huh? What year who analyzed it? I don’t know what you’re asking? Are you asking what year it would be after Creation?

[@NathanH83]

I think the flood was about 5,000 years ago, and I think the Creation was about 7,000 years ago. Not sure about any exact dates.

[@felixwalne3494]

Good information Do you know what dates were uncovered in the dead sea scrolls (if any)

[@NathanH83]

Felix Walne Unfortunately they never found Genesis 11 in the Dead Sea Scrolls

[@felixwalne3494]

NathanH83 how about Genesis 5? Also the ancient book of Jasher, Jubilees and the Seder Olam, how do they compare in regard to dates?

[@P.H.888]

So maybe the authors of the DSS were of the M text & didn’t want to confirm the truth?

[@felixwalne3494]

Also, my only issue with the sept dates is that it has Meth living until after the flood, which cannot be the case. Its very difficult for us to know what the original text said i believe.

[@NathanH83]

Felix Walne Actually, it’s just Codex Vaticanus that has Methuselah outliving Noah’s flood, Because it’s a corrupt copy of the Septuagint. Codex Alexandrinus has Methuselah dying 6 years before the flood. So it’s not “The Septuagint” that has this mistake. Just certain copies of the Septuagint.

[@claywithers523]

There are verses in the Masoretic that don't make sense; here's one example: In 1Kings17, verses in the LXX go up to 54, In 1 Samuel 17, verses in the Masoretic go up to 58, there are numerous oddities in the Masoretic that can confuse the reader. Now were these errors put in to confuse, or were they genuine mistakes of Scribes, remembering Yeshua's comments to the Pharisees, and the Scribes. Had the texts been changed before this time by the Scribes and Pharisees, and what reason would they have to confuse readers, I wonder. This is just one example. Happy error hunting. Always check confusing passages with earlier versions, as we can't be completely sure when the scribes began to introduce "errors" in the Tanakh. ps There is no surviving original copy of the writings of the Tanakh, the oldest is the Septuagint-as far as I know- roughly 250bc. Hope this helps. The dead sea scrolls have been claimed to be forgeries, why would someone go to the trouble of forging original manuscripts then seal them in jars, which were then sealed in caves? That doesn't make any sense at all! Lehitraot.

[@seekthetrutht.v.159]

Seeing a globe, really makes me question their words.

[@sbcburgos2300]

What is this? A flat earther?

[@mellane4608]

Commentaries? Why does that matter? I believe the Word, not some guy's commentary. Thank you for posting.

[@NathanH83]

That’s right

[@BornAgainRN]

A few things. One, the copies of the Septuagint we have today are Christian copies, not Jewish. Two, when you add the ages up of the anti-diluvian fathers, Methuselah ends up living 14 years after the flood, compared to the Masoretic text which has been dying the year of the flood. However, I would argue that the writing of the Masoretic Text is much later, around AD 200. Yet, it is representative of the dating of the original Hebrew, since it doesn’t have some of the problems of the Septuagint, like Methuselah dying 14 years after the flood. Lastly, I agree there are no gaps in the genealogies. Even if by “son,” it doesn’t mean offspring, which genesis is explicit that the sun was the offspring of the father, it wouldn’t change anything about the time. From the creation of Adam to Noah and beyond the Flood. It would be one thing if the ages of the deaths of those fathers ended at around number like 800 or 850, including when they had their sons. But what you see are consistently is odd number ages. The Masoretic text most likely represent the actual ages rather than the Septuagint.

[@curtthegamer934]

Methuselah dying 14 years after the Flood is a copyist error, and appears in *some* but not all of the copies of the Septuagint. Many copies of the Septuagint have Methuselah not outliving the Flood, and there is plenty of evidence that this is the original reading.

[@aaagggmmmsss]

Septuagint Superior

[@atomnous]

Septuagint is the bible that Jesus and all his early followers used. And it's compiled centuries earlier than Masoretic. Septuagint agrees with Samaritan Pentateuch. It's nonsensical to then conclude that Masoretic is the original one.

[@jeffpeff]

So is there a bible in English that you would recommend?

[@NathanH83]

There’s plenty of English translations of the Septuagint. The Orthodox Study Bible is one. They all have some mistakes, but they usually do away with the mistakes in the Masoretic.

[@gertvanpeet3120]

I have to Read the english Septuagint, there is no dutch version....

[@GodFirstnl]

Indeed. It's such rubbish that we don't got a Septuagint translation, and yet have like 20 Masoretic translations...

[@rosiej.1473]

@gert vanpeet what is the title of the English Septuagint that you have. I have been looking for one. Thanks

[@realmless4193]

@@rosiej.1473 I know the New English Translation of the Septuagint.

[@my-yt-inputs2580]

Wasn't it the Septuagint version that was the most used during the time of Christ? The one question/curiosity I have as to modern Bibles using the MT I had read where the Masoretes had changed the wording in their copies to delete the references as to Mary being a Virgin, thus negating the virgin birth. Yet in any of the MT version Bibles I read I still see Mary as being called a virgin, referencing the virgin birth of Christ. So if the Masoretes deleted/changed those references then why are they still showing up in modern MT based bibles?

[@NathanH83]

All of our Bibles still side with the Septuagint when it comes to pivotal prophecies like the virgin birth. But for most other things, they usually side with the Masoretic.

[@yourz4ever0]

What are some good books to read on this stuff??

[@NathanH83]

Doug Woodward has some good books talking about it.

[@stevekerp1]

Thanks, Nathan - very good stuff. Looking forward to you doing an investigation on whether the public ministry of Jesus was REALLY 3 1/2 years, or whether Rood and others are correct that it was (as many of the early church fathers apparently also maintained) just over a year long.

[@rickirubio3973]

Hey can you elaborate more I heard something like that from my pastor but he didn't elaborate much..

[@sbcburgos2300]

Rood is wrong

[@EJ_7715]

Rood is demonstrably wrong. Jesus was born in September of 3BC. Heavenly signs and Jupiter's retrograde movement match precisely with this. Herod's late date for death is correct at 1BC. The 70 weeks prophecy wasn't Jesus'ministry, it was seventy "sevens" (the Hebrew word for week really just means 'seven' as a group.) The 70 weeks are 490 years from the order to rebuild the temple until the Messiah is cut off in the midst of the last week. Jesus ministry had to begin in alignment with Tiberius 15th year of reign. Tiberius actually ruled for 2 years while Augustus was sick before he died. So if you do the math from Luke's practical account, you find 27 BC for the beginning of John's ministry. Jesus was six months older than John and began His ministry at 30 years of age. Also Rood says John 6:4 was added. It was not. There is no evidence to support that position from the vast majority of the best manuscripts. Also Jesus crucifixion took place on a Wednesday. According to astronomical records, 14 of Nisan occurred on a Wednesday in AD 31. Thus Jesus was 33 years old when he was crucified, after a 3 and a half year ministry.

[@davidschutt7491]

You should become Eastern Orthodox. We use the Septuagint, just like the ancient church did.

[@NathanH83]

No thanks. My desire is to see today's Protestant churches in America adopt the Septuagint as the early church did.

[@ThomasG_Nikolaj]

we are the ancient church, the only true church. Eastern Orthodoxy has proof of apostolic succession and has been unchanged since it began 2000 years ago. If you study the church fathers it will lead to either orthodoxy or catholicism, and orthodoxy clearly wins out of the two

[@ThomasG_Nikolaj]

@@NathanH83 you should check out my playlist for more info, i actually included your exodus video in my playlist because it was really good kzbin.info/aero/PLG8ujnM0COm6TzQc8YwjQzYEizTOX4bkC

[@jacksonambrose6269]

@@NathanH83 Prots are too dumb and arrogant to do so. The Reformers were morons for adopting Masoretic.

[@surgeneral108]

I never heard of William lane Craig, ...and obviously I hadn't missed anything

[@OC3707]

Everyone has things that they are unaware of no matter how well educated.

[@MoneyTakerSC2]

I can't read Greek. Is there a good translation from the Septuagent?

[@hieronimangowski4546]

'Orthodox Study Bible'

[@str.77]

In Craig's defense, I understood him to refer to modern commentaries, not ancient writers. Eusebius etc. he would probably write off as having used the LXX. However, it is a bit shocking that he claims that the LXX reduced lifespans to make them more credible. Well, the lifespans are always the same but the age St begatting a son are usually higher in the LXX when compared to the MT.

[@sylvaindurand1817]

I'm curious about what the Dead Sea scrolls says about these geneologies; I suppose there were copies of Genesis among them?

[@NathanH83]

Unfortunately no. Genesis 11 was not found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. It's too bad, because it would be a whole lot easier to make this argument.

[@elmajraz6019]

Question. What makes you think Metushelach died 14 years before the flood (as recorded in the Septuagint) when there are two sources (Masoretic and Samartian) that said he died in the same year as the deluge of Noach?

[@NathanH83]

Some copies of the Septuagint have Methuselah dying 14 years after the flood, which is obviously wrong. But other copies have him dying 6 years before the flood, which I think is right. The reason why I think this is for a number of reasons. 1. because of the reasons I explained in my video “Were the Pyramids Built Before the Flood?” 2. Because Jesus and the disciples side with the Septuagint more often than not in the New Testament. 3. Because the early church defended the numbers in the Septuagint.

[@rickduker4969]

I think one of the reasons the Septuagint doesn't get the respect it should is because there are different versions.

[@AndrewPotter-xl4mf]

​@@NathanH83are you confusing the deluge with the katabol? Noah's flood wasn't total destruction. Remember the dove plucked the olive branch. The katabol is when Satan fell in the 1st earth age and you had the katabol or tohu va bohu in hebrew.

[@AndrewPotter-xl4mf]

​​@@NathanH83also look up methusalah and the phrase " when he dies it shall be sent" i.e. the flood.

[@AndrewPotter-xl4mf]

​@@rickduker4969one more thing, if Noah's flood wiped out all flesh how did he kill the fishes and plants etc? That's why I believ in the katabol of gen 1 and where we get our fossil record. That was complete destruction vs Noah's flood and a dove able to pluck an olive branch. If you know anything about growing olives trees the time of noah on the ark and the waters receding doesn't allow for one to grow that quick. Some stuff to consider. Goodluck and godbless.

[@elvisisacs3955]

By "everyone" WLC may be talking about modern day scholars who have access to older manuscripts which predate the Greek Septuagint such as the Dead Sea Scrolls (which agrees with the MT).

[@i7Qp4rQ]

Check the previous comment, please? NathanH83 8 months ago Unfortunately no. Genesis 11 was not found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. It's too bad, because it would be a whole lot easier to make this argument.

[@exotericidymnic3530]

regarding the DSS, there are 5 types of manuscripts among the Biblical DSS: 1) manuscripts that agree with the MT over the other versions (these are the most numerous) 2) manuscripts that agree with the Septuagint over the other versions (these are the next most numerous) 3) manuscripts that are clearly more free with the source text (these are the next most numerous) 4) manuscripts that belong to a 4th extinct textual tradition 5) manuscripts that agree with the samaritan over the other versions (these are the least numerous) it's not accurate that the Qumran library was totally homogenous in it's content, and it doesn't seem likely that the Essenes cared particularly for the exact content of the Biblical scrolls, beyond the meaning being basically intelligible, considering the freer manuscripts in their library.

[@christopherkershaw261]

The Ante Nicene Father's favored the Septuagint because of it's origin, because of it's clear inspiration from God, and of course it's countless more prophecies than any other text speaking of Jesus as the Christ. I'm not a master in genealogies as I don't want to major in the minors, but the Septuagint is what Jesus, the Apostles, and the Ante Nicene Father's quoted verbatim extensively. I think that's significant enough.

[@Swectorious]

Hey Nathan, what are the implications on Isaiah 7:14?

[@NathanH83]

The Jews removed the Hebrew word "Bethulah" which means virgin, and they replaced it with a different Hebrew word "Almah" which means young woman. The evidence of this is that the Greek Septuagint says "Parthenos" which is Greek for virgin, and is a Greek translation of Bethulah. So, the Jews definitely tampered with the Hebrew text in order to deny that Jesus was born of a virgin and therefore the Son of God. Or rather, their goal was to deny that Isaiah prophesied of the virgin birth.

[@Gavriel-og6jv]

1:31 No, it is rather the other way around, like you Nathan said, the correct timeline is given by the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch but ancient rabbis distorted those patriarchs' ages to make them look younger, so Jesus's priesthood would be supposedly invalid. It would not surprise me to know that these same teachers are the ones who believe the Flood was a local flood, thereby not understanding why those ancient pre-Flood patriarchs got to live so long. This obviously because the Earth and atmosphere were totally different before its crust collapsed in itself, and all the water from under the continents got released.

[@seekthetrutht.v.159]

Sad seeing that globe.

[@NathanH83]

The Bible calls it a globe. And there’s these things called satellites.

[@seekthetrutht.v.159]

@@NathanH83 blasphemy! I have published a book named Earth, Sea, and the Sky Above: A Biblical Perspective. Let Him with ears hear. Do not be led astray by false teachings and doctrines. Satan roams the earth seeking those he may devour. In those days, many shall be deceived, even the elect if it were possible. We are united in truth. A kingdom divided shall not stand. The scripture is Truth. None shall add or take away. The heliocentric model is blasphemous. Here is the link to my study. www.amazon.com/dp/B0848T1MBK/ref=cm_sw_r_other_apa_i_ker3EbMVZ6B5R Peace to all, and may us all seek true understanding in His name. The first and the last. Christ Jesus.

[@sbcburgos2300]

@@seekthetrutht.v.159 Flat earthers take the Bible out of context.The flat earth is not even funny joke.What is the sun? A flat disk? The moon is a flat disk also? How about Saturn? How do the rings go around it if was just a disk and not a globe? Every time I ask this to a flat earther, they have no answer to that question. So by Saturn being a globe, why would the earth be flat? How about that ridiculous argument of the Antarctic ice wall? This said wall does not encircle the entire continent.There are parts were no ice wall exists, so why is the ocean not spilling over through the breach areas? RIDICULOUS!!!

[@rinzler9171]

He us either lying or has glossed over these passages you provide. You still present a compelling case.

[@blostin]

No wonder. Some time ago I stopped listening to WLC.

[@NathanH83]

Isn’t it crazy that he’s read all these commentaries, but never read Eusebius?

[@camille11ize]

Septuagint was the Greek translation Jesus and his disciples used. Dr. Creig is wrong

[@tbishop4961]

There are apparently more similarities in dead sea scrolls with Samaritan and septuagint than masoretic

[@nathanaeleisnerafc.4594]

_Albert Barnes' Notes on The Bible_ *Genesis **5:32* Quote "On comparing the series of numbers in the Hebrew with those in the Samaritan, the Septuagint, and Josephus, it is remarkable that we have the main body of the original figures in all. In the total ages of the first five and the seventh, and in that of Noah at the flood, they all agree. In those of the sixth and eighth, the Hebrew, Septuagint, and Josephus agree. In that of the ninth, the Hebrew and Josephus agree, while the Samaritan and Septuagint differ from them and from each other. On examining the figures of the Samaritan, it appears that the sixth, eighth, and ninth total ages would have reached beyond the flood, if the numbers found in the other authorities had been retained. And they are so shortened as to terminate all in the year of the flood. This alteration betrays design. The totals in the Hebrew, then, have by far the preponderating authority. "Of the numbers before the birth of a successor, which are chiefly important for the chronology, the units agree in all but Lamek, in regard to whom the Hebrew and Josephus agree, while the Samaritan and the Septuagint differ from them and from each other. The tens agree in all but two, Methushelah and Lamek, where the Hebrew, the Septuagint, at least in the Codex Alexandrinus, and Josephus agree, while the Samaritan differs from them all. In the hundreds a systematic and designed variation occurs. Still they agree in Noah. In Jared, Methushelah, and Lamek, the Hebrew, Septuagint, and Josephus agree in a number greater by a hundred than the Samaritan. In the remaining six the Hebrew and Samaritan agree; while the Septuagint and Josephus agree in having a number greater by a hundred. On the whole, then, it is evident that the balance of probability is decidedly in favor of the Hebrew. To this advantage of concurring testimonies are to be added those of being the original, and of having been guarded with great care. "These grounds of textual superiority may be supported by several considerations of less weight. The Samaritan and the Septuagint follow a uniform plan; the Hebrew does not, and therefore has the mark of originality. Josephus gives the sum total to the deluge as two thousand six hundred and fifty-six years, agreeing with the total of the Hebrew in three figures, with that of the Septuagint only in two, and with that of the Samaritan in none. Some MSS. even give one thousand six hundred and fifty-six, which is the exact sum of the Hebrew numbers. Both these readings, moreover, differ from the sum of his own numbers, which itself agrees with the Hebrew in two figures and with the Septuagint in the other two. This looks like a studied conformation of the figures to those of the Septuagint, in which the operator forgot to alter the sum total. We do not at present enter into the external arguments for or against the Hebrew text. Suffice it to observe, that the internal evidence is at present clearly in its favor, so far as the antediluvian figures go. "

[@user-ei9ns9hq6b]

Can someone *briefly* explain the fundamental difference between these two texts?

[@theespjames4114]

Briefly? No!

[@gertvanpeet3120]

The Septuagint is the first translation into greek, 300 BC! So christianity or the jews ideas about that... So Septuagint is the original...

[@NathanH83]

Have you seen my video “Were the Pyramids Built Before the Flood?”

[@LogosBKC]

The Septuagint has a lot of backstory around the origins of the Septuagint that is worth digging into, its centuries older than the Masoretic and more importantly despite being in Greek it is translated from an older and more genuine Paleo Hebrew There’s so much more when studying the subtle differences between the texts which many argue displays more accuracy concerning messianic prophecy supporting Jesus and more clarity in “difficult” passages that leave much to be desired from the Masoretic. I would also add that the early Church was almost exclusively observing the Septuagint before Jerome against the wishes of the Pope invited Christ denying Pharisees as counsel when translating the Vulgate into the Latin standard for Nicea So much more could be studied on this topic

[@springrain9438]

@@LogosBKC well summarized

[@JmesFloyd76]

Shelah is NOT the son of Arphaxad, but the son of Cainan the son of Arphaxad. Another hundred years is missing from the line of Shem. The Masoretic Text is very biased against the first coming of Yeshua and the idea Yeshua is Melchizedek.

[@JWCFB]

Maybe Craig is referring to people that are alive or more recently deceased than ancient authors.

[@buzzard6410]

Nathan, here is the expanded timeline I made using your "template." I mentioned it to you on another thread. I wasn't sure how to get it to you and the followers. It is from Abraham to Moses with geneology dates and events. I spent a weekend expanding it. Matching up scripture with scripture. I have it in printer friendly portrait mode. Viewing only just requires a 90 degree turn. pic80.picturetrail.com/VOL1019/4043194/8402215/414430306.jpg

[@NathanH83]

Cool. It’s really blurry though. Can you make a higher resolution version if it so that I can read the small text?

[@buzzard6410]

@@NathanH83 Is there a way to e-mail it to you. Not sure how to post in original form. PictureTrail did a shrink job on the original.

[@NathanH83]

Terence [e-mail]

[@nathanaeleisnerafc.4594]

_Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible_ *Genesis **11:10* Quote "From this table it appears that in the total years of life the Hebrew, Samaritan, and Septuagint agree on Shem; the Hebrew and Septuagint on Terah; the Samaritan and Septuagint on Heber; and the Hebrew and Samaritan on all the rest. In regard, however, to the years of paternity, the Hebrew stands alone, against the Samaritan and Septuagint agreeing, except in Terah, where they all agree. The difference is not in units or tens, but in the addition to the Hebrew numbers of a hundred years, except in the case of Nahor, where the addition is fifty years, or a hundred and fifty according to the Codex Vaticanus (B) of the Septuagint. Here, again, it is remarkable that Josephus while agreeing with the Samaritan and Septuagint in most of the separate numbers before paternity, agrees with the Hebrew in the sum of years from the flood to the 70th year of Terah (292 years, Josephus I. 6, 5). In Reu and Serug the numbers are transposed, seemingly by a mistake arising from the inverted order in which he gives the numbers. "In Nahor he, or his transcriber, seems to have added one hundred years according to the uniform law, and neglected the nine. To make up for this omission, the inexact round number 10 has been apparently added to the number of years after the flood, when Arpakshad was born. We have already noticed that some MSS. of Josephus gave 1656 as the sum-total of years from the creation to the flood, in which case the sums of Josephus and the Hebrew exactly agree. We find him also stating (viii. 3, 1) that the world was created 3102 years before Solomon began to build the temple, and that the deluge took place 1440 before the same point of time. Hence, we obtain 1662 years between the creation and the deluge; and this, if we only deduct from it the six years added to Lamek, agrees with the Hebrew. In the same passage he states that the entrance of Abram into Kenaan was 1020 years before the building of the temple. "Hence, we infer that 420 years elapsed from the flood to the call of Abram, which, if we count from the birth of Arpakshad, allow sixty years to elapse between the births of Haran and Abram, and date the call of Abram at 70, will exactly tally with the Hebrew. These sums cannot in any probable way be reconciled with the details in his own text, or in the Septuagint, or Samaritan. Again, Josephus calculates (x. 8, 5) that the temple was burnt 3513 years from the creation, and 1957 from the flood. Hence, the interval from the creation to the deluge would be 1556 years, differing from the Hebrew by 100 years, and reconcilable with it, if we suppose the 500th year of Noah to be the terminating date. He also concludes that the burning of the temple took place 1062 years after the exodus, thus making the interval from the flood to the exodus 895 years, while the Hebrew makes it 852. If we reckon the 100 years from the 500th year of Noah to the flood, the 292 which Josephus gives from the flood to the birth of Abraham, the 75 years to the call of Abraham, and the 430 from that to the exodus, we have 897 years, which will be reduced to Josephus's number by omitting the 2 years from the flood to the birth of Arpakshad; and to the Hebrew number by omitting the 100 years before the flood, adding the 60 between Haran and Abram, which Josephus here neglects, and dating the call of Abram at 70 years. But by no process that we are aware of can these calculated numbers of Josephus be reconciled with the details of his own text, or the Samaritan, or Septuagint. It seems perfectly clear that the Hebrew numbers lie at the basis of these calculations of our author. "The age of paternity in the Samaritan from Peleg down is beyond the middle age of life, which is contrary to all experience. The editor of the Septuagint seems to have observed this anomaly, and added 100 years to three of these lives, and 156 to that of Nahor, against the joint testimony of the Hebrew and Samaritan. If the year of paternity in the Vatican be the correct reading, a much greater number should have been here added. The Samaritan deducts 60 years from the age of Terah, against the joint testimony of the Hebrew, Samaritan, and Josephus, seemingly because the editor conceived that Abram was born in his seventieth year. "From the Targum of Onkelos and the Peshito it is evident that the Hebrew text was the same as now up to the Christian era. Before that time there was no conceivable reason for shortening the chronology, while national vanity and emulation might easily prompt men to lengthen it. It is acknowledged that the text of the Septuagint is inferior to that of the Hebrew. "The age of puberty in the Hebrew affords more scope for the increase of population than that in the other texts. For if a man begin to have a family at thirty, it is likely to be larger than if he began a hundred years later and only lived the same number of years altogether. Now the Hebrew and Samaritan agree generally, against the Septuagint, in the total years of life; and in two instances, Heber and Terah, the Samaritan has even a less number than the Hebrew. It is to be remembered, also, that the number of generations is the same in every case. Hence, in all human probability the Hebrew age of paternity will give the greater number of inhabitants to the world in the age of Abram. If we take the moderate average of five pairs for each family, we shall have for the estimated population 4 X 5(to the 9th power) pairs, or 15,625,000 souls. This number is amply sufficient for all the kingdoms that were in existence in the time of Abram. If we defer the time of becoming a father for a whole century, we shall certainly diminish, rather than increase, the chance of his having so large a family, and thereby the probability of such a population on the earth in the tenth generation from Noah. "In these circumstances we are disposed to abide by the Hebrew text, that has descended to us in an original form, at least until we see some more cogent reasons for abandoning any of its numbers than chronologers have yet been able to produce. And we content ourselves, meanwhile, with the fact that the same system of numbers manifestly lay at the basis of all our present texts, though it may be difficult in some cases to determine to the satisfaction of all what was the original figure. The determination of the chronology of ancient history is neither a question of vital importance, nor, to us now, a part of the primary or direct design of the Hebrew records."

[@docbrown7513]

The Hebrew of 1000AD was not the same as ancient, 1st temple, or 2nd temple Hebrew and the Masorites were no friends of the Gospel. The Hebrew is problematic after year 35 and we don't have any full Hebrew texts that old. 9/10 NT quotes from the OT where there are variations agree with the Septuagint.

[@kristinaschnyder7455]

There is always a reason to confuse. What startled me was Genesis 10,13&14 in the Septuagint as it states that the “chasmoniim” (is a root word for the english Hasmonean) were of the Hamites & from them came the Philistines. Now later about 160 BC Judah Maccabee comes into the picture, a Hasmonian from Modiin (Samaria, not Yudah….. northern tribes were gone already and had not returned). Anyhow, he is the source of 1st Maccabee with the war against hellenistic beliefs & that’s ok. But, he is not of priestly hebrew origin and therefore a rededication of the temple is robbery in it’s actual action. As a consequence, Hanukkah is a pagan feast. Question as always is: ehom did they worship & conquer the temple for: Ashmodai …. Asmodeus (the demon prince?)….. so very interesting & necessary these geneologies - who would have thought?!?

[@iforgie]

In the Eastern Orthodox Church the Septuagint is the Old Testament

[@camille11ize]

And there are NO gaps

[@greyhoundlovesme]

The world was literally changed after Noah… the world was filled with water and never receded back to it previous levels

[@Wonderboywonderings]

Home run, bro.

[@maskofsorrow]

The world had a different atmosphere Pre-Flood.

[@MutsPub]

Most of the early so called "fathers" were NOT fluent in ancient Hebrew; which is a unique language. That is why the Sept. was generated in the first place! They relied heavily, if not exclusively, on the Greek Translation; then came the infamous Latin Vulgate translation from that Greek, which no one could read; with obvious exceptions. To argue from that point of view is futile. Modern scholars can and do read ancient Hebrew with no need to call them fathers!!!!!!. The entire early, again "so called" early, church history was based on people that lacked the knowledge to read ancient Hebrew! If you think about it, that is , or should be, very disturbing. Jesus himself quoted from the Septuagint. Why? Because people in His day, for the most part, did NOT speak ancient Hebrew either!!!!!!! They were captive for 70 years. Imagine if everybody who spoke English was taken away to a place where NO English was spoken, with no technology, after 70 years very few would speak English; even fewer could read it! Bottom line; the tomb was empty! Whomever believes in Him SHALL NOT PERISH!!!! Please stop this argumentative, divisive CR*P and focus on what we have in common; CHRIST!!!!! I can bring you 10 PhD's that argue black and 10 more PhD's that argue white and 10 more PhD's that argue purple...and on...and on........ NO ONE WILL EVER UNDERSTAND EVERY DOT AND TITTLE, NO ONE!!!! Everyone CAN except Christ. The Bible is a folder containing many books and letters describing the "History" of the Redemption of man. IT WAS WRITTEN IN PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE TENSE; ALL AT THE SAME TIME! Our brains have difficulty grasping that! OUR REDEMPTION WAS PLANNED, BEFORE HE CREATED SPACE AND TIME!!!!! That "SHOULD" bring comfort and TRUST. Instead, we argue relentlessly, over NON-Salvation issues! While the evil one laughs!

[@sylvaindurand1817]

The LXX was not invented for Church fathers who knew no hebrew, it was translated between the 3rd and 1st century BC for the jews of the diaspora who knew no hebrew. It predates Christianity, but it became the Bible of the Church. The jews later got rid of it because it's prophecies pointed to clearly to Christ.

[@alexyoung5472]

re: "then came the infamous Latin Vulgate translation from that Greek". False - Jerome in late C4th AD translated the LV from the proto-MT Aramaic "Hebrew" texts of Onkelos/Aquilas of 128/130 AD which uses the shorter chronology as also exemplified in the Seder Olam Rabbah of 160 AD. If what you say is true that the LV uses the Greek LXX texts then the LV would have a Gen 5 and Gen 11 longer chronology - however it - like the DRB that followed it - does not for both contain the shorter chronology.

[@MarzDee]

Just because it isn't a salvation issue, doesn't mean we shouldn't seek truth and study. We are destroyed for lack of knowledge and we should study to show ourselves approved. These issues may seem minuscule to you, but for others, they have been the catalyst for change from non-believer to believer. Things they believed were contradictory nonsense now gives them pause and prompts them to look a little deeper. It is true that we should not bring vitriol into it, but discussions and debates are how we can share ideas and get new understanding. So when a well-studied atheist comes with a well-structured argument, we have a well-structured response which may well be a turning point on their journey to salvation. Please don't knock those who feel lead to seek these things out passionately. You may not, but we each have our place. We are a body with many members. We may not know every jot and tittle, but the little we each bring to the table adds up. Bit by bit, here a little, there a little.

[@rickandrygel913]

Jerome did not use the greek, he only used the hebrew

[@azimuth4850]

@@MarzDee what a logical and well-thought out response!

[@antidrasiapologeticacrista5940]

Is about textual criticism?

[@OkieAllDay]

Hes never heard of the Eastern Orthodox Church? Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels writers all quote from the Septuagint I've heard anywhere from 85-100% of the time!!

[@NathanH83]

EXACTLY!!!!

[@NathanH83]

One of the Greek Orthodox churches sat at the feet of the World Trade center towers in New York and was destroyed in the September 11th attacks. They’ve rebuilt it now. But my point is that you don’t have to go to Greece to visit an Orthodox Church. We have them here in America. And he’s never heard that they favor the priority of the Septuagint???

[@FlyingAxblade_D20]

b-b-b-but my modernity!

[@NathanH83]

Ha! Exactly.

[@deadeyeridge]

Wonder why Craig hadn't heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls

[@aarona7024]

The fact that William Lane Craig is lying is cringe worthy. Why would he lie? What is his agenda?

[@Wonderboywonderings]

He's probably a Zionist

[@aarona7024]

@@Wonderboywonderings your comment makes no sense.

[@normandennis9420]

William Lane Craig has a lot of issues. I do believe he is an old earth creationist that also don't square with scripture.

[@MutsPub]

Why not?

[@ChangedThingsUp..]

and then there were 4

[@MrConsto]

He has a globe on his bookshelf. He already doesn’t ascribe to Biblical cosmology. Fortunately he isn’t wrong about everything just most everything

[@leepretorius4869]

Fantastic

[@genehisle5097]

And the the Septuagint matches the new testament quotes of the old testament

[@NathanH83]

Yup!!!

[@CuriousBipedal]

Thank you for the video. It is amazing to see such blatant confirmation bias from this armchair scholar who is ignorant of real scholars. The mere fact that Josephus, a Levitical Priest would use the same numbers as what the Jewish brethren in Alexandria were using shows that at this time, the Hebrew version and the Septuagint used the same numbers. BUT this was before Messiah, after Messiah a way needed to be found to discredit Messianic claims such as Melchizedech being of a different line than Abraham. The revisions to the MSS must have been made AFTER Josephus and BEFORE the Church fathers of the 4th century (the early 300's).

[@NathanH83]

They might have happened before Josephus, actually. Josephus had been given the Hebrew scrolls from the temple in Jerusalem. So his scrolls were accurate. But there could have been other Scrolls that were corrupted before the time of Josephus that simply didn’t get accepted by the rabbis until after the time of Josephus.

[@MutsPub]

Miles Wilson - "armchair scholar"? Seriously? He is a Professor at Talbot!

[@braddefoor5933]

To start with, not all of what Josephus claims is that accurate. Here are some other things that your history you may have missed. ! John 6:4 And the Pěsaḥ was near the festival of the Yehuḏim. Notes: There is much debate that this verse was added in. In which I will give you four examples. Example #1: Museum of the King James Bible- History 150 years of revision - There is a version of the KJB known as the “Wicked Bible” on display where it shows the misprint of the command Exo 20:14 “You do commit adultery.” - The King James Bible was revised several times in the first year it was written. Example of extra words that were added in- Acts 21:25… In the KJV (and in a few other versions, but not in all versions), there are eight extra words that were added (inserted) in- “that they observe no such thing, save only”. In the Greek is six extra words- “μηδεν τοιουτον τηρειν αυτους ει μη”. KJV Acts 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which belief, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. {that theyG846 observeG5083 noG3367 such thing, G5108 saveG1508 only} GRNT TR Acts 21:25 περι δε των πεπιστευκοτων εθνων ημεις επεστειλαμεν κριναντες μηδεν τοιουτον τηρειν αυτους ει μη φυλασσεσθαι αυτους το τε ειδωλοθυτον και το αιμα και πνικτον και πορνειαν {μηδενG3367 A-ASN-N τοιουτονG5108 D-ASN τηρεινG5083 V-PAN αυτουςG846 P-APM ειG1487 COND μηG3361 PRT-N} However- These extra words are not found in Acts 15:20 or Acts 15:29. According to Omanson and Metzger in their- A textual guide to the Greek New Testament… …the reading is a Western paraphrase of the intent of the decree… - In support of the included extra wording (Just two examples and there are others) from the Greek- #1: Codex Bezae, 5th century #2: Ephraemi Rescriptus 5th century - The following four examples were the extra wording is omitted (and there are others) from the Greek- #1: P74 (Bodmer XVII) 7th century #2: Codex Alexandrinus 5th century #3: Codex Vaticanus 4th century #4: Codex Sinaiticus 4th century - However, I could not find any of the extra wordings in the Latin Vulgate- Acts 21:25 de his autem qui crediderunt ex gentibus nos scripsimus iudicantes ut abstineant se ab idolis immolato et sanguine et suffocato et fornicatione Example #2: The woman who was caught in adultery (John 8:3-11): There are those who claim that this is a forgery (If so, then it’s a darn good one! more about this later). Some claim that is not found in some of the manuscripts, while others state that it was added in later after John wrote his gospel. Someplace John 7:53 to John 8:11 here and John 7:36 or John 21:25 or after Luke 21:38, with variations of the text. Example #3: If you follow the outline given in John chapter 6, this presents a problem. He is going the wrong way for Passover. Passover was to be observed in Yerushalem not on the other side of the Sea of Galil, which is Lake Kinnereth (Sea of Tiberius) or in the area in the land of Galil. However if true- Then it would place about a ten-month (if John 5:1 was the unspecified Festival of Shavuot (Festival of Weeks)) time span between John 5:1-16 and John 6:4, and a seven-month time span between John 6:4 to John 7:2-52. Or it would place a twelve-month (if John 5:1 was the unspecified Festival of Passover) time span between John 5:1-16 and John 6:4 and a seven-month time span between John 6:4 to John 7:2-52. Examples #4: Early Christian church fathers: - Zachary Pearce a Protestant 1777 Believed that the whole verse was added. - Gerhard Vossius (Protestant) Amsterdam 1643, writes- …That John 6:4 was first written… “But the holy day of the Jews was approaching” and that the intent had to do with the holy day of Tabernacles…but the copyist not paying attention to it, wrote Pascha (Passover)…The ancients seem not to have read the word Pascha (Passover) at John 6 since they saw that the Savior predicted one year or even a few months besides. - Eusebius believed in a 3 ½ year ministry- But records that after John’s imprisonment, that Matthew, Mark, and Luke accounts record a one-year ministry- Eusebius, Church History, Book III, chapter XXIV, 8 - Eusebius believed in a 3 ½ year ministry- But records that after John’s imprisonment, that Matthew, Mark, and Luke accounts record a one-year ministry- Eusebius, Church History, Book III, chapter XXIV, 8 - John Chrysostom ca. 349-407 (Protestant who hated the “Jews”, because there were Christians in his day that went to the “Jewish” synagogues who he saw as Judaizing), Writes a question- Why is the Savior not going up to the feast of Passover when the Savior is taking His disciples to Capernaum after going into Galilee when everyone else is going to Jerusalem? The Savior is going the wrong way. But, he answers his own question- He writes, “Because henceforth He (the Savior) was quietly annulling the law, taking occasion from the wickedness of the Jews.” - Clement of Alexandria [150-215] - Also supported the notion of the Messiah’s one-year ministry- Stromata, l, 21,145- “…And Jesus was coming to His baptism, being about thirty years old,” and so on. And it was necessary for Him to preach only a year. This is also written, “He hath sent me to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.” This both the prophet spoke, and the Gospel. (Luke 4:16-19 quoting Isa_61:1-2) - Clement of Alexandria [200 CE] was one of the first Christian fathers to come up with the narrative of Daniel’s 70 Weeks (Dan_9:24-27) leading up to the coming of the Messiah, which he may have gotten this idea from the Jewish sages in their take of Daniel’s 70 weeks to prove that Simon bar kokhba (Hebrew: שמעון בר כוכבא; died 135 CE, born Simon ben Kosevah, was the leader of what is known as the Bar Kokhba revolt against the Roman Empire in 132 CE), was the promised messiah. - Origen (184-253 CE); was a disciple of Clement, and was schooled in Alexandria. First-principles “De Principiis” Book IV. 5 According to Origen on the duration of the ministry of the Messiah, taught only a year and some months. - Irenaeus of Lyon- He lived from 130 C.E. to 202 C.E. and he was a disciple of Polycarp. Polycarp was a disciple of John. Irenaeus was a 2nd-century heretic hunter. He wrote a book called “On the Detection and Overthrow of the Gnostics”. He had his own view of the Messiah’s ministry, in which he based his theory from John 8:57. He wanted to prove that, the Messiah’s ministry was longer than one year contrary to the beginning of popular teaching, that the Messiah’s ministry was just one year (70 weeks (490 days)). Which is based from a misguided understanding (view) of when the Messiah reads from Isaiah 61:1-2a (Luke 4:16-30), which is in reference to Lev_25:10a, indicating that when the Messiah had read Isa_61:1-2 was a Shemitah (Sabbath) year, the year of release. There was a group of people called the Valentinians that taught that the Messiah’s ministry was about one year, to do this, they had placed Luke 4:16-19 between John 2:23 and John 11:53. In order for Irenaeus to do this, (From his book- Irenaeus…, Adversus Haeresies Book 2 chapter 22 section 3) he cites John 2:23, John 5:1, and John 11:55 as Passovers, but he does not cite John 6:4. Which leads to the question of why? Why? Irenaeus was reading and citing from the scroll of John. If the version of John’s scroll that he had, had contained the verse “John 6:4 And the Pěsaḥ was near, the festival of the Yehuḏim.” He would have certainly have cited this passage thus giving him an additional year in which he would need. But instead, to give him the extra year he needed between John 2:23 and John 11:55, he made the assumption that John 5:1 (the unspecified festival) was the Passover, which could be possible.

[@soligracia3073]

Yes, no one except the disciples of Jesus Christ