Being a person of OCD, through the years I’ve been almost paralyzed in my Bible reading/studying by trying to find the “best,” “most perfect” translation. Mark, you have helped *immensely*!! I’m gradually becoming more comfortable when I heard you say in one of your videos, “the best translation is the one that communicates to you - the one you will read.” The Holy Spirit will speak. Thank you so much!
Amen! Rest in this! If this weren't true, God would have had to give us instruction on how to find the best version, I think. If he didn't give you that instruction, then you can rest, knowing that you're not disobeying one of his commands.
I'm sure that the "preserved Masoretic text" will prove to be the same as the "preserved Textus Receptus" of Scrivener. In other words, it will be the Bomberg text except where the KJV departs from it. Ultimately, "perfect preservation" in word always seems to mean "perfect restoration c. 1611" in fact. I will push back on what you said around 4:15, though. Even with the qualifier "effectively," it's too strong an assertion to say that "all major modern Christian translations" agree with the Christological reading of the passage. Here are a few examples: 1. The MEV might struggle a bit with the status of "major translation" simply because the publisher has been less effective than one would hope at releasing and promoting the thing recently (with the nigh-legendary second edition currently sitting finished on their digital shelf but not released), but it agrees with the Masoretic text against the LXX: "like a lion they pin my hands and my feet." The NET, a truly major modern translation produced by the undeniably Christian Dallas Theological Seminary, uses the same wording. (Presumably, the MEV committee followed the NET here.) And while the LEB is certainly in the minor leagues, it says, "Like the lion they are at my hands and my feet." The ecumenical CEB, trying to avoid adding a verb where there is none, says, "like a lion- oh, my poor hands and feet!" 2. The NRSV committee may have had a Jewish scholar on board, but it was overwhelmingly Christian in its makeup, and it still went with a conjectural reading influenced by cognate words: "My hands and feet have shrivelled." The UE goes with something a little more compatible with the traditional Christian reading: "They bound my hands and feet" (similar to the Jerusalem Bible's "they tie me hand and foot" and the REB's "they have bound me hand and foot"). Both editions include the footnote, "Meaning of Heb uncertain." (The RSV did still use "pierced," though it noted the problem with this reading in the margin.) 3. The NEB and NJB take it as more than a simple piercing, with "they have hacked off my hands and my feet" and "as if to hack off my hands and my feet," respectively. Other graphic descriptions--assuming an attack by the previously-mentioned "dogs" rather than a lion--include the CEV's "tearing at my hands and feet" (cf. "they tear" in the TEV) and the NCV's "They have bitten my arms and legs." These translations may not be the top sellers on the market, but they're all very much in the range of "major modern Christian translations."
thanks for touching on Old Testament textual criticism! it's an important area of relevance to our understanding of Scripture today, yet it's often overshadowed by textual criticism of the New Testament.
Thank you so much for educating those of us who follow your videos! This is so interesting! Note that Robert Alter, in his The Hebrew Bible, translates this "they bound my hands and feet," and remarks in a footnote that "[t]he received Hebrew text - literally 'like a lion my hands and feet' - makes no sense. The translation adopts one proposed emendation - reading karkhu, 'they bound,' for ka'ari, 'like a lion' - though there is admittedly no ancient textual warrant for this reading." So even this renowned Jewish scholar rejects the Masoretic text on this point. The only English translation I typically check that follows the Masoretic text on this word is the NET Bible (2nd Ed.) - "like a lion they pin my hands and feet".
Thanks Mark for your excellent video. In part, you answered some questions that I was going to ask you. I have wondered how the New Testament writers used the Old Testament. For example: Did they use one translation, or several or make their own translation? Why did they make the choices they did? Are their points or arguments in the New Testament that only make sense if a particular translation is used? If so, is this a problem? What do any differences say about the reliability of our Old Testament translations? This is particularly so if there are places where the Hebrew/ Greek translations vary markedly. If there are differences in translations, how does this relate to discussions about the reliability and choices of New Testament translators? You touched on some of these questions, but It would nice to have a follow-up video sometime if time and interest permits. By the way, Ultimate Frisbee does sound interesting. I wish it was around when I was growing up. Alas, I will have to wait until heaven to get my upgraded body before I play.
It appears that they used a mix of the Septuagint and some other translation(s), possibly their own. They never cite their source for the Greek text, so it's impossible to say for certain, but the evidence suggests that they followed the most common translation sometimes but were willing to depart from it.
The 1752 Challoner Revision of the Douay-Rheims Bible reads "For many dogs have encompassed me: the council of the malignant hath besieged me. They have dug my hands and feet." (Psalm 21.17 - LXX numbering)
Mark, thank you for addressing this. I agree that a translation is always to be secondary to original language sources. I do have a question though. In my current doctoral studies for my 1st doctorate, I am writing my thesis on the influence of the Septuagint on the New Testament authors. In my research many scholars believe, because of the differences between the Septuagint and MT (Masoretic) are due to the existence of an early Hebrew manuscript reading. If that assertion is true or probable, then how can more weight be given to the MT, opposed to the OG (Old Greek) texts of the Septuagint? Great discussion. Admittedly I am at a disadvantage in this matter because I do not have training in Hebrew, but did minor in Biblical Greek in seminary. Thank you for your dedication to this difficult and extremely nuanced subject.
This is a great question, and a tough one. I'm going to have to defer to Peter for time's sake-or to future videos, where I may get to explore this. I'm sorry!
If you have not by now, you may benefit by looking into the work of Dr. Christian D. Ginsburg regarding the Masoretic Text (the Masorah). Unfortunately, I am not an expert either, and I am not even sure whether those works would help you, but perhaps they will.
Thank you, Gentlemen.🌹⭐🌹⭐ I was surprised,when reading my Jewish Study Bible (non-Messianic),to take note of this GIGANTIC difference. I was immediately comforted by looking in other Evangelical translations at verses 1 and 18. So our Evangelical translations points 3 times to the Messiah. The verse that hits me is verse 18. So in a discussion with a Jewish believer, I would say,friend,with all due respect, I STILL see the Messiah.🌹⭐🌹⭐
Using "jot and tittle" for translation is out of context. Jesus said no jot and tittle of the law will pass away. In context he is saying God's requirements are not voided, only that Jesus has satisfied them. It is concerning when things are taken out of context and applied to some form of legalistic without any discussion.
Overall great video. I do see the verb form preserved in the Greek, DSS, and the Peshitta, but I see "as a lion" in the Targums. Is there a Targum mss that I am missing or was this a mistake? ”כאריא אידי ורגלי“ (Psalm 22:17 Aramaic Targums (Onkelos, Jonathan, and the Writings))
Dear brother, I want to express my gratitude for your ministry. Your message is clear and nurturing. I have been using a critical text Bible for many years and defending it against KJV Onlyists. However, recently I came across a verse that has caused me to pause and reflect. It is 1 Peter 2:2. According to the critical text, it says, ". . . grow unto salvation." However, the Textus Receptus does not include "unto salvation." In the past, I believed that these textual variants did not impact the core doctrine of our salvation, and I defended this perspective. However, this particular verse seems to affect the fundamental doctrine of our salvation. I have attempted to interpret "salvation" in this verse as a future, physical transformation that occurs when Christ returns. Nevertheless, I find myself unable to fully convince myself of this explanation. If I continue to uphold the critical text as my ultimate authority, I will need to put in significant effort to explain that Peter is not teaching salvation by works in this verse. I am facing a struggle. I do not agree with the KJV Onlyists who claim that the King James Version is re-inspired and that people cannot be saved with other translations. I will not align myself with their beliefs. However, this verse is making me reconsider the validity of the critical text. Can you please offer me some guidance? Thanks.
Does it do any more harm than the words "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2.12 KJV)? It seems as though this isn't a textual variant issue, but rather an interpretive issue. Side note: the NLT softens the potentially anti-Protestant readings of these two verses... 1 Peter 2.2: Like newborn babies, you must crave pure spiritual milk so that you will grow into a full experience of salvation. Philippians 2.12: Work hard to show the results of your salvation, obeying God with deep reverence and fear.
@@MAMoreno Thanks for your reply. I think it's a textual variant issue. Another scholar also thinks so, although I don't agree with his opinion as follows: EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) the CEO and President of Christian Publishing House, writes, "Clearly, it is a later scribe or scribes who made a deletion. Early enough in the Byzantine text history, scribes must have taken liberties with the text, as they often did, as they took issue and could not accept the idea that anyone could “grow into salvation,” as scripturally speaking, salvation is considered an undeserved gift that one receives when one is born again, or a recreation when a believer is resurrected. However, salvation is not instantaneous but rather it is a process as is true of sanctification and transformation. As new ones grow in full, complete, or accurate knowledge (Gr. ἐπίγνωσις epignōsis) of the Word of God, they begin putting faith into Jesus Christ (Gr. πιστεύω pisteuō; εἰς eis). It is God’s Word that enables the new one to grow into salvation." (from christianpublishinghouse.co/2020/05/04/nttc-1-peter-22-was-the-original-reading-you-may-grow-into-salvation-or-you-may-grow/)
Great Conversation! Mark, I also watched the video you did with Peter on his channel. Quick question, what level of importance do you put on Jewish translations of the Hebrew Bible, such as the JPS 1917 or the Brenton LXX translation? Do you use any of them in your personal Bible study or comparison? Thanks!
Psalms 22:16 the New World Translation reads “Like a lion” and then (in early editions brackets), the added words [they are at]. There's also the footnotes that have; LXX and Vg, “They bored (dug through) my hands and my feet.” The NWT footnotes also turn to the “Targums” which reads “Biting like a lion...” I can’t be certain of the date, but I had somewhere along the way, hand written in the margin, “They have pierced DSS.” John 19:37 NWT “They will look to the one whom they pierced.” is cross referenced to Zechariah 12:10 “I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of favor and supplication, and they will look to the one whom they pierced.”
I'm an evidentialist. The text is as preserved and true as the evidence supports. I don't get into "I believe in preservation/inerancy better than you do" competitions. Doctrinal declarations work great as slogans, and work very poorly as epistemology.
I look at Judges 18.30 as a place where the text was deliberately mangled (to protect Moses' reputation); it must've been old since Thomson and Brenton have the same reading (Manasseh) where I believe the Vulgate has the original (Moses). The Vulgate is clearly translated from a proto-Masoretic text, but in some cases it preserves an older reading. (NOTE: There were 3 "Vulgate" Psalters. Two of them remained in circulation; the one usually seen in standard texts is the Gallican, which is translated from the LXX, but there's another translated directly from Hebrew.)
Unfortunately the MEV & NET differs from the AV; NKJV; LSB; ESV; etc. here: "like a lion they pin my hands and my feet" (Psa. 22:16 MEV) Even the NRSVue retained the AV reading: "they bound my hands and feet." (Psa. 22:16 NRSVue) Dr. Ruckman actually behaves himself here and simply gives the reason for the distinction in the Hebrew: “For dogs have compassed me.” Gentiles: they are Roman soldiers. The Hebrew radicals for “pierced” are the same as those that read “like a lion.” But the vowel pointing for the latter would be Qames, Qames-hatuph and long hireq; whereas, the pointing for the AV reading is qames with shureq. The Vulgate takes this from the ancient Old Syriac, preserved in the Peshitta. Undoubtedly the LXX-written more than one hundred years after the Old Syriac-picked this up from Antioch of Syria.” (Peter S. Ruckman, The Book of Psalms Vol. 1 (Pensacola: BB Bookstore, 1992, Reprint 1997) 174)
Is there a response somewhere to the “Franken text “ argument? Brother Dwayne Green had an interesting video on this that raises a good question I think .
I think that at some level, every available text is a Frankentext-except for actual "diplomatic" (they're called) editions of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, and other whole-NT mansucripts. It all depends on your "zoom level." I think the Frankentext argument is a powerful one, and a good one. But I'm not ultimately persuaded, because it doesn't, positively speaking, give me an alternative that is wholly free from the force of its own critique.
@@wardonwords That is a great answer ! I think that my cherished confession (1689) could be amended at this point in the insistence upon the Hebrew text without mention of the Greek LXX
I am decidedly not weighing in for either the KJVOnly position or for the infallibility of the Masoretic text! But, I should like to make two points. 1. The “they dug/pierced / like a lion” problem was quite easily solved by, eg, Keil and Delitzsch in their commentary [found online]. At Psalm 45:06, they point out that, there and at Psalm 22:17 and at 2 Samuel 22:14, Hebrew does have “ the apocopated plural,in -î, instead of -îm”. Moreover, both in his 1894 TBS text and also in his later and fuller 1926 BFBS text, Ginsburg noted that there is a split in the Masoretic reading. So, I would very much hesitate to conclude that the KJV Translators, who were very widely read, were unaware of the readings. 2. The KJV Translators were very much aware of the relevance of the “Septuagint” for text and translation : see their remarkable marginal notes at Acts 13:18 and 34.
So at around 12 minutes, you state that there are masoretic texts that have the dug/pierced reading, but then somehow accusing the KJV of not following the masoretic text here? I don't get it.
The standard Masoretic text does not say "dug." A few copies contain variants from that standard. It's like saying that you've found a "Byzantine text" manuscript for the New Testament that happens to have a reading that's more commonly found in the Western text-type.
Wasn’t the Masoretic Text created in the 2nd century by Rabbinical scholars who modified the OT scriptures to water down the references of Jesus deity? Doesn’t the Greek Septuagint agree with the Dead Sea scrolls in regards to scriptures that endorse Jesus’ deity?
It's very, very unlikely that there was a deliberate modification of the text to counter Christian beliefs. It's far more plausible that the conflicts may have influenced the scribes' preferences when textual variants were encountered than it is that textual variants were introduced for polemical reasons.
I may be mistaken here, but I just don't think the Jews thought of books outside the Torah as having the same measure of preservation as most modern evangelicals, and even the Torah is at least implied to be a reconstructed text. So, it seems to me, we should go with the ancient reading of the text (from whatever source) that most illustrates the Christian understanding of the Old Testament. To me, that means relying on the DSS or LXX whenever the Masoretic text is either unclear, corrupt, or disagrees with the New Testament reading of the text. And when the New Testament has a variant reading different from all the sources, the NT reading should be preferred. That is simply my opinion.
Charlesking9120, What they’re referring to is Scrivener’s Textus Receptus, which came out in about 1880. The KJV translators didn’t document every reading they chose from Greek manuscripts. So, Alexander Scrivener took the KJV and consulted Greek manuscripts to account for the KJV reading. And Scrivener documented his sources in the manuscripts, which the KJV translators did not. Mainly, the KJV translators used Erasmus’s Textus Receptus, which preceded the KJV. Scrivener’s TR obviously did not.
@@larrytruelove8659 Just a small point of clarification: the translators almost certainly relied on the editions of Robert Estienne and Theodore Beza, which were based on the work of Desiderius Erasmus. They were revising the Bishops' Bible, which itself drew from Estienne's edition as its committee revised the Great Bible (a version based on the Erasmus editions). The KJV translators sometimes stuck with the Estienne readings and sometimes adopted the Beza readings. As FHA Scrivener realized, they must have consulted other printed editions as well, but we can say without a doubt that they had Beza's work in front of them.
It's important for the non-Hebrew reading viewers to be aware that the reading כארו (ka'aru) does not lead directly to the translation "pierce." According to scholarship, such a verb could also mean "bind" or "be repulsive," or (with a further emendation of the MT to "koaru") possibly "mutilate." At any rate, if "ka'aru" is accepted, it would be a once-appearing verb in the Hebrew Bible, and thus its precise sense would be very hard to pin down. As noted in the video, the Greek word found in the LXX (ορυσσω, "orusso") typically means "dig out, excavate." This would be a pretty odd way to describe nailing someone's hands into wood. The verse could have used the Greek verb νυσσω ("nusso") which does mean stab or pierce, and which is used in John 19:34 with reference to Jesus' side. And it should certainly be noted too that the Gospel accounts do not describe Jesus' hands and feet being nailed or pierced during the crucifixion. All of this is separate, of course, from the much more fundamental issue of whether the psalm, taken in context, with all of its parts, would reasonably be applicable to Jesus.
You're not wrong. And the hapax point is especially apropos. I did not think to establish that. I did note the distance between "dug" and "pierced," but we didn't discuss it in the video.
You mention places that the KJV veers from the KJV reading and/or goes with the LXX. Sometimes in questioning KJVO folk, they will reply, 'No it doesn't!"....... and they have all kinds of reasons that bolster their belief even tho it's wrong........ with those people you just shake the dust off your feet.
Mark, why do scholars seem to divorce early church history from textual tradition? The Judean religious establishment had problems with the Lord Jesus, Paul, Justin, and numerous other saints, so textual alterations within the Hebrew tradition would naturally occur due to political, ideological, and theological differences. This is all evidenced in early church writings, and what we know about the generation of Judean rabbis after the NT is that they were quite hostile to what became Christianity. I don't blame the Masoetes necessarily for altering their bible, but it seems likely that alterations were made in the time period of the 2nd century. Do you see the tide on this shifting in scholarship with Bible scholars being willing to look at what became Rabbinic Judaism, and its Text, with less of a romantic eye and more of an objective eye?
The alternative assumption is that Jews were looking to hold on tightly to their traditions after the destruction of the second temple, not looking for an opportunity to warp their traditional scriptures for polemical purposes. They'd already lost too much for them to sacrifice their holy book along with it. Gentile Christians had far more motivation to change the text than diasporic rabbis did: they were trying to find Jesus everywhere they could in the Bible, so they were more likely to take a passage allegorically, and that allegorical reading could eventually produce a textual variant in the Greek version of the Bible. I'd rather give both sides the benefit of the doubt and chalk things up to accidental typos.
So what did Erasmus use as his Hebrew text to translate into English? When did the KJV start using the MT? I'm having issues finding any information on that
Very interesting guys! I was verging on KJV only thought many years ago - I say verging and not completely - but now see how the Lord used various texts to preserve His Word entirely. I do reverence the KJV for its equisite detail though. For example: Luke 2:33 "And Joseph and his mother" vs the NIV "the child's father and mother" - the KJV here meticulously gets the detail right confirming Christ's deity whereas the NIV verges on blasphemy. Thanks so much to both of you for this and other video's - I was coincidentally wondering about Hebrews 1:6 today - this may be another example where the Septuagint was referenced, or perhaps the Dead Sea Scrolls? God bless!
Since the Masoretic Text did not exist when Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount, He could not have meant that that Hebrew text was the perfectly preserved text of the OT.
I don’t see the problem with the “pierced” reading being a minority in the Hebrew. It’s in the Masoretic Text. Michael Brown has a video on it. I haven’t heard King James Only proponents say that all readings have to be *majority* readings in the Hebrew.
Let me make another comment.... this is kind of "weeds" kinda stuff (and it has it's place for those that do deep study of such things) BUT for the average person in the pew they just read/listen to a Bible.....they choose a translation, and it's God's Word..... they go from there.
As a Spanish speaker, I was appalled and amused at the same time of the arrogance and ignorance of the KJV- only people. Not only there are many Bibles that precede the KJV but they are far more accurate than the KJV. These people are confusing "scripture" with the Word, who is Jesus. He is the Verb of God, and contrary to this academic statement, Jesus had no need to memorize the scriptures, as he is the Word and the very revelation of the Almighty.
when you have to go into conspiracy theory mode (x group of scribes had the reading they did because of intentional altering and polemics), you stop doing genuine Reasoned Textual criticism, and doing more apologetics, confirmation bias, and psychologizing. This is especially true when other explanations exist that don't require impugning the motivess of anyone.
I suppose I don't want to deny the possibility that any scribe anywhere made intentional alterations for theological reasons. But absent more evidence, internal or external, than we usually have, I'm loathe to go there.
The KJV vs. the Masoretic Text Response: 1. This discussion appears expanded to include KJV vs. Masoretic vs. LXX. Is this like Chevy vs. Maserati vs. Honda XL? 2. If the King James Bible translators chose to use the LXX text over the Masoretic text in certain places in order to better express the Gospel message, then the both the original 1611 KJV and the entire LXX are good enough for me (66+). 3. To Peter, I say: "Go man! The Bible Sojourner Truth? Mark my Wards."
Whatever the case, the King James Translation is correct, never mind what anything else says. Understand that professional Hebrew Scribes knew their own language, and working with their letters every day, they are not going to mix one up with another. GOD has promised to preserve His Word, never mind the propensity of man to wreck things - GOD is able to make man do it properly in spite of himself. The verse gives us a perfect Prophecy of Christ upon the Cross, proving it is given by Inspiration of GOD.
Those King James Bible only people that argue for the "perfect preservation" of the Textus Receptus tradition and the Masoretic tradition should not claim that either of those two things are perfect in those original languages, as there simply is no perfect extant Greek NT nor Hebrew OT. However, as Edward Hills said that the KJB was an independent variety of the Received Text, it would much better make sense that the KJB itself be seen as the perfect standard, and that the broad tradition of the TR including the Latin, and the broad Masoretic tradition including Greek OT translations, be seen as a method of transmission that led to the KJB. Therefore, from good preservation a perfect final form was produced. This is in line with the doctrine of scattering and gathering.
@@MAMoreno You mean self-authenticating presuppositionalism? I get the sense that you are somewhat more liberal in your theology than Reformed/Fundamentalism.
@@bibleprotector I will refrain from strongly expressing my opinion on presuppositional apologetics. I'll simply say that Christianity has much better approaches to defending its claims than falling back on what amounts to circular reasoning.
Anyone, anywhere, could pick any translation, and say the exact same thing, and when someone tries to tell them the translations has an error, just deny it emphatically and imagine or invent whatever is needed to maintain the position.
@@hayfieldhermit9657 Anyone could say anything about anything, but I said "self-authenticating", and the KJB has an internal consistency which is demonstrable.
Christ and the Apostles never used the Septuagint, for it did not exist at that time. Even if the King James Translators believe it did, this is just what they were taught, and they are only giving their opinion. Within the First Edition King James, which did have typographical errors, which were corrected, the text itself was perfect and without error in the sense of what the Translators intended to give us from their accurate rendering of the Oirignall Tongues Diligently compared and revised. On the other hand, in stuff they added, like page headings that summarised what was going on in the page, chapter outlines given at the start of each chapter, and some of the charts and diagrams, some parts of these were flawed - but as for the actual text, as it was then and now, it is perfect in what it was intended to say, for GOD has promised to preserve His Word, and He has done, even in English, in this Bible. Glory to GOD.
The quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament match up with the Septuagint, and also fragments of the Septuagint were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
You claim that this verse must have been found in the Septuagint version, even though it was found in the Syriac version, the Arabic version, and even the Vulgate version. You claim it must be the Septuagint because you falsely date it back to the 2nd century even though it dates back to a much later date, 3rd century onward, when the Syriac dates back to the 2nd century. Never mind all constant well-known edits of it throughout it existence through time. You are constantly misleading people in your aim to discredit the kjv at the cost of your own credibility. I just wish if that when you said you would be as honest as possible when it comes to this subject, you would be, instead of coming up with contradictory statements and fallacies of standards you don't even hold yourself to. To the lament, it may sound like what you say is pretty convincing, but when people know about the important data missing from your fallacious arguments, your points of criticism instantly fall short and become moot. This is why nobody bothers to argue with you about this subject is because over and over again, this appears to be the case with you. You give deceptive fallacious arguments over and over again to the point it feels like you are just arguing for the sake of arguing and not taking the subject seriously.
This is just all wrong. The Syriac does indeed date to the 2nd Century . . . AD. The Septuagint has manuscript fragments going back to the 2nd Century BC.
@MAMoreno It is all fragments, and contains words that were written *after* it's supposed dating, such as MEGALOSUNE, AKATASTATOS, EMPAIZO, AKROGONIAIOS, PAREPIDEMOIS, SUNANTILAMBANOMAI, etc. All of which is after it's time of supposedly 250BC. These examples show that there was too many editions to make the false claim of those dates. The paper may carbon date to those times, but the carbon dating of the ink doesn't match the paper, not even close, let alone the dating of the terminology used during the supposed time Era it was being dated to. Yet everyone involves loves to leave out these blatant inconsistencies when it comes to this subject.
@@Official_Random_Guy They opened a cave in Israel a couple years ago, and it was sealed at the time of the Roman aggression and it contained a fragment of the Old Testament in GREEK.... Besides, in the front of a real KJV Bible, it will have a "letter to the reader" in which they educate the uneducated on this matter. They said the Greek Old Testament was in fact completed before Jesus time....
Deut 4:2 (KJV) and Rev 22:18-19 (KJV) tell us there can be only one preserved Word of God. And yet version after version is spewed out to deceive. There is not a power that is not given by God. Through providence God raised up the most powerful nation there ever was or will be, the U.S.A., and in its infancy it was given the preserved word of God; “Robert Aitken, a Philadelphia printer, was the first to publish the first American edition of the K.J.V. New Testament in 1781 and the K.J.V. Old Testament in 1782, omitting the Apocrypha. On completion, he petitioned and received from the Congress of the Confederation, an official endorsement that Aitken added to the binding of his Bibles, to assure colonists that they were buying a non-royalist edition: “Resolved, that the United States in Congress assembled… recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States and hereby authorize him to publish this recommendation.” As a result, the Aitken Bible (KJV) is often referred to as “The Bible (KJV) of the Revolution.” The nation was given the KJV, not the dead sea scrolls, not the book of Enoch, not Hebrew books etc. but only the KJV. If God wanted us to understand his word in Hebrew he would have raised this nation up speaking Hebrew. Back in the 1600’s God saw to it that the certain scriptures were translated into English “KJ Bible” and was put into print so that all could read for themselves the truth that in in the scriptures. God did this because he knew that he would bring about this powerful nation [U.S.A. and the English language] of ours to lead the world. The scriptures were written by apostles and prophets inspired by God through the Holy Ghost. The compilation and translation to English was also done by the direction of God through the Holy Ghost and he did not make any mistakes, i.e., the fourth horse being “pale” was no mistake, the horse is not green. In Greek mythology, the name Chloris (Khloris Χλωρίς, from khloros χλωρός, meaning “greenish-yellow,” “pale green,” “pale,” “pallid” or “fresh”) appears… Pallid 1. pale; faint or deficient in color; wan: a pallid countenance. People say that they believe that scripture was written by the direction of God and the Holy Ghost, which is true. But what you people don’t seem to realize is that the compilation and translation of the bible (KJV) was also done by the direction of God and the Holy Ghost. If the bible (KJV) was written and compiled by men of opinion and perspective and translated by incompetent translators then you might as well throw it in the trash. The prophets were told what to write and how to write it, 2 Peter 1:20-21 (KJV) The nation was given the symbol of the Eagle, 37 … Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together. Luke 17:37 (KJV), the body being the Church, the body of Christ. The nation has the motto and preamble “in God we trust” and “one nation under God”. This greatest and most powerful nation the U.S.A., has been given the last and best chance to lead the world to heaven on earth or destruction. But like all other nations of power before it (symbolic Israels, Rev 11:8 (KJV)) the U.S. has chosen destruction and is now the great “liar” saying “in God we trust” and “one nation under God”, it is now the conglomerate of the dragon, beast, false prophet, and harlot, it is Satan loosed from the pit, 7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, 8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth Rev 20:7-8 (KJV). And yet no one seems to know of or speak of a very clear fulfillment of prophecy in our recent history. We (U.S.A.) are the ones who brought down fire from heaven in Aug. of 1945 and we are the ones that gave life to the image of the beast in May of 1948. Rev.13:13-15 (KJV). All glory to God. Amen
Of course, the KJV is completely disqualified if we're going by Revelation 22.18-19 as you're taking it. The Greek text behind that passage in Revelation is littered with weird variants because the scholar Erasmus was stuck having to depend on Latin instead of Greek to complete the final verses of this book. The variant that's obvious even in translation is "book of life" (as it reads in the Latin Vulgate) rather than "tree of life" (as it typically reads in Greek manuscripts). But even worse, the KJV adopts an especially bad reading in Revelation that comes from another scholar of the era, Theodore Beza. In Revelation 16.5, Beza rejected all of the manuscript evidence, Greek or otherwise, and made up a new reading ("and shalt be") based on his own opinion of how the text must have read originally. The KJV committee decided to follow Beza here rather than sticking with the reading preserved over the centuries. The proper reading ("and holy') is found in the pre-KJV translations, and it's found in most of the modern translations (except for those few that try to replicate the KJV's critical decisions on the text). Now, I'm reluctant to say that Erasmus, Beza, or the KJV translators are cursed because of their handling of Revelation. They may have introduced some unfortunate, undeniable errors into the book, but they did not really add to or take away from its prophetic meaning in doing so, which is really the point of Revelation 22.18-19. But Revelation in the KJV cannot be the true preserved form of the book: it's too marred with aberrant readings that did not exist until the 1500s. __________________ And I won't even get into the danger of boasting about the USA's power, as we know where that mindset leads. (Nor will I bother trying to argue that the ASV or RSV is perfect simply because they were 20th century American translations that appeared as the USA grew in power and influence. Such arguments hold no credibility.)
@@MAMoreno there is no power that is not given by God. a very clear fulfillment of prophecy in our recent history. We (U.S.A.) are the ones who brought down fire from heaven in Aug. of 1945 and we are the ones that gave life to the image of the beast in May of 1948. Rev 13:13-15 (KJV). The prophecy, 13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, Rev 13:13 (KJV) The fulfillment, The United States detonated two atomic bombs over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 and 9 August 1945, respectively. “In the sight of men”, means this was done on the world stage during WWII (the second “woe”). The prophecy, 15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, …Rev 13:15 (KJV) The fulfillment, On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel. U.S. President Harry S. Truman recognized the new nation on the same day. This was done using the power and prestige the U.S. earned by the act of bringing fire down from the heaven (sky). It is said that God will bless those who bless Israel, and this is true, but the following verses show us that the “Israel in the middle east is false” and is not to be blessed. 9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11 For he that biddeth him God speed is PARTAKER of his EVIL DEEDS. 2 John 1:9-11 (KJV) AND 9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. Romans 8:9 (KJV) You can’t have it both ways, 8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. James 1:8 (KJV) 43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. 44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. Matt 21:43-44 (KJV) And 15 And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen: for the Lord GOD shall slay thee, and call his servants by another name: Isaiah 65:15 (KJV). The second beast of lies, saying “one nation under God” and “in God we trust”, indeed the “father of lies”, did bring fire from the heaven, (Greek Strong's Number: 3772...(through the idea of elevation); the SKY...), and did set up a false Israel in the middle east, (proven false by this verse among others 9 ...Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, HE IS NONE OF HIS. Romans 8:9 (KJV)). This Israel has been and is the catalyst of “wars and rumors of wars” making it the image of the first beast of warmongering , Germany, who’s head was wounded in WWI(1st harvest, woe) and healed enough to bring about WWII(2nd harvest, woe). You couldn’t get a better fulfillment of prophecy. For these events to happen again would negate the prophecies altogether. And it is asinine to think these events are happenstance and ignored by the prophecies of God. No sir, either God’s timing is off or yours is. And this leaves only one “woe”(WWIII) left, the war that God hates (abomination), a war that makes the world desolate. 7th trump and bowl are simultaneous and plunge the world into 3½ yrs of great tribulation. If the truth were being told then the prophecy of Matt. 24:14 would have occurred years ago, shortly after the advent of the world-wide-web. This fact proves that the prominent teachers are false teachers. I suggest you forget all that you have been taught and come to the bible (KJV) with sincere want for truth, and not to consume it upon your lusts, but that you may do true worship and obedience to God, with a repentant heart, and with reason and logic the Spirit of God will teach.11 … in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Acts 17:11 (KJV) All glory to God. Amen
@@lonecar144 So I take it that the words "things which must shortly come to pass" (Rev. 1.1 KJV) have no meaning. I can see the argument that Revelation uses language that can find broad relevance and application outside of its initial First Century context, but that is at best an "idealist" interpretation of the text that doesn't concern itself with the book's clear allusions to the old Roman Empire during Classical Antiquity.
@@MAMoreno Eccl 1:9-11 (KJV) God allows MANS evil to run its course but under his patterned timeline and agenda. That repeating pattern is revealed in the seven seals and seven Churches, each seal and corresponding church representing a 1,000-year day, and each day having its own set of 7 trumpets and 7 vials. The 7 trumpets are 4 progressive leading (morally failed) cities/nations ((12 tribes into Egypt and 12 tribes out of Egypt) this is why there are 24 elders), and 3 major wars/world wars, and the 7 vials are 7 events of the last major/leading city/nation of each day (each city/nation a head of the dragon, Rev 17:9 (KJV)). The 7th trumpet and the 7th vial are simultaneous and end each 1,000-year day with God destroying civilization and bringing hell on earth (the pit) and thereby sealing the day, 6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Psalms 12:1-6-8 (KJV), {this is how he sealed each 1k year day, the 7 seals.}, the coming “great” desolation being the eighth and last time. Rev 17:10-11 (KJV)., and God decides what truths (and lies) are passed onto the next 1,000-year day. Today we are in the 7th day/seal and God rests on the 7th day. He will allow us to destroy ourselves and the earth with our undisciplined knowledge of technology and nuclear power, the beginning of ww3 a nuclear war bringing the earth into tribulation for the eighth and last time. And after 3 ½ years of “Great Tribulation” the earth is cast into the sun (lake of fire, “the second death”) along with the evil and suffering of man (Satan and hell), and the sincere “fire fighters” (the church/adoption/lukewarm) are spewed out to a new earth (the waters above). Amen
Being a person of OCD, through the years I’ve been almost paralyzed in my Bible reading/studying by trying to find the “best,” “most perfect” translation. Mark, you have helped *immensely*!! I’m gradually becoming more comfortable when I heard you say in one of your videos, “the best translation is the one that communicates to you - the one you will read.” The Holy Spirit will speak. Thank you so much!
Amen! Rest in this! If this weren't true, God would have had to give us instruction on how to find the best version, I think. If he didn't give you that instruction, then you can rest, knowing that you're not disobeying one of his commands.
Mark always uploading right in time for my lunch break
✔
I'm sure that the "preserved Masoretic text" will prove to be the same as the "preserved Textus Receptus" of Scrivener. In other words, it will be the Bomberg text except where the KJV departs from it. Ultimately, "perfect preservation" in word always seems to mean "perfect restoration c. 1611" in fact.
I will push back on what you said around 4:15, though. Even with the qualifier "effectively," it's too strong an assertion to say that "all major modern Christian translations" agree with the Christological reading of the passage. Here are a few examples:
1. The MEV might struggle a bit with the status of "major translation" simply because the publisher has been less effective than one would hope at releasing and promoting the thing recently (with the nigh-legendary second edition currently sitting finished on their digital shelf but not released), but it agrees with the Masoretic text against the LXX: "like a lion they pin my hands and my feet." The NET, a truly major modern translation produced by the undeniably Christian Dallas Theological Seminary, uses the same wording. (Presumably, the MEV committee followed the NET here.) And while the LEB is certainly in the minor leagues, it says, "Like the lion they are at my hands and my feet." The ecumenical CEB, trying to avoid adding a verb where there is none, says, "like a lion- oh, my poor hands and feet!"
2. The NRSV committee may have had a Jewish scholar on board, but it was overwhelmingly Christian in its makeup, and it still went with a conjectural reading influenced by cognate words: "My hands and feet have shrivelled." The UE goes with something a little more compatible with the traditional Christian reading: "They bound my hands and feet" (similar to the Jerusalem Bible's "they tie me hand and foot" and the REB's "they have bound me hand and foot"). Both editions include the footnote, "Meaning of Heb uncertain." (The RSV did still use "pierced," though it noted the problem with this reading in the margin.)
3. The NEB and NJB take it as more than a simple piercing, with "they have hacked off my hands and my feet" and "as if to hack off my hands and my feet," respectively. Other graphic descriptions--assuming an attack by the previously-mentioned "dogs" rather than a lion--include the CEV's "tearing at my hands and feet" (cf. "they tear" in the TEV) and the NCV's "They have bitten my arms and legs." These translations may not be the top sellers on the market, but they're all very much in the range of "major modern Christian translations."
Good call. I don’t disagree.
Great conversation! Thank you, Brothers.✝️📖
Very interesting, Mark. Thanks for the work and sharing.
Glad you enjoyed it!
this is fantastic. i will be using this in the future to help other brothers and sisters.
Thank you! Peter and I had to delay this multiple times-I'm glad it finally happened!
thanks for touching on Old Testament textual criticism! it's an important area of relevance to our understanding of Scripture today, yet it's often overshadowed by textual criticism of the New Testament.
Thanks for your fascinating dialog with Peter Goeman regarding the Masoretic text in Psalm 22.
Man…now you gotta get a disc golfer!!!!
More great stuff. Thanks guys!
Great discussion! Thank you Mark and Peter.
Thank you so much for educating those of us who follow your videos! This is so interesting! Note that Robert Alter, in his The Hebrew Bible, translates this "they bound my hands and feet," and remarks in a footnote that "[t]he received Hebrew text - literally 'like a lion my hands and feet' - makes no sense. The translation adopts one proposed emendation - reading karkhu, 'they bound,' for ka'ari, 'like a lion' - though there is admittedly no ancient textual warrant for this reading." So even this renowned Jewish scholar rejects the Masoretic text on this point.
The only English translation I typically check that follows the Masoretic text on this word is the NET Bible (2nd Ed.) - "like a lion they pin my hands and feet".
Thanks Mark for your excellent video.
In part, you answered some questions that I was going to ask you. I have wondered how the New Testament writers used the Old Testament. For example:
Did they use one translation, or several or make their own translation?
Why did they make the choices they did?
Are their points or arguments in the New Testament that only make sense if a particular translation is used?
If so, is this a problem?
What do any differences say about the reliability of our Old Testament translations? This is particularly so if there are places where the Hebrew/ Greek translations vary markedly.
If there are differences in translations, how does this relate to discussions about the reliability and choices of New Testament translators?
You touched on some of these questions, but It would nice to have a follow-up video sometime if time and interest permits.
By the way, Ultimate Frisbee does sound interesting. I wish it was around when I was growing up. Alas, I will have to wait until heaven to get my upgraded body before I play.
It appears that they used a mix of the Septuagint and some other translation(s), possibly their own. They never cite their source for the Greek text, so it's impossible to say for certain, but the evidence suggests that they followed the most common translation sometimes but were willing to depart from it.
Excellent, thank you both so much.
The 1752 Challoner Revision of the Douay-Rheims Bible reads "For many dogs have encompassed me: the council of the malignant hath besieged me. They have dug my hands and feet." (Psalm 21.17 - LXX numbering)
Immensely enlightening!
Mark, thank you for addressing this. I agree that a translation is always to be secondary to original language sources. I do have a question though. In my current doctoral studies for my 1st doctorate, I am writing my thesis on the influence of the Septuagint on the New Testament authors. In my research many scholars believe, because of the differences between the Septuagint and MT (Masoretic) are due to the existence of an early Hebrew manuscript reading. If that assertion is true or probable, then how can more weight be given to the MT, opposed to the OG (Old Greek) texts of the Septuagint?
Great discussion. Admittedly I am at a disadvantage in this matter because I do not have training in Hebrew, but did minor in Biblical Greek in seminary. Thank you for your dedication to this difficult and extremely nuanced subject.
This is a great question, and a tough one. I'm going to have to defer to Peter for time's sake-or to future videos, where I may get to explore this. I'm sorry!
If you have not by now, you may benefit by looking into the work of Dr. Christian D. Ginsburg regarding the Masoretic Text (the Masorah). Unfortunately, I am not an expert either, and I am not even sure whether those works would help you, but perhaps they will.
@@derrickpurdy7011 Thank you very much for the suggestion. I will check out that resource.
Thank you, Gentlemen.🌹⭐🌹⭐ I was surprised,when reading my Jewish Study Bible (non-Messianic),to take note of this GIGANTIC difference. I was immediately comforted by looking in other Evangelical translations at verses 1 and 18. So our Evangelical translations points 3 times to the Messiah. The verse that hits me is verse 18. So in a discussion with a Jewish believer, I would say,friend,with all due respect, I STILL see the Messiah.🌹⭐🌹⭐
Our pleasure!
Interesting discussion. Thanks guys!
Using "jot and tittle" for translation is out of context. Jesus said no jot and tittle of the law will pass away. In context he is saying God's requirements are not voided, only that Jesus has satisfied them. It is concerning when things are taken out of context and applied to some form of legalistic without any discussion.
Exactly. Jesus was using polar opposites to make a point. "You think I came to destroy the law. . ."
Overall great video. I do see the verb form preserved in the Greek, DSS, and the Peshitta, but I see "as a lion" in the Targums. Is there a Targum mss that I am missing or was this a mistake?
”כאריא אידי ורגלי“
(Psalm 22:17 Aramaic Targums (Onkelos, Jonathan, and the Writings))
Great discussion!
Dear brother, I want to express my gratitude for your ministry. Your message is clear and nurturing. I have been using a critical text Bible for many years and defending it against KJV Onlyists. However, recently I came across a verse that has caused me to pause and reflect. It is 1 Peter 2:2. According to the critical text, it says, ". . . grow unto salvation." However, the Textus Receptus does not include "unto salvation." In the past, I believed that these textual variants did not impact the core doctrine of our salvation, and I defended this perspective. However, this particular verse seems to affect the fundamental doctrine of our salvation. I have attempted to interpret "salvation" in this verse as a future, physical transformation that occurs when Christ returns. Nevertheless, I find myself unable to fully convince myself of this explanation. If I continue to uphold the critical text as my ultimate authority, I will need to put in significant effort to explain that Peter is not teaching salvation by works in this verse. I am facing a struggle. I do not agree with the KJV Onlyists who claim that the King James Version is re-inspired and that people cannot be saved with other translations. I will not align myself with their beliefs. However, this verse is making me reconsider the validity of the critical text. Can you please offer me some guidance? Thanks.
Does it do any more harm than the words "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2.12 KJV)? It seems as though this isn't a textual variant issue, but rather an interpretive issue.
Side note: the NLT softens the potentially anti-Protestant readings of these two verses...
1 Peter 2.2: Like newborn babies, you must crave pure spiritual milk so that you will grow into a full experience of salvation.
Philippians 2.12: Work hard to show the results of your salvation, obeying God with deep reverence and fear.
@@MAMoreno Thanks for your reply. I think it's a textual variant issue. Another scholar also thinks so, although I don't agree with his opinion as follows: EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) the CEO and President of Christian Publishing House, writes, "Clearly, it is a later scribe or scribes who made a deletion. Early enough in the Byzantine text history, scribes must have taken liberties with the text, as they often did, as they took issue and could not accept the idea that anyone could “grow into salvation,” as scripturally speaking, salvation is considered an undeserved gift that one receives when one is born again, or a recreation when a believer is resurrected. However, salvation is not instantaneous but rather it is a process as is true of sanctification and transformation. As new ones grow in full, complete, or accurate knowledge (Gr. ἐπίγνωσις epignōsis) of the Word of God, they begin putting faith into Jesus Christ (Gr. πιστεύω pisteuō; εἰς eis). It is God’s Word that enables the new one to grow into salvation." (from christianpublishinghouse.co/2020/05/04/nttc-1-peter-22-was-the-original-reading-you-may-grow-into-salvation-or-you-may-grow/)
Reading through Church history this morning, the topic was on the Masoretic vowel points. I guess I know my assignment for the weekend - ha!
Great Conversation! Mark, I also watched the video you did with Peter on his channel. Quick question, what level of importance do you put on Jewish translations of the Hebrew Bible, such as the JPS 1917 or the Brenton LXX translation? Do you use any of them in your personal Bible study or comparison? Thanks!
Psalms 22:16 the New World Translation reads “Like a lion” and then (in early editions brackets), the added words [they are at]. There's also the footnotes that have; LXX and Vg, “They bored (dug through) my hands and my feet.” The NWT footnotes also turn to the “Targums” which reads “Biting like a lion...” I can’t be certain of the date, but I had somewhere along the way, hand written in the margin, “They have pierced DSS.”
John 19:37 NWT “They will look to the one whom they pierced.” is cross referenced to Zechariah 12:10 “I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of favor and supplication, and they will look to the one whom they pierced.”
I'm an evidentialist. The text is as preserved and true as the evidence supports. I don't get into "I believe in preservation/inerancy better than you do" competitions. Doctrinal declarations work great as slogans, and work very poorly as epistemology.
I look at Judges 18.30 as a place where the text was deliberately mangled (to protect Moses' reputation); it must've been old since Thomson and Brenton have the same reading (Manasseh) where I believe the Vulgate has the original (Moses).
The Vulgate is clearly translated from a proto-Masoretic text, but in some cases it preserves an older reading. (NOTE: There were 3 "Vulgate" Psalters. Two of them remained in circulation; the one usually seen in standard texts is the Gallican, which is translated from the LXX, but there's another translated directly from Hebrew.)
Unfortunately the MEV & NET differs from the AV; NKJV; LSB; ESV; etc. here: "like a lion they pin my hands and my feet" (Psa. 22:16 MEV)
Even the NRSVue retained the AV reading: "they bound my hands and feet." (Psa. 22:16 NRSVue)
Dr. Ruckman actually behaves himself here and simply gives the reason for the distinction in the Hebrew: “For dogs have compassed me.” Gentiles: they are Roman soldiers. The Hebrew radicals for “pierced” are the same as those that read “like a lion.” But the vowel pointing for the latter would be Qames, Qames-hatuph and long hireq; whereas, the pointing for the AV reading is qames with shureq. The Vulgate takes this from the ancient Old Syriac, preserved in the Peshitta. Undoubtedly the LXX-written more than one hundred years after the Old Syriac-picked this up from Antioch of Syria.” (Peter S. Ruckman, The Book of Psalms Vol. 1 (Pensacola: BB Bookstore, 1992, Reprint 1997) 174)
Is there a response somewhere to the “Franken text “ argument? Brother Dwayne Green had an interesting video on this that raises a good question I think .
I think that at some level, every available text is a Frankentext-except for actual "diplomatic" (they're called) editions of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, and other whole-NT mansucripts. It all depends on your "zoom level." I think the Frankentext argument is a powerful one, and a good one. But I'm not ultimately persuaded, because it doesn't, positively speaking, give me an alternative that is wholly free from the force of its own critique.
@@wardonwords
That is a great answer !
I think that my cherished confession (1689) could be amended at this point in the insistence upon the Hebrew text without mention of the Greek LXX
Thank you. Fascinating and helpful
Thank you Mark and Peter.
I am decidedly not weighing in for either the KJVOnly position or for the infallibility of the Masoretic text! But, I should like to make two points. 1. The “they dug/pierced / like a lion” problem was quite easily solved by, eg, Keil and Delitzsch in their commentary [found online]. At Psalm 45:06, they point out that, there and at Psalm 22:17 and at 2 Samuel 22:14, Hebrew does have “ the apocopated plural,in -î, instead of -îm”. Moreover, both in his 1894 TBS text and also in his later and fuller 1926 BFBS text, Ginsburg noted that there is a split in the Masoretic reading. So, I would very much hesitate to conclude that the KJV Translators, who were very widely read, were unaware of the readings. 2. The KJV Translators were very much aware of the relevance of the “Septuagint” for text and translation : see their remarkable marginal notes at Acts 13:18 and 34.
I need to write a book series on the KJV onlyist who stepped into a time machine and unfortunately got eternally stuck in 1610.....
If you write it, I will read it.
I will also read it!
So at around 12 minutes, you state that there are masoretic texts that have the dug/pierced reading, but then somehow accusing the KJV of not following the masoretic text here? I don't get it.
The standard Masoretic text does not say "dug." A few copies contain variants from that standard. It's like saying that you've found a "Byzantine text" manuscript for the New Testament that happens to have a reading that's more commonly found in the Western text-type.
excellent!
Thank you! Cheers!
Re the DSS texts: the biblical texts often write waw and yod so similarly, that ine must be fully aware of the text to distinguish them.
Ultimate Frisbee only works when it's full contact, with full pads.
Wasn’t the Masoretic Text created in the 2nd century by Rabbinical scholars who modified the OT scriptures to water down the references of Jesus deity? Doesn’t the Greek Septuagint agree with the Dead Sea scrolls in regards to scriptures that endorse Jesus’ deity?
It's very, very unlikely that there was a deliberate modification of the text to counter Christian beliefs. It's far more plausible that the conflicts may have influenced the scribes' preferences when textual variants were encountered than it is that textual variants were introduced for polemical reasons.
I may be mistaken here, but I just don't think the Jews thought of books outside the Torah as having the same measure of preservation as most modern evangelicals, and even the Torah is at least implied to be a reconstructed text. So, it seems to me, we should go with the ancient reading of the text (from whatever source) that most illustrates the Christian understanding of the Old Testament. To me, that means relying on the DSS or LXX whenever the Masoretic text is either unclear, corrupt, or disagrees with the New Testament reading of the text. And when the New Testament has a variant reading different from all the sources, the NT reading should be preferred. That is simply my opinion.
I was told that the Textus Receptus is a translation of the KJV into Greek. Is this true?
No. I would say more, but a little would be insufficient and a full treatment would be ridiculously long.
I think the answer is both yes and no, like the previous statement says it would be a very very long reply
I answer this question here: ua-cam.com/video/qxkSifAEeL0/v-deo.html
Charlesking9120,
What they’re referring to is Scrivener’s Textus Receptus, which came out in about 1880. The KJV translators didn’t document every reading they chose from Greek manuscripts.
So, Alexander Scrivener took the KJV and consulted Greek manuscripts to account for the KJV reading. And Scrivener documented his sources in the manuscripts, which the KJV translators did not.
Mainly, the KJV translators used Erasmus’s Textus Receptus, which preceded the KJV. Scrivener’s TR obviously did not.
@@larrytruelove8659 Just a small point of clarification: the translators almost certainly relied on the editions of Robert Estienne and Theodore Beza, which were based on the work of Desiderius Erasmus. They were revising the Bishops' Bible, which itself drew from Estienne's edition as its committee revised the Great Bible (a version based on the Erasmus editions). The KJV translators sometimes stuck with the Estienne readings and sometimes adopted the Beza readings. As FHA Scrivener realized, they must have consulted other printed editions as well, but we can say without a doubt that they had Beza's work in front of them.
It's important for the non-Hebrew reading viewers to be aware that the reading כארו (ka'aru) does not lead directly to the translation "pierce." According to scholarship, such a verb could also mean "bind" or "be repulsive," or (with a further emendation of the MT to "koaru") possibly "mutilate." At any rate, if "ka'aru" is accepted, it would be a once-appearing verb in the Hebrew Bible, and thus its precise sense would be very hard to pin down. As noted in the video, the Greek word found in the LXX (ορυσσω, "orusso") typically means "dig out, excavate." This would be a pretty odd way to describe nailing someone's hands into wood. The verse could have used the Greek verb νυσσω ("nusso") which does mean stab or pierce, and which is used in John 19:34 with reference to Jesus' side. And it should certainly be noted too that the Gospel accounts do not describe Jesus' hands and feet being nailed or pierced during the crucifixion. All of this is separate, of course, from the much more fundamental issue of whether the psalm, taken in context, with all of its parts, would reasonably be applicable to Jesus.
You're not wrong. And the hapax point is especially apropos. I did not think to establish that. I did note the distance between "dug" and "pierced," but we didn't discuss it in the video.
@@wardonwords Thanks for replying.
You mention places that the KJV veers from the KJV reading and/or goes with the LXX. Sometimes in questioning KJVO folk, they will reply, 'No it doesn't!"....... and they have all kinds of reasons that bolster their belief even tho it's wrong........ with those people you just shake the dust off your feet.
Kdek21803
Yes. Interesting that when you cite historical documentation as support your belief, KJVO’s reject history that precedes 1611.
Peter sounds like Michael Rowntree 😂
Mark, why do scholars seem to divorce early church history from textual tradition? The Judean religious establishment had problems with the Lord Jesus, Paul, Justin, and numerous other saints, so textual alterations within the Hebrew tradition would naturally occur due to political, ideological, and theological differences. This is all evidenced in early church writings, and what we know about the generation of Judean rabbis after the NT is that they were quite hostile to what became Christianity. I don't blame the Masoetes necessarily for altering their bible, but it seems likely that alterations were made in the time period of the 2nd century. Do you see the tide on this shifting in scholarship with Bible scholars being willing to look at what became Rabbinic Judaism, and its Text, with less of a romantic eye and more of an objective eye?
The alternative assumption is that Jews were looking to hold on tightly to their traditions after the destruction of the second temple, not looking for an opportunity to warp their traditional scriptures for polemical purposes. They'd already lost too much for them to sacrifice their holy book along with it. Gentile Christians had far more motivation to change the text than diasporic rabbis did: they were trying to find Jesus everywhere they could in the Bible, so they were more likely to take a passage allegorically, and that allegorical reading could eventually produce a textual variant in the Greek version of the Bible.
I'd rather give both sides the benefit of the doubt and chalk things up to accidental typos.
btw, The Targum of the Psalm reads: "how they bite my hands and feet like a lion".
✔ I've sometimes thought that even this reading could reflect the experience of the Messiah.
So what did Erasmus use as his Hebrew text to translate into English? When did the KJV start using the MT? I'm having issues finding any information on that
Very interesting guys! I was verging on KJV only thought many years ago - I say verging and not completely - but now see how the Lord used various texts to preserve His Word entirely. I do reverence the KJV for its equisite detail though. For example: Luke 2:33 "And Joseph and his mother" vs the NIV "the child's father and mother" - the KJV here meticulously gets the detail right confirming Christ's deity whereas the NIV verges on blasphemy. Thanks so much to both of you for this and other video's - I was coincidentally wondering about Hebrews 1:6 today - this may be another example where the Septuagint was referenced, or perhaps the Dead Sea Scrolls? God bless!
Since the Masoretic Text did not exist when Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount, He could not have meant that that Hebrew text was the perfectly preserved text of the OT.
I don’t see the problem with the “pierced” reading being a minority in the Hebrew. It’s in the Masoretic Text. Michael Brown has a video on it. I haven’t heard King James Only proponents say that all readings have to be *majority* readings in the Hebrew.
Let me make another comment.... this is kind of "weeds" kinda stuff (and it has it's place for those that do deep study of such things) BUT for the average person in the pew they just read/listen to a Bible.....they choose a translation, and it's God's Word..... they go from there.
As a Spanish speaker, I was appalled and amused at the same time of the arrogance and ignorance of the KJV- only people. Not only there are many Bibles that precede the KJV but they are far more accurate than the KJV. These people are confusing "scripture" with the Word, who is Jesus. He is the Verb of God, and contrary to this academic statement, Jesus had no need to memorize the scriptures, as he is the Word and the very revelation of the Almighty.
First!
You win!
when you have to go into conspiracy theory mode (x group of scribes had the reading they did because of intentional altering and polemics), you stop doing genuine Reasoned Textual criticism, and doing more apologetics, confirmation bias, and psychologizing. This is especially true when other explanations exist that don't require impugning the motivess of anyone.
I suppose I don't want to deny the possibility that any scribe anywhere made intentional alterations for theological reasons. But absent more evidence, internal or external, than we usually have, I'm loathe to go there.
The KJV vs. the Masoretic Text
Response:
1. This discussion appears expanded to include KJV vs. Masoretic vs. LXX. Is this like Chevy vs. Maserati vs. Honda XL?
2. If the King James Bible translators chose to use the LXX text over the Masoretic text in certain places in order to better express the Gospel message, then the both the original 1611 KJV and the entire LXX are good enough for me (66+).
3. To Peter, I say: "Go man! The Bible Sojourner Truth? Mark my Wards."
Mark, sorry to add a cavillation, but, for the benefit of lip readers, could you try to avoid hiding your lips behind the microphone?
I will! Thank you for pointing that out!
That's a great question...
Man, that phrase is getting old.
🤦♂️
if you say that the Bible has errors, you are not making it your final authority. instead, you are making yourself as the final authority.
The Bible has no errors.
Whatever the case, the King James Translation is correct, never mind what anything else says. Understand that professional Hebrew Scribes knew their own language, and working with their letters every day, they are not going to mix one up with another. GOD has promised to preserve His Word, never mind the propensity of man to wreck things - GOD is able to make man do it properly in spite of himself. The verse gives us a perfect Prophecy of Christ upon the Cross, proving it is given by Inspiration of GOD.
@christopherlilly5906
You are entitled to your opinion
Those King James Bible only people that argue for the "perfect preservation" of the Textus Receptus tradition and the Masoretic tradition should not claim that either of those two things are perfect in those original languages, as there simply is no perfect extant Greek NT nor Hebrew OT. However, as Edward Hills said that the KJB was an independent variety of the Received Text, it would much better make sense that the KJB itself be seen as the perfect standard, and that the broad tradition of the TR including the Latin, and the broad Masoretic tradition including Greek OT translations, be seen as a method of transmission that led to the KJB. Therefore, from good preservation a perfect final form was produced. This is in line with the doctrine of scattering and gathering.
The KJVO understanding of preservation is best described as "begging the question."
@@MAMoreno You mean self-authenticating presuppositionalism? I get the sense that you are somewhat more liberal in your theology than Reformed/Fundamentalism.
@@bibleprotector I will refrain from strongly expressing my opinion on presuppositional apologetics. I'll simply say that Christianity has much better approaches to defending its claims than falling back on what amounts to circular reasoning.
Anyone, anywhere, could pick any translation, and say the exact same thing, and when someone tries to tell them the translations has an error, just deny it emphatically and imagine or invent whatever is needed to maintain the position.
@@hayfieldhermit9657 Anyone could say anything about anything, but I said "self-authenticating", and the KJB has an internal consistency which is demonstrable.
Christ and the Apostles never used the Septuagint, for it did not exist at that time. Even if the King James Translators believe it did, this is just what they were taught, and they are only giving their opinion. Within the First Edition King James, which did have typographical errors, which were corrected, the text itself was perfect and without error in the sense of what the Translators intended to give us from their accurate rendering of the Oirignall Tongues Diligently compared and revised. On the other hand, in stuff they added, like page headings that summarised what was going on in the page, chapter outlines given at the start of each chapter, and some of the charts and diagrams, some parts of these were flawed - but as for the actual text, as it was then and now, it is perfect in what it was intended to say, for GOD has promised to preserve His Word, and He has done, even in English, in this Bible. Glory to GOD.
The quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament match up with the Septuagint, and also fragments of the Septuagint were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
You claim that this verse must have been found in the Septuagint version, even though it was found in the Syriac version, the Arabic version, and even the Vulgate version.
You claim it must be the Septuagint because you falsely date it back to the 2nd century even though it dates back to a much later date, 3rd century onward, when the Syriac dates back to the 2nd century. Never mind all constant well-known edits of it throughout it existence through time.
You are constantly misleading people in your aim to discredit the kjv at the cost of your own credibility.
I just wish if that when you said you would be as honest as possible when it comes to this subject, you would be, instead of coming up with contradictory statements and fallacies of standards you don't even hold yourself to. To the lament, it may sound like what you say is pretty convincing, but when people know about the important data missing from your fallacious arguments, your points of criticism instantly fall short and become moot.
This is why nobody bothers to argue with you about this subject is because over and over again, this appears to be the case with you. You give deceptive fallacious arguments over and over again to the point it feels like you are just arguing for the sake of arguing and not taking the subject seriously.
This is just all wrong. The Syriac does indeed date to the 2nd Century . . . AD. The Septuagint has manuscript fragments going back to the 2nd Century BC.
@MAMoreno It is all fragments, and contains words that were written *after* it's supposed dating, such as MEGALOSUNE, AKATASTATOS, EMPAIZO, AKROGONIAIOS, PAREPIDEMOIS, SUNANTILAMBANOMAI, etc.
All of which is after it's time of supposedly 250BC. These examples show that there was too many editions to make the false claim of those dates. The paper may carbon date to those times, but the carbon dating of the ink doesn't match the paper, not even close, let alone the dating of the terminology used during the supposed time Era it was being dated to.
Yet everyone involves loves to leave out these blatant inconsistencies when it comes to this subject.
@@Official_Random_Guy They opened a cave in Israel a couple years ago, and it was sealed at the time of the Roman aggression and it contained a fragment of the Old Testament in GREEK.... Besides, in the front of a real KJV Bible, it will have a "letter to the reader" in which they educate the uneducated on this matter. They said the Greek Old Testament was in fact completed before Jesus time....
@hayfieldhermit9657 What you just said has no bearing whatsoever on what I have previously stated.
Deut 4:2 (KJV) and Rev 22:18-19 (KJV) tell us there can be only one preserved Word of God. And yet version after version is spewed out to deceive.
There is not a power that is not given by God. Through providence God raised up the most powerful nation there ever was or will be, the U.S.A., and in its infancy it was given the preserved word of God; “Robert Aitken, a Philadelphia printer, was the first to publish the first American edition of the K.J.V. New Testament in 1781 and the K.J.V. Old Testament in 1782, omitting the Apocrypha. On completion, he petitioned and received from the Congress of the Confederation, an official endorsement that Aitken added to the binding of his Bibles, to assure colonists that they were buying a non-royalist edition: “Resolved, that the United States in Congress assembled… recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States and hereby authorize him to publish this recommendation.” As a result, the Aitken Bible (KJV) is often referred to as “The Bible (KJV) of the Revolution.”
The nation was given the KJV, not the dead sea scrolls, not the book of Enoch, not Hebrew books etc. but only the KJV. If God wanted us to understand his word in Hebrew he would have raised this nation up speaking Hebrew. Back in the 1600’s God saw to it that the certain scriptures were translated into English “KJ Bible” and was put into print so that all could read for themselves the truth that in in the scriptures. God did this because he knew that he would bring about this powerful nation [U.S.A. and the English language] of ours to lead the world. The scriptures were written by apostles and prophets inspired by God through the Holy Ghost. The compilation and translation to English was also done by the direction of God through the Holy Ghost and he did not make any mistakes, i.e., the fourth horse being “pale” was no mistake, the horse is not green.
In Greek mythology, the name Chloris (Khloris Χλωρίς, from khloros χλωρός, meaning “greenish-yellow,” “pale green,” “pale,” “pallid” or “fresh”) appears…
Pallid 1. pale; faint or deficient in color; wan: a pallid countenance.
People say that they believe that scripture was written by the direction of God and the Holy Ghost, which is true. But what you people don’t seem to realize is that the compilation and translation of the bible (KJV) was also done by the direction of God and the Holy Ghost. If the bible (KJV) was written and compiled by men of opinion and perspective and translated by incompetent translators then you might as well throw it in the trash. The prophets were told what to write and how to write it, 2 Peter 1:20-21 (KJV)
The nation was given the symbol of the Eagle, 37 … Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together. Luke 17:37 (KJV), the body being the Church, the body of Christ. The nation has the motto and preamble “in God we trust” and “one nation under God”. This greatest and most powerful nation the U.S.A., has been given the last and best chance to lead the world to heaven on earth or destruction. But like all other nations of power before it (symbolic Israels, Rev 11:8 (KJV)) the U.S. has chosen destruction and is now the great “liar” saying “in God we trust” and “one nation under God”, it is now the conglomerate of the dragon, beast, false prophet, and harlot, it is Satan loosed from the pit, 7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth Rev 20:7-8 (KJV).
And yet no one seems to know of or speak of a very clear fulfillment of prophecy in our recent history. We (U.S.A.) are the ones who brought down fire from heaven in Aug. of 1945 and we are the ones that gave life to the image of the beast in May of 1948. Rev.13:13-15 (KJV).
All glory to God. Amen
Of course, the KJV is completely disqualified if we're going by Revelation 22.18-19 as you're taking it. The Greek text behind that passage in Revelation is littered with weird variants because the scholar Erasmus was stuck having to depend on Latin instead of Greek to complete the final verses of this book. The variant that's obvious even in translation is "book of life" (as it reads in the Latin Vulgate) rather than "tree of life" (as it typically reads in Greek manuscripts).
But even worse, the KJV adopts an especially bad reading in Revelation that comes from another scholar of the era, Theodore Beza. In Revelation 16.5, Beza rejected all of the manuscript evidence, Greek or otherwise, and made up a new reading ("and shalt be") based on his own opinion of how the text must have read originally. The KJV committee decided to follow Beza here rather than sticking with the reading preserved over the centuries. The proper reading ("and holy') is found in the pre-KJV translations, and it's found in most of the modern translations (except for those few that try to replicate the KJV's critical decisions on the text).
Now, I'm reluctant to say that Erasmus, Beza, or the KJV translators are cursed because of their handling of Revelation. They may have introduced some unfortunate, undeniable errors into the book, but they did not really add to or take away from its prophetic meaning in doing so, which is really the point of Revelation 22.18-19. But Revelation in the KJV cannot be the true preserved form of the book: it's too marred with aberrant readings that did not exist until the 1500s.
__________________
And I won't even get into the danger of boasting about the USA's power, as we know where that mindset leads. (Nor will I bother trying to argue that the ASV or RSV is perfect simply because they were 20th century American translations that appeared as the USA grew in power and influence. Such arguments hold no credibility.)
@@MAMoreno there is no power that is not given by God.
a very clear fulfillment of prophecy in our recent history. We (U.S.A.) are the ones who brought down fire from heaven in Aug. of 1945 and we are the ones that gave life to the image of the beast in May of 1948. Rev 13:13-15 (KJV).
The prophecy, 13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, Rev 13:13 (KJV)
The fulfillment, The United States detonated two atomic bombs over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 and 9 August 1945, respectively. “In the sight of men”, means this was done on the world stage during WWII (the second “woe”).
The prophecy, 15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, …Rev 13:15 (KJV)
The fulfillment, On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel. U.S. President Harry S. Truman recognized the new nation on the same day. This was done using the power and prestige the U.S. earned by the act of bringing fire down from the heaven (sky).
It is said that God will bless those who bless Israel, and this is true, but the following verses show us that the “Israel in the middle east is false” and is not to be blessed.
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11 For he that biddeth him God speed is PARTAKER of his EVIL DEEDS. 2 John 1:9-11 (KJV)
AND
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. Romans 8:9 (KJV) You can’t have it both ways, 8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. James 1:8 (KJV) 43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. 44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. Matt 21:43-44 (KJV)
And
15 And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen: for the Lord GOD shall slay thee, and call his servants by another name: Isaiah 65:15 (KJV).
The second beast of lies, saying “one nation under God” and “in God we trust”, indeed the “father of lies”, did bring fire from the heaven, (Greek Strong's Number: 3772...(through the idea of elevation); the SKY...), and did set up a false Israel in the middle east, (proven false by this verse among others 9 ...Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, HE IS NONE OF HIS. Romans 8:9 (KJV)).
This Israel has been and is the catalyst of “wars and rumors of wars” making it the image of the first beast of warmongering , Germany, who’s head was wounded in WWI(1st harvest, woe) and healed enough to bring about WWII(2nd harvest, woe).
You couldn’t get a better fulfillment of prophecy. For these events to happen again would negate the prophecies altogether. And it is asinine to think these events are happenstance and ignored by the prophecies of God. No sir, either God’s timing is off or yours is.
And this leaves only one “woe”(WWIII) left, the war that God hates (abomination), a war that makes the world desolate. 7th trump and bowl are simultaneous and plunge the world into 3½ yrs of great tribulation.
If the truth were being told then the prophecy of Matt. 24:14 would have occurred years ago, shortly after the advent of the world-wide-web. This fact proves that the prominent teachers are false teachers.
I suggest you forget all that you have been taught and come to the bible (KJV) with sincere want for truth, and not to consume it upon your lusts, but that you may do true worship and obedience to God, with a repentant heart, and with reason and logic the Spirit of God will teach.11 … in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Acts 17:11 (KJV)
All glory to God. Amen
@@lonecar144 So I take it that the words "things which must shortly come to pass" (Rev. 1.1 KJV) have no meaning. I can see the argument that Revelation uses language that can find broad relevance and application outside of its initial First Century context, but that is at best an "idealist" interpretation of the text that doesn't concern itself with the book's clear allusions to the old Roman Empire during Classical Antiquity.
@@MAMoreno Eccl 1:9-11 (KJV)
God allows MANS evil to run its course but under his patterned timeline and agenda. That repeating pattern is revealed in the seven seals and seven Churches, each seal and corresponding church representing a 1,000-year day, and each day having its own set of 7 trumpets and 7 vials. The 7 trumpets are 4 progressive leading (morally failed) cities/nations ((12 tribes into Egypt and 12 tribes out of Egypt) this is why there are 24 elders), and 3 major wars/world wars, and the 7 vials are 7 events of the last major/leading city/nation of each day (each city/nation a head of the dragon, Rev 17:9 (KJV)). The 7th trumpet and the 7th vial are simultaneous and end each 1,000-year day with God destroying civilization and bringing hell on earth (the pit) and thereby sealing the day, 6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Psalms 12:1-6-8 (KJV), {this is how he sealed each 1k year day, the 7 seals.}, the coming “great” desolation being the eighth and last time. Rev 17:10-11 (KJV)., and God decides what truths (and lies) are passed onto the next 1,000-year day.
Today we are in the 7th day/seal and God rests on the 7th day. He will allow us to destroy ourselves and the earth with our undisciplined knowledge of technology and nuclear power, the beginning of ww3 a nuclear war bringing the earth into tribulation for the eighth and last time. And after 3 ½ years of “Great Tribulation” the earth is cast into the sun (lake of fire, “the second death”) along with the evil and suffering of man (Satan and hell), and the sincere “fire fighters” (the church/adoption/lukewarm) are spewed out to a new earth (the waters above).
Amen
@lonecar, I'm going to take you on an imaginary trip in my time machine. We are now in 1610. Where's my Bible?
Dead Sea Scrolls says “pierced.” 🫳🏼🎤