The KJ translators themselves also state that they have followed the LXX in certain passages which they deem to be more correct than the Masoretic, such as the Messianic prophecies.
The KJV translators write of the Seventy, "as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the Original, and sometimes to take from it; which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sense thereof according to the truth of the word, as the spirit gave them utterance." And they sang praises of Jerome. On the other hand, Timothy Michael Law, in his excellent book, "When God Spoke Greek", tells us that "Around 395 Augustine opened up the discussion on the Septuagint. He began by praising Jerome’s translations of Greek commentaries but then turned his attention to the translation of the Hebrew Bible. He writes that if Jerome should continue to translate the Hebrew he should "point out by appropriate signs the variations between your version and the Septuagint, which has such preponderant authority. ..." Augustine is surprised at Jerome’s nerve. Could he possibly find something new in the Hebrew text that had not been found in the previous seven centuries since the original Septuagint translation? Was Jerome so confident in his Hebrew learning that he would be able to see something the original translators had missed? Who would be so arrogant not only to object to the skill of the original translators but also to suggest he could do better? If the Alexandrian translators were incapable of understanding an obscurity in the Hebrew, what gave this failed monk with a recently acquired knowledge of Hebrew the insight to break through the mystery?" It's like today's Bible scholars. They get PhDs in Greek and classical languages, and deem themselves in a better position to interpret the Scriptures from the "scientific" and "objective" "grammatico-historical hermeneutic", insinuating that the Early Church Fathers were blatantly allegorizing and taking liberties with Holy Writ... as if the Fathers, who lived, spoke and thought in Greek, were at a disadvantage without academic credentials!
Jerome and modern Bible scholars seem to share the same hubris born of flesh. As a new student of the Bible, this brings to attention my need to always be careful with what little knowledge I should gain and pray for understanding. Mr. Nathan has certainly opened my eyes.
@@360-media And you 2 share a staggering ignorance and a blindness to the truth. KJV was hardly either the best or the first English translation of the Bible. Wm Tydale did a very good translation in 1525 and was murdered by the Pope for doing it. John Wycliffe finished his translation by 1395 and the pope tried to kill him and later had his bones burned. This is over 200 year before the known homosexual king James I of England agreed to testify against his Mother Mary Queen of Scots so that Queen Elizabeth I would make him her heir. He wanted the translation to showw the divine right of kings. The KJV IS a good translation but it was paid for by a horribly evil man who wanted it for selfish political reasons. Sounds a lot like Ptolomey Phildelphius.
Read the Book of Isaiah in the KJV or most any modern translation today. Then re-read Isaiah right after in the Septuagint (I have the Brenton LXX)..... The Septuagint Isaiah BLEW MY MIND. Clear as day changes were made in the much later, AD Masoretic.
@@PracticalBibleStudies Indeed it does. It's hard to explain unless you read through and are familiar with both the LXX and MT Old Testaments, but when you read through the Septuagint OT, Christ and the Christian Faith just jumps off every page at you. Jesus, the Holy Trinity, etc just smacks you right in the face as if I'm reading the real precursor to the New Testamant texts. You don't get that same vibe at all from the OT MT. You have to be REALLY familiar with the OT verses, passages, and Christ references otherwise things get real muddy quick. And, of course, it's clear as day Jesus and the Apostles were quoting and referencing from the LXX texts or the original Hebrew/Aramaic that got translated over into the Greek Septuagint. Do a line by line OT quote analysis and it's even clearer. The MT is so strangely different than the Septuagint and NT that it really starts to feel like an entirely different Bible! 😳 ...and maybe that was the entire goal with the Masoretic....🤔🤫 We have Church fathers that openly stated Jews were changing around the texts and favoring more obscure wording (especially in and around blatently Messianic passages...again, Isaiah is a perfect example of this tampering) during the development of the Masoretic.
@@pennsyltuckyreb9800 I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any means, but I would say there is solid evidence that the Masoretes changed the OT to be less christological. Most of the significant differences just happen to be where it foretells Jesus.
@@PracticalBibleStudies The words of our Lord and His Apostles sound like "conspiracy theories" so I know I'm in good company...😉 I'm actually very partial to the sound and wording of the English KJV. I wish someone would just slam together a Brenton LXX (including the Deuterocanonicals) and a KJV NT into one Bible. Having the Masoretic readings in footnotes. Nice larger, clear print. Double column. Maybe even throw in the Book of Enoch....that would be my "perfect" Bible version. And it would suffice well as a "universal" Roman Catholic/Orthodox/Coptic Bible, IMO. And I know some Protestant denominations out there would find it quite useful as well. I have all the Bibles out there. But my constant go-to is a Brenton LXX with a large print, ultrathin KJV I keep rubber banded to it. The Brenton's English text is ridiculously too small but I deal with it.
@@pennsyltuckyreb9800 If you are so inclined, you can do it yourself. Since the KJV is in the public domain, you can find it as a word doc. Then you can find the readings where the manuscripts differ and change them to the LXX reading. Then simply have it printed at Lulu or Blurb.
Wish you would have kept reading the translators notes. It continues, "This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters [the Septuagent], commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal… The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men do confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy of the appellation and name of the word of God."
Yea, that’s a really significant point as well. The Septuagint was needed to spread the gospel. Plus it shows the KJV translators acknowledging that the disciples used the Septuagint -something that Gail and Kent deny.
It seems the KJV translators were dispelling the notion that a translation had to be perfect to be used as God's word. They themselves were building on the work of others but never dared to claim that their translation was perfect.
@@YeshuaKingMessiah right he should of not even started! Total agree, the fact one numbs you so two is easier and three is the obvious next step because nothing happening… or maybe he was more Native American? So easy answer just don’t do evil
Nathan, This is good. Thank you for doing these videos. I began my journey down this path when the spirit of God stirred in my heart to ask the question, "When Paul tells Timothy, "All scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for doctrine,..."" What are the scriptures in reference? I found the answer to be the Greek septuagint. The Jews have opposed the message of Christ in his days, the days of the apostles and even to this day. So, it doesn't surprise me that they would change the scriptures to deny Jesus.
Yea, exactly. Especially in the New Testament when Luke 3:36 included the extra Cainan. That’s one of the mistakes from the Septuagint, and the KJV has it.
The true Hebrew text says that as well, though. Jesus grew up reading the correct Hebrew text, not the Greek. The Alexandrian Jews read the LXX and did not understand Hebraic thought.
@@blain20_ "And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?" (John 7:15) No. Jesus did NOT grow up "studying" the "Hebrew" .....
Why would a God fearing woman supporting the KJV put a dragon on her work...? Is she supporting the dragon? Do you dear reader run around with dragons on your work?
Hey Nathan, I just watched your video on why the flood didn't hit the pyramids and it was great! I was wondering if you have heard of Bright Insight? He has a UA-cam channel that covers ancient civilizations and he's been to Egypt a few times. He has found evidence of some sort of widespread destruction of Egypt, I think you would enjoy it!
I found many errors or slips in some Chinese versions of Bible, these translators are so bold to add or delete words of the Bible. But when I communicate with them, one of them never responds, the other seems to justify his adding or deleting through the excuse that his translation is easier to be understood than the other versions. But when I read his translation, it seems not to be that easier! They seem not to have enough capacity and knowledge of translation and and the right attitude to the translation. But I feel guilty in my heart because the tranlator said he has experiences of being a professional evangelist but I have no that professional things, if what he said is true, not a lie. If he can lie in the Bible, how can I trust his other words? But in case he is not lying, if am i too tough to point out some of the errors in his Bible?
A professional evangelist? WHAT? Last I knew that’s a missionary, supported with donations. He sounds very arrogant to me. Keep at him. He needs to translate truly, not what HE wants.
This is out of topic, but I am curious. Why Masoretic text different from Septuagint? If the Septuagint translate from Hebrew to Greek, and Masoretic re-write Hebrew to Hebrew, both (Septuagint and Masoretic) should be the same, only different language? Was Masoretic design only to deny Yehusha not the Messiah? Or any other purpose? Could someone give me link the history Masoretic text of Bible?
The purpose was to discredit Jesus as Messiah. After the start of Christianity the Hebrew text was corrupted by the unbelieving Jews. It happened about 100 AD.
@@NathanH83 Nathan, I've read this statement and have heard you say this several times in your videos. What is the source for these statements? Is this a reasoned assertion or is there historical, documented evidence of this scriptural maneuver? Thanks.
@@mcgeorgerl There's lots of evidence. Have you seen my video about the pyramids and the flood? I'd say that the New Testament is the biggest evidence. when you look up the quotes in the Old Testament, you'll find the disciples siding with the Septuagint almost every time.
@@NathanH83 My question was regarding this specific assertion: "The purpose was to discredit Jesus as Messiah. After the start of Christianity the Hebrew text was corrupted by the unbelieving Jews. It happened about 100 AD." As far as the Septuagint goes, Brenton's sits upon my desk and I refer to it often.
The Septuagint we have today is not the origional version written in 250 B.C. but is a copy re edited by early Christian Fathers to better support the New Testament.
Another nice video brother, I don't know where these weirdos come from. Sometimes I think they got a little something added into their cocoa. Just trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, b/c I can't imagine they honestly believe what they're pushing. God bless brother!
I’ve seen videos on UA-cam where people claim that the Greek Septuagint didn’t even exist before Christ. And they refer to Gail’s book. It’s really sad.
I have to be careful within Nathan. I tend to believe everything he says, everything! I won't even double check his work because he is so meticulous in his own work. Love this guy!
@@NathanH83 for sure I totally agree. Im curious what do you think of the book of Jasher. Why wouldn't that book be considered an important book. I mean the KJ Bible mentions that there were profecies being fulfilled.
@@josephstock9099 Just read it. It contradicts the Bible. And look up the information on it. It was invented in the 1700’s. It didn’t exist before then.
Poor scholarship. Just because KJV translators said Septuagint was pre-Christian doesn't mean it is true. What existing evidence do we have of pre-Christian manuscripts in Greek? Sparse to none. A video that goes through existing evidence for a pre-Christian septuagint and debunks the claim. Title: "Is The Septuagint Of Pre-Christian Origin?"
They deleted it for violating their medical misinformation guidelines. (Even though I wasn’t misinforming anyone, since I was just showing that this website exists, and it really is true that the website exists).
One of my subscribers, Tony Clifton, has uploaded a 3-hour long meeting where a bunch of victims share their stories: ua-cam.com/video/denrByI6uhw/v-deo.html They were brought together by Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson.
@@NathanH83 wow we live in terrible times. No truth but Jesus Christ. God help your truth come forth but as you have said the first thing to be aware of is lies in the end times. Also Thank you for spreading the truth brother. Amen and Agape
Honestly, this conversation could only exist in a country as monolingual as ours where people don’t understand that there’s a little ambiguity in the translation process
Kent said in another video that Origen translated his LXX using the "Alexandrian Cult" text... which didn't believe in the diety of Christ.. and that makes absolutely no sense because Christ wasn't born yet
@@NathanH83 oh I see what you are saying, Kent is saying that since the Sinaticus was an "Alexandrian cult" text then that must mean that Origen was the cult leader because he used the Alexandrian Greek Septuagint in one of his 3 translations for the Hexapla... this makes my brain hurt.
@@radtod When KJV people demonize everything related to Alexandria, Christians who don’t know a lot of history are automatically going to think “cult members” the second anyone even mentions anything about Alexandria. As if nothing good could come from a big city.
Seems she is trying to defend the ENTIRE KJV. I agree with the KJV using the received text for the NT, but not the Masoretic text for the OT. The Orthodox study bible uses the NKJV NT and the Septuagint OT. The Eastern Orthodox have ALWAYS used the Septuagint from the earliest days of the early church. And their NT is the same as the KJV used. KJV only folks have boxed themselves into a corner. By saying the authorized KJV is THE divinely inspired translation which God used to preserve his word, they simply cannot allow that the Septuagint is better, or even a useful translation.
I am appalled at Kent Hovind's ignorance of the LXX and to cite Riplinger's "New Age Bible Versions" an "exhaustive documentation", that the LXX was translated in AD by Origin??? If not for the LXX we would not known that the Hebrew "Yam Suph" is the Red Sea. Biblical scholars still does not understand that Yam Suph is the Red Sea. The Biblical Scholars still think the Bitters Lake is Yam Suph. You have 70 Hellenist Jews selected by Ptolemy II Philadelphus, Pharaoh of Egypt to translate the Hebrew OT (Tanakh) into Greek in the 3rd century BC, who are totally unbiased about the first coming of Christ because it had not happened yet, had no reason to alter the original Hebrew intent into Greek and copies were made of the original for centuries later and were cited by NT writers including the Messiah Himself. I trust the 70 Jewish scholars know what Yam Suph is. And they, the 70, had the blessing of the Messiah Jesus.
The King James Only cult is troubling. Hovind is a bright guy and really should know better. I hope he comes up with a response to this video. Nice work, Nathan.
@@blain20_ I disagree with him in some areas but count him with honor because of his calling to shred our enemies with a broad axe 🪓 . Can you elaborate on why we need to call him out in public forums, I believe love is not easily offended- Job’s friends were reprimanded so I look at how we can apply understanding here
@@dantombs5697 He's viewed as a joke by most of the "enemies" you speak of, and by many Christians. He has no credibility. If you want to honor someone who's speaking out against the fraudulence of macro-evolution, and who is respected by both sides, turn your attention to Stephen Meyer. You can find his videos here on UA-cam.
@@thesithempire1348 See your point, but I enjoy his playful demeanor, .....Myers(not trying to misrepresent him) is an old earth creationist, doesn't believe in the 6 days of creation as days, ya no thanks.
Well, she’s taking the fact that Origen may very well had made some changes to the Septuagint. So the present-day copies might have some minor changes caused by Origen. But she’s taking that and taking a leap in logic, and giving off the impression that the Septuagint DIDN’T EXIST before Origen, which is absolutely ridiculous since multiple Jewish historians and church fathers who lived BEFORE Origin had quoted the Septuagint and talked about its Beginning. And they all agree upon the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, in the 3rd century BC. She’s denying very well known history. It’s basically a conspiracy theory to deny that the Septuagint was translated before Christ. A conspiracy theory promoted by KJV-onlyists.
Of note: Origen is NOT a church father. He was an influential scholar and many of his works and translations considered important, but he believed that after the end of the world the people sent to hell would eventually be forgiven and allowed to enter into heaven. He was anathematized by the Church for this heresy.
@@ajhigginscomposer I am not denying his contributions, his works were an influence on numerous holy fathers of 4th century onward. He was especially important for his translation work of the Old Testament. In the Eastern Orthodox Church we have taken his contributions but he is definitely not a holy father and is not a saint.
@@shihantemplet those would be 2 premises, and both would be false: 1. there's no such thing as eternity apart from God - his Name means 'the Eternal One'. also, both in hebrew and greek there are no words that really translate as 'forever', so the YLT translates phrases commonly translated as 'forever' as the more fitting 'age-during' or 'ages of ages', which implies an unknown but limited amount of time. 2. there's no such thing as 'infinite justice', only justice or injustice. justice gives the precise reward/punishment to a certain deed. even if you live a 100 years continually sinning, you can quantify those sins and translate them into a certain amount of jail time. and Jesus gives hints of that, when saying that if you are caught you won't be released until you pay your debt, or that some will receive more lashes than others.
But the 'septuagint' of today did not exist in the Apostle's day and age. It was only the law that the 'seventy' interpreted. The word 'septuagint' and 'LXX.' only came into use during the 17th century and all the extra' 'apochrypha' and other books added then. This luls people into thinking that the 'septuagint' of today is what they must have had and used then but that is a false notion. In fact, there may have been some different MSS only of the law that the 'seventy' interpreted BC and NOT what the 'septuagint' of today is because it did not exist then, however there is no proof. The letter of Aristeas is psuedepigryphal and spoke of 72 interpreters, what happened to the other 2 interpreters?
Well done video..... I'm certainly not a lover of Gail's research, that book is a hot sloppy mess, but I believe there is one faith, one God, one Holy Bible and I believe the quality and authority the Authorized version crushes the new versions. Example - look at 2 Sam 21:19 (most have some one else killing Goliath)
Silly example. 1 Chronicles 20:5 states Elhanan killed the BROTHER of Goliath. There was clearly some sort of mistranslation error in 2 Samuel/Kings the KJV translators took to correcting and adding in the missing "the brother of." That said, there's just tons of errors all over the KJV that cancel out that one good translation. The KJV is riddled with issues. All that said, I would take a KJV any day over the hot mess of English translations we have today.
@@pennsyltuckyreb9800 silly because modern versions mostly get it wrong or silly because the KJV gets it right... "The KJV is riddled with issues"??? I could easily see that view if you thought that the westcott and hort with the heavy use of codex sinaiticus was scholarly, but surely you know that codex is fraudulent.
Outside the obvious errors, they also don’t consider that the translators of the English-language Geneva Bible were persecuted and martyred by the English. The Church of England considered the Geneva Bible as heretical. The KJV is known as the “Authorized Version”, as in authorized by the state founded, state-supported Church of England. The KJV is the government-approved translation to replace the anti-establishment Geneva Bible.
@@NathanH83 the Bible was rewritten to "hebrew" as a reaction to Christianity. The "rabbis" targeted Messianic arguments, like Psalm 22, and incorporated the atbash. The oldest Bibles are in greek and "vetus latina". The Dead Sea Scrolls have a 600 years range, from BC to AD. One of them is an ancient forgery, ie, written in AD on old parchment dating from BC. They kept carbon testing the scrolls until their "right" result comes up.
@@jpmvidal I doubt any scientists doing carbon date tests. Look up the Shroud of Turin and the controversy surrounding that artifact and carbon dating. NOT debunked.
I stopped taking Kent Hovind seriously after he did a 180 on his teaching on marriage/divorce to fit his own desires: not because I disagree with him. Then I listened to what his son Eric had to say about his dad’s practices. Then I saw the photos of his new dinosaur land in Alabama where he elevated himself by making his image one of the centers of attention at the gate. So glad my faith is not centered on this man or his ministry. This meant to say that everything he did in the past was a lie. It seems there is a difference with his teaching before prison vs after prison.
Nathan: I love and follow your work concerning scripture, but I have to defend Raplinger and the 1611 KJV Bible being the version we should be using when it comes to studying God's written word, which is a more sure word of prophecy. Firstly, G.A. Raplinger did say, "It appears...," which means she wasn't dogmatic, which is a good thing because of what you point out. Putting that about Raplinger aside, though the KJV is not perfect (as shown by u in other videos), it's still the correct version we should be studying from. Why? Although the King James Version is just one of many "translations" of the Scriptures, it is a self-interpreting whole with its own internal set of terminology and concepts. When studying God's word, it is important to keep these points in mind: 1. The Scriptures are self-interpreting when correctly translated. 2. Every single word, tense, and phrase is structured to convey PRECISE meaning. 3. Things that are different are NOT the same. 4. Things that are the same ARE the same. 5. There are NO real contradictions in the Scriptures. (see: John 10:35) For every apparent contradiction there is a Scriptural resolution. 6. The Scriptures cannot be broken. In this world, when man communicates with his fellow man, lawyers draw up contracts which use precise word meanings. Legislatures draft laws and regulations on the same principles as do diplomats who must convey their nations' positions with concisely worded documents that effectively communicate across language and cultural differences. The use of a particular word, which conveys a particular nuance of meaning, can speak volumes. Words are parsed closely by the recipients for determination of intent and subtly of meaning. Should we not therefore expect the same principle and understanding in respecting and interpreting what God has to say to man in all matters? Of course! With all that said, when it comes to reading and interpreting the KJV, which is inspired by the Holy Spirit (other versions are not), the Rule of First Mention and how to apply it needs to be used, which is to find out the first time a word is used, and invariably, the context will explain its meaning. Here is just one of many examples: There is a difference between "create" and "made" in Genesis 1. Create means to create something out of nothing, which the Father did, and made is to make something out of something else, which the Son did, which occurred after the Rebellion. This point alone informs us that there was an age of the angels on earth prior to the age of mankind; that the earth is billions of years old (via earth's geological record), and that mankind is about 6650 years old; +/- a few years, as shown in your video: Were the Pyramids Built Before the Flood? The last thing I want to say about why the KJV should be the version we should be using is because it uses the word "charity," which is the greatest, instead of love. When using the 6 points, as mentioned above, we see that charity derives from love, which is that we walk after and keep His Commandments, for that is what love is (2 Jn. 1:6). In other words, the end of the Ten Commandments produces charity, which is the greatest. But most other versions uses the word love exclusively, which is not charity, which keeps many from realizing what love is.
Did you even see the vide of Nathan "Where there pyramids before the flood?". You wrote almost a book in your comment. The KJV translators used the Masoretic text (1100 A.D.) as the version for the Old Testament. While this in its true form is a corrupted text --> the masoretic text. Hence why you should see his video. The Old Testament in the early Apostles time was the Septuagint. Even Jesus Himself quoted from it. Also compare the Old Testament/Masoretic/Septuagint for example with parts of the Dead Sea scrolls. So is the KJV better than any modern versions? Perhaps. God is Spirit, because of Jesus we receive the Holy Spirit.If God can talk through Donkey's then He can talk for sure straight to your heart through any translation. Thats for me not the point. But I still share your view that the KJV comes most close to the original source text and that is very important! Although, keep in mind, the masoretic text was the Jewish modern version in the days of the KJV translators! And yes it is corrupted! Specially timeline..
Why do u consider no other translations a “self-interpreting whole with its own internal set of terminology and concepts”? How do u know that "the KJV, is inspired by the Holy Spirit (other versions are not)"?
In a synagogue in the 1st century, one could only read the Hebrew scrolls or the Targum (a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic). Greek was forbidden. Recall that Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the Solomon’s temple circa 170 BC. Thus, the need for Herod to build the 2nd temple. The Jews of the 1st century despised the Greeks, for that and other reasons. The only evidence for a BC Septuagint is the letter of Aristeas, which no one believers but everyone quotes. It is a fantastic tale (read fantasy). There is no reference to a Septuagint prior to 50 AD (+/-). If you trace all the reference to a BC Septuagint, you will find that each and every on them references the Letter of Aristeas in one form or another. So, the only witness to a BC Septuagint is the Letter of Aristeas (LOA) If one believes the LOA, one has to believe also that the 10 northern tribes of Israel were not dispersed to four winds after 721 BC. From this diaspora they never returned. Rather you have to believe that they were still in Israel in 285 BC, since the LOA claims that 12 scribes from each of the 12 tribes of Israel were assembled in Egypt. Incidentally, a land to which the Jews were forbidden ever to return to. Deuteronomy 28:68. Only the Levites were to handle the scriptures (with the exception of the King who had to make a copy for himself). So, one has to add to that belief that 72 scribes (not Levites) defiled themselves among the Greeks and defied the scriptures and God’s wishes in order to handle the scriptures as well as going to a land to which they were forbidden ever to return. More so, add to that belief, that 72 scribes, each without a copy of the Hebrew scriptures, translated them from memory into Greek in 72 days and every single word was identical all the while being locked up in 72 chambers on the isle of Pharos without any collaboration between them. And by the way, why is it called LXX "The 70"? And may I say ”Incidentally” again? Incidentally, the Pharos light house was not built until 280 BC, 5 years after the blessed event. A minor point. To sum up, we are to believe that God inspired the work of 72 (not 70) disobedient, non-Levitical scribes who rendered 72 identical copies of the Hebrew scriptures from memory into Greek. Really? Incidentally, the LOA section 176 also says that the whole scroll was written in gold. Really? Where is it? You’d think that someone would have a vested interest in preserving such a priceless document. Where is it? It doesn’t exist! Finally, If you were to get a copy of the Septuagint, you would find that it is nothing more than the Old Testament portions of the codex Alexandrinus, the codex Sinaiticus and the codex Vaticanus, along with the Apocrypha. If you believe that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, you have to also believe that Jesus endorsed the Apocrypha. Including purgatory! Really?
Origen's Hexapla serves as a bottleneck for all our current copies and knowledge of the Septuagint. In the Talmud (Megillah 9) early post-2nd temple rabbis are discussing the LXX favorably, but mention a dozen text variants that are not found in our current copies! I believe the KJV is absolutely superior to all English Bibles, in prose, doctrine, theology, and scholarship. But the KJV New Testament still quotes back to Septuagint readings. KJV-onlyists deny this and say they were Holy Spirit-approved paraphrases of the Masoretic. Lately I have realized I just can't accept this. I actually believe the Masoretic to be a superior text *overall,* but it is impossible to deny that the NT authors were quoting from an LXX-like document; which raises the possibility that this document *could* be closer to the original autographs in certain places than the Masoretic.
![ЛЕБЕДЕВ у ДУДЯ: муху не обманешь 😁 [Пародия]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/E74h5fvVrqs/mqdefault.jpg)
The KJ translators themselves also state that they have followed the LXX in certain passages which they deem to be more correct than the Masoretic, such as the Messianic prophecies.
Exactly
@@NathanH83 Agreed!! Almost like God was preserving the truth through those faithful men
what page?
@@GThePreacher
It’s in the KJV introduction
@@Mikha335 yes but which page the intro not one page
This is the Nathan who’s work I love.
She's literally twisting the truth.
The KJV translators write of the Seventy, "as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the Original, and sometimes to take from it; which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sense thereof according to the truth of the word, as the spirit gave them utterance." And they sang praises of Jerome.
On the other hand, Timothy Michael Law, in his excellent book, "When God Spoke Greek", tells us that
"Around 395 Augustine opened up the discussion on the Septuagint. He began by praising Jerome’s translations of Greek commentaries but then turned his attention to the translation of the Hebrew Bible. He writes that if Jerome should continue to translate the Hebrew he should "point out by appropriate signs the variations between your version and the Septuagint, which has such preponderant authority. ..." Augustine is surprised at Jerome’s nerve. Could he possibly find something new in the Hebrew text that had not been found in the previous seven centuries since the original Septuagint translation? Was Jerome so confident in his Hebrew learning that he would be able to see something the original translators had missed? Who would be so arrogant not only to object to the skill of the original translators but also to suggest he could do better? If the Alexandrian translators were incapable of understanding an obscurity in the Hebrew, what gave this failed monk with a recently acquired knowledge of Hebrew the insight to break through the mystery?"
It's like today's Bible scholars. They get PhDs in Greek and classical languages, and deem themselves in a better position to interpret the Scriptures from the "scientific" and "objective" "grammatico-historical hermeneutic", insinuating that the Early Church Fathers were blatantly allegorizing and taking liberties with Holy Writ... as if the Fathers, who lived, spoke and thought in Greek, were at a disadvantage without academic credentials!
Jerome and modern Bible scholars seem to share the same hubris born of flesh. As a new student of the Bible, this brings to attention my need to always be careful with what little knowledge I should gain and pray for understanding. Mr. Nathan has certainly opened my eyes.
@@360-media And you 2 share a staggering ignorance and a blindness to the truth.
KJV was hardly either the best or the first English translation of the Bible. Wm Tydale did a very good translation in 1525 and was murdered by the Pope for doing it. John Wycliffe finished his translation by 1395 and the pope tried to kill him and later had his bones burned. This is over 200 year before the known homosexual king James I of England agreed to testify against his Mother Mary Queen of Scots so that Queen Elizabeth I would make him her heir. He wanted the translation to showw the divine right of kings. The KJV IS a good translation but it was paid for by a horribly evil man who wanted it for selfish political reasons. Sounds a lot like Ptolomey Phildelphius.
Excellent work Nathan. You are always on target.
Love your insight, man. Truly appreciate it!
Really really like your way that speaks so loud and ear-pleasing with FACTS, FACTS and FACTS!
Read the Book of Isaiah in the KJV or most any modern translation today. Then re-read Isaiah right after in the Septuagint (I have the Brenton LXX).....
The Septuagint Isaiah BLEW MY MIND. Clear as day changes were made in the much later, AD Masoretic.
The Dead Sea Scrolls really smashed the confidence of the Masoretic Text. LXX agrees with the DSS more often than the MT.
@@PracticalBibleStudies Indeed it does. It's hard to explain unless you read through and are familiar with both the LXX and MT Old Testaments, but when you read through the Septuagint OT, Christ and the Christian Faith just jumps off every page at you. Jesus, the Holy Trinity, etc just smacks you right in the face as if I'm reading the real precursor to the New Testamant texts.
You don't get that same vibe at all from the OT MT. You have to be REALLY familiar with the OT verses, passages, and Christ references otherwise things get real muddy quick.
And, of course, it's clear as day Jesus and the Apostles were quoting and referencing from the LXX texts or the original Hebrew/Aramaic that got translated over into the Greek Septuagint.
Do a line by line OT quote analysis and it's even clearer.
The MT is so strangely different than the Septuagint and NT that it really starts to feel like an entirely different Bible! 😳
...and maybe that was the entire goal with the Masoretic....🤔🤫
We have Church fathers that openly stated Jews were changing around the texts and favoring more obscure wording (especially in and around blatently Messianic passages...again, Isaiah is a perfect example of this tampering) during the development of the Masoretic.
@@pennsyltuckyreb9800 I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any means, but I would say there is solid evidence that the Masoretes changed the OT to be less christological. Most of the significant differences just happen to be where it foretells Jesus.
@@PracticalBibleStudies The words of our Lord and His Apostles sound like "conspiracy theories" so I know I'm in good company...😉
I'm actually very partial to the sound and wording of the English KJV. I wish someone would just slam together a Brenton LXX (including the Deuterocanonicals) and a KJV NT into one Bible. Having the Masoretic readings in footnotes. Nice larger, clear print. Double column. Maybe even throw in the Book of Enoch....that would be my "perfect" Bible version.
And it would suffice well as a "universal" Roman Catholic/Orthodox/Coptic Bible, IMO. And I know some Protestant denominations out there would find it quite useful as well.
I have all the Bibles out there. But my constant go-to is a Brenton LXX with a large print, ultrathin KJV I keep rubber banded to it. The Brenton's English text is ridiculously too small but I deal with it.
@@pennsyltuckyreb9800 If you are so inclined, you can do it yourself. Since the KJV is in the public domain, you can find it as a word doc. Then you can find the readings where the manuscripts differ and change them to the LXX reading. Then simply have it printed at Lulu or Blurb.
Love it. Very scholarly. Make more videos Nathan!
Wish you would have kept reading the translators notes. It continues, "This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters [the Septuagent], commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal… The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men do confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy of the appellation and name of the word of God."
Yea, that’s a really significant point as well. The Septuagint was needed to spread the gospel. Plus it shows the KJV translators acknowledging that the disciples used the Septuagint -something that Gail and Kent deny.
It seems the KJV translators were dispelling the notion that a translation had to be perfect to be used as God's word. They themselves were building on the work of others but never dared to claim that their translation was perfect.
Thank you for your efforts.
Keep this up. We love it.
I like how you bring to light issues I did not even know existed.
Your channel is incredible
Awesome. Great work my friend. I love it.
I love you so much!! Thank you!!
Keep doing the lords work Nathan. All of your videos are excellent!
By the way, how about a video on different versions of the LXX (if they exist) and the differences and which one is the best?
This is great thanks. !!!
Evidently, according to Gail, the KJV translators were anointed as translators but not as historians.
Imagine that. 🙄
Noah was a great ship builder but don't let him make you some grape juice
@@dantombs5697Strong drink and/or lingering at the wine bowls was Noah’s problem
Not drinking wine itself
@@YeshuaKingMessiah right he should of not even started! Total agree, the fact one numbs you so two is easier and three is the obvious next step because nothing happening… or maybe he was more Native American?
So easy answer just don’t do evil
@@dantombs5697 drinking wine is not evil
Drunkenness is
Eating is not evil
Riotous eating n gluttony is
Fire is not evil
Burning down a house is
Nathan, This is good. Thank you for doing these videos.
I began my journey down this path when the spirit of God stirred in my heart to ask the question, "When Paul tells Timothy, "All scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for doctrine,..."" What are the scriptures in reference? I found the answer to be the Greek septuagint. The Jews have opposed the message of Christ in his days, the days of the apostles and even to this day. So, it doesn't surprise me that they would change the scriptures to deny Jesus.
Excellent eye opener.... God bless you
What is the best English version of the Septuagint that you would recommend?
Excellent
The Kjv uses some Septuagint text. They pierced His hands and feet, for example. Ps.22.
Yea, exactly. Especially in the New Testament when Luke 3:36 included the extra Cainan. That’s one of the mistakes from the Septuagint, and the KJV has it.
The true Hebrew text says that as well, though. Jesus grew up reading the correct Hebrew text, not the Greek.
The Alexandrian Jews read the LXX and did not understand Hebraic thought.
@@blain20_ hmm. Interesting.
@@blain20_ what true Hebrew text is that my bro?
@@blain20_ "And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?" (John 7:15) No. Jesus did NOT grow up "studying" the "Hebrew" .....
Thank you
Why would a God fearing woman supporting the KJV put a dragon on her work...? Is she supporting the dragon? Do you dear reader run around with dragons on your work?
The main point of her book is that modern translations are Luciferian (Satanic).
She has "New Age" on there. That was a hint for me.
Hey Nathan, I just watched your video on why the flood didn't hit the pyramids and it was great! I was wondering if you have heard of Bright Insight? He has a UA-cam channel that covers ancient civilizations and he's been to Egypt a few times. He has found evidence of some sort of widespread destruction of Egypt, I think you would enjoy it!
Thanks. Totally worth it.
Thank you!
Excellent, as usual.
Just FYI,
CE = Christian Era
BCE = Before Christian Era
Well, the atheists will say Common Era.
@@NathanH83 ADAM is common. ; )
I've never heard of (Before) Christian Era. The Jews invented BCE/CE in order to avoid Jesus entirely. It refers to Imperial Rome instead.
I thought it used to be:
BC = Before Christ
AD = After death?
I distinctly remember years as being BC/AD
I found many errors or slips in some Chinese versions of Bible, these translators are so bold to add or delete words of the Bible. But when I communicate with them, one of them never responds, the other seems to justify his adding or deleting through the excuse that his translation is easier to be understood than the other versions. But when I read his translation, it seems not to be that easier! They seem not to have enough capacity and knowledge of translation and and the right attitude to the translation. But I feel guilty in my heart because the tranlator said he has experiences of being a professional evangelist but I have no that professional things, if what he said is true, not a lie. If he can lie in the Bible, how can I trust his other words? But in case he is not lying, if am i too tough to point out some of the errors in his Bible?
A professional evangelist? WHAT? Last I knew that’s a missionary, supported with donations. He sounds very arrogant to me. Keep at him. He needs to translate truly, not what HE wants.
This is out of topic, but I am curious. Why Masoretic text different from Septuagint? If the Septuagint translate from Hebrew to Greek, and Masoretic re-write Hebrew to Hebrew, both (Septuagint and Masoretic) should be the same, only different language? Was Masoretic design only to deny Yehusha not the Messiah? Or any other purpose? Could someone give me link the history Masoretic text of Bible?
The purpose was to discredit Jesus as Messiah. After the start of Christianity the Hebrew text was corrupted by the unbelieving Jews. It happened about 100 AD.
@@NathanH83 thanks for your info Nathan
@@NathanH83 Nathan, I've read this statement and have heard you say this several times in your videos. What is the source for these statements? Is this a reasoned assertion or is there historical, documented evidence of this scriptural maneuver? Thanks.
@@mcgeorgerl There's lots of evidence. Have you seen my video about the pyramids and the flood? I'd say that the New Testament is the biggest evidence. when you look up the quotes in the Old Testament, you'll find the disciples siding with the Septuagint almost every time.
@@NathanH83 My question was regarding this specific assertion: "The purpose was to discredit Jesus as Messiah. After the start of Christianity the Hebrew text was corrupted by the unbelieving Jews. It happened about 100 AD." As far as the Septuagint goes, Brenton's sits upon my desk and I refer to it often.
Where can I get an accurate septuagint bible?
huge fan!
Nice find!
What page of the preface is the translators to readers reference to ptolemy philadelphus?
4th page
@@NathanH83 thanks king.
Wonderful
Is this the only problem you have with the book? Do you agree with the rest of the book?
There’s a lot of problems
Were there any LXX copies in the Dead Sea Scrolls?
Only part of Genesis & Baruch...
Good one.
The Septuagint we have today is not the origional version written in 250 B.C. but is a copy re edited by early Christian Fathers to better support the New Testament.
I have a library of about 14,000 books. New Age Bible Versions is in my cult section. I'll just leave that out there to take it how you will.
Another nice video brother, I don't know where these weirdos come from. Sometimes I think they got a little something added into their cocoa. Just trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, b/c I can't imagine they honestly believe what they're pushing. God bless brother!
I’ve seen videos on UA-cam where people claim that the Greek Septuagint didn’t even exist before Christ. And they refer to Gail’s book. It’s really sad.
I have to be careful within Nathan. I tend to believe everything he says, everything! I won't even double check his work because he is so meticulous in his own work. Love this guy!
Don’t believe everything I say. Research for yourself. I make mistakes too.
@@NathanH83 for sure I totally agree. Im curious what do you think of the book of Jasher. Why wouldn't that book be considered an important book. I mean the KJ Bible mentions that there were profecies being fulfilled.
@@josephstock9099
The book of Jasher is definitely fraudulent
@@NathanH83 where can I get more information on it. I gotta know why the Bible mentions it.
@@josephstock9099
Just read it. It contradicts the Bible. And look up the information on it. It was invented in the 1700’s. It didn’t exist before then.
Wow. Good catch. What about the stupid fairy tales of mystic translation?
New sub
Bro! Did they take down the covid video that you posted?
Yea, but they didn’t remove the website that I was pointing to.
nomoresilence.world
I put it on Rumble!
rumble.com/voyz4v-no-more-silence-vaccine-side-effects-and-deaths.html
Super
I Thank God for the large and small Massorah!!
Poor scholarship. Just because KJV translators said Septuagint was pre-Christian doesn't mean it is true. What existing evidence do we have of pre-Christian manuscripts in Greek? Sparse to none. A video that goes through existing evidence for a pre-Christian septuagint and debunks the claim. Title: "Is The Septuagint Of Pre-Christian Origin?"
I was looking for your last video on the jab and it appears to be gone
They deleted it for violating their medical misinformation guidelines. (Even though I wasn’t misinforming anyone, since I was just showing that this website exists, and it really is true that the website exists).
Just go to their website and read the articles for yourself:
nomoresilence.world
One of my subscribers, Tony Clifton, has uploaded a 3-hour long meeting where a bunch of victims share their stories:
ua-cam.com/video/denrByI6uhw/v-deo.html
They were brought together by Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson.
Forget that. They deleted it from Tony's page. But it's still on senator Ron Johnson's page:
ua-cam.com/video/lepqvdXoA2E/v-deo.html
@@NathanH83 wow we live in terrible times. No truth but Jesus Christ. God help your truth come forth but as you have said the first thing to be aware of is lies in the end times. Also Thank you for spreading the truth brother. Amen and Agape
Start a patreon buddy, we want more of this content on the regular
I don’t think Patreon is going to inspire me to make more videos
Honestly, this conversation could only exist in a country as monolingual as ours where people don’t understand that there’s a little ambiguity in the translation process
Kent said in another video that Origen translated his LXX using the "Alexandrian Cult" text... which didn't believe in the diety of Christ.. and that makes absolutely no sense because Christ wasn't born yet
Yea, because every Christian in Alexandria belonged to that cult.
@@NathanH83 He calls Origen the primary cult leader lol Origen didn't translate the NT
@@NathanH83 oh I see what you are saying, Kent is saying that since the Sinaticus was an "Alexandrian cult" text then that must mean that Origen was the cult leader because he used the Alexandrian Greek Septuagint in one of his 3 translations for the Hexapla... this makes my brain hurt.
@@radtod
When KJV people demonize everything related to Alexandria, Christians who don’t know a lot of history are automatically going to think “cult members” the second anyone even mentions anything about Alexandria. As if nothing good could come from a big city.
The diety of Messiah is in the OT
Seems she is trying to defend the ENTIRE KJV. I agree with the KJV using the received text for the NT, but not the Masoretic text for the OT. The Orthodox study bible uses the NKJV NT and the Septuagint OT. The Eastern Orthodox have ALWAYS used the Septuagint from the earliest days of the early church. And their NT is the same as the KJV used. KJV only folks have boxed themselves into a corner. By saying the authorized KJV is THE divinely inspired translation which God used to preserve his word, they simply cannot allow that the Septuagint is better, or even a useful translation.
I am appalled at Kent Hovind's ignorance of the LXX and to cite Riplinger's "New Age Bible Versions" an "exhaustive documentation", that the LXX was translated in AD by Origin??? If not for the LXX we would not known that the Hebrew "Yam Suph" is the Red Sea. Biblical scholars still does not understand that Yam Suph is the Red Sea. The Biblical Scholars still think the Bitters Lake is Yam Suph. You have 70 Hellenist Jews selected by Ptolemy II Philadelphus, Pharaoh of Egypt to translate the Hebrew OT (Tanakh) into Greek in the 3rd century BC, who are totally unbiased about the first coming of Christ because it had not happened yet, had no reason to alter the original Hebrew intent into Greek and copies were made of the original for centuries later and were cited by NT writers including the Messiah Himself. I trust the 70 Jewish scholars know what Yam Suph is. And they, the 70, had the blessing of the Messiah Jesus.
I am glad that I was not bamboozled to buying a copy of this so-called "exhaustive documentation" aka NABV by Riplinger. Thanks Mr. Hoffman!
The King James Only cult is troubling. Hovind is a bright guy and really should know better. I hope he comes up with a response to this video. Nice work, Nathan.
KJO cult is troubling, how so?
Hovind is dishonest. He has his strengths in calling out atheism in schools but is very weak in many other aspects.
@@blain20_ I disagree with him in some areas but count him with honor because of his calling to shred our enemies with a broad axe 🪓 . Can you elaborate on why we need to call him out in public forums, I believe love is not easily offended- Job’s friends were reprimanded so I look at how we can apply understanding here
@@dantombs5697 He's viewed as a joke by most of the "enemies" you speak of, and by many Christians. He has no credibility. If you want to honor someone who's speaking out against the fraudulence of macro-evolution, and who is respected by both sides, turn your attention to Stephen Meyer. You can find his videos here on UA-cam.
@@thesithempire1348 See your point, but I enjoy his playful demeanor, .....Myers(not trying to misrepresent him) is an old earth creationist, doesn't believe in the 6 days of creation as days, ya no thanks.
Yeah buddy! That's how it's done
It was authorized only to translate the five Books of Moses and eventually Origin included in his corrupt Hexapla others books and apocrypha.
The gay love letter of king James < fits in perfectly with todays rainbow season
So now the question is why is this woman asserting something that isn't true?
Well, she’s taking the fact that Origen may very well had made some changes to the Septuagint. So the present-day copies might have some minor changes caused by Origen.
But she’s taking that and taking a leap in logic, and giving off the impression that the Septuagint DIDN’T EXIST before Origen, which is absolutely ridiculous since multiple Jewish historians and church fathers who lived BEFORE Origin had quoted the Septuagint and talked about its Beginning. And they all agree upon the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, in the 3rd century BC.
She’s denying very well known history. It’s basically a conspiracy theory to deny that the Septuagint was translated before Christ. A conspiracy theory promoted by KJV-onlyists.
The dragon is on this book for a reason. That was very calculating, you could even say "demonic" to lie about something important like that.
Of note: Origen is NOT a church father. He was an influential scholar and many of his works and translations considered important, but he believed that after the end of the world the people sent to hell would eventually be forgiven and allowed to enter into heaven. He was anathematized by the Church for this heresy.
@@ajhigginscomposer He was anathematized by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, specifically in its eleventh Canon.
@@ajhigginscomposer I am not denying his contributions, his works were an influence on numerous holy fathers of 4th century onward. He was especially important for his translation work of the Old Testament. In the Eastern Orthodox Church we have taken his contributions but he is definitely not a holy father and is not a saint.
origen was probably right. eternal punishment for a finite set sins doesn't make sense.
@@foolfether but then you destroy the entire premise of eternity and a God whose judgment is infinitely just.
@@shihantemplet those would be 2 premises, and both would be false:
1. there's no such thing as eternity apart from God - his Name means 'the Eternal One'. also, both in hebrew and greek there are no words that really translate as 'forever', so the YLT translates phrases commonly translated as 'forever' as the more fitting 'age-during' or 'ages of ages', which implies an unknown but limited amount of time.
2. there's no such thing as 'infinite justice', only justice or injustice. justice gives the precise reward/punishment to a certain deed. even if you live a 100 years continually sinning, you can quantify those sins and translate them into a certain amount of jail time. and Jesus gives hints of that, when saying that if you are caught you won't be released until you pay your debt, or that some will receive more lashes than others.
Yes the Septuagint is much older than the masoretic like a thousand years older
But the 'septuagint' of today did not exist in the Apostle's day and age. It was only the law that the 'seventy' interpreted. The word 'septuagint' and 'LXX.' only came into use during the 17th century and all the extra' 'apochrypha' and other books added then. This luls people into thinking that the 'septuagint' of today is what they must have had and used then but that is a false notion. In fact, there may have been some different MSS only of the law that the 'seventy' interpreted BC and NOT what the 'septuagint' of today is because it did not exist then, however there is no proof. The letter of Aristeas is psuedepigryphal and spoke of 72 interpreters, what happened to the other 2 interpreters?
Well done video..... I'm certainly not a lover of Gail's research, that book is a hot sloppy mess, but I believe there is one faith, one God, one Holy Bible and I believe the quality and authority the Authorized version crushes the new versions. Example - look at 2 Sam 21:19 (most have some one else killing Goliath)
Silly example. 1 Chronicles 20:5 states Elhanan killed the BROTHER of Goliath. There was clearly some sort of mistranslation error in 2 Samuel/Kings the KJV translators took to correcting and adding in the missing "the brother of."
That said, there's just tons of errors all over the KJV that cancel out that one good translation. The KJV is riddled with issues. All that said, I would take a KJV any day over the hot mess of English translations we have today.
@@pennsyltuckyreb9800 silly because modern versions mostly get it wrong or silly because the KJV gets it right... "The KJV is riddled with issues"??? I could easily see that view if you thought that the westcott and hort with the heavy use of codex sinaiticus was scholarly, but surely you know that codex is fraudulent.
Outside the obvious errors, they also don’t consider that the translators of the English-language Geneva Bible were persecuted and martyred by the English. The Church of England considered the Geneva Bible as heretical. The KJV is known as the “Authorized Version”, as in authorized by the state founded, state-supported Church of England. The KJV is the government-approved translation to replace the anti-establishment Geneva Bible.
The oldest Bibles in hebrew date from the year 1000 AD.
The oldest complete ones
@@NathanH83 the Bible was rewritten to "hebrew" as a reaction to Christianity. The "rabbis" targeted Messianic arguments, like Psalm 22, and incorporated the atbash. The oldest Bibles are in greek and "vetus latina". The Dead Sea Scrolls have a 600 years range, from BC to AD. One of them is an ancient forgery, ie, written in AD on old parchment dating from BC. They kept carbon testing the scrolls until their "right" result comes up.
@@jpmvidal I doubt any scientists doing carbon date tests. Look up the Shroud of Turin and the controversy surrounding that artifact and carbon dating. NOT debunked.
The Dead Sea scrolls 2,000 years old
I stopped taking Kent Hovind seriously after he did a 180 on his teaching on marriage/divorce to fit his own desires: not because I disagree with him. Then I listened to what his son Eric had to say about his dad’s practices. Then I saw the photos of his new dinosaur land in Alabama where he elevated himself by making his image one of the centers of attention at the gate.
So glad my faith is not centered on this man or his ministry. This meant to say that everything he did in the past was a lie. It seems there is a difference with his teaching before prison vs after prison.
Nathan: I love and follow your work concerning scripture, but I have to defend Raplinger and the 1611 KJV Bible being the version we should be using when it comes to studying God's written word, which is a more sure word of prophecy. Firstly, G.A. Raplinger did say, "It appears...," which means she wasn't dogmatic, which is a good thing because of what you point out. Putting that about Raplinger aside, though the KJV is not perfect (as shown by u in other videos), it's still the correct version we should be studying from. Why?
Although the King James Version is just one of many "translations" of the Scriptures, it is a self-interpreting whole with its own internal set of terminology and concepts. When studying God's word, it is important to keep these points in mind:
1. The Scriptures are self-interpreting when correctly translated.
2. Every single word, tense, and phrase is structured to convey PRECISE meaning.
3. Things that are different are NOT the same.
4. Things that are the same ARE the same.
5. There are NO real contradictions in the Scriptures. (see: John 10:35) For every apparent contradiction there is a Scriptural resolution.
6. The Scriptures cannot be broken.
In this world, when man communicates with his fellow man, lawyers draw up contracts which use precise word meanings. Legislatures draft laws and regulations on the same principles as do diplomats who must convey their nations' positions with concisely worded documents that effectively communicate across language and cultural differences. The use of a particular word, which conveys a particular nuance of meaning, can speak volumes. Words are parsed closely by the recipients for determination of intent and subtly of meaning. Should we not therefore expect the same principle and understanding in respecting and interpreting what God has to say to man in all matters? Of course!
With all that said, when it comes to reading and interpreting the KJV, which is inspired by the Holy Spirit (other versions are not), the Rule of First Mention and how to apply it needs to be used, which is to find out the first time a word is used, and invariably, the context will explain its meaning. Here is just one of many examples:
There is a difference between "create" and "made" in Genesis 1. Create means to create something out of nothing, which the Father did, and made is to make something out of something else, which the Son did, which occurred after the Rebellion. This point alone informs us that there was an age of the angels on earth prior to the age of mankind; that the earth is billions of years old (via earth's geological record), and that mankind is about 6650 years old; +/- a few years, as shown in your video: Were the Pyramids Built Before the Flood?
The last thing I want to say about why the KJV should be the version we should be using is because it uses the word "charity," which is the greatest, instead of love. When using the 6 points, as mentioned above, we see that charity derives from love, which is that we walk after and keep His Commandments, for that is what love is (2 Jn. 1:6). In other words, the end of the Ten Commandments produces charity, which is the greatest. But most other versions uses the word love exclusively, which is not charity, which keeps many from realizing what love is.
Did you even see the vide of Nathan "Where there pyramids before the flood?". You wrote almost a book in your comment. The KJV translators used the Masoretic text (1100 A.D.) as the version for the Old Testament. While this in its true form is a corrupted text --> the masoretic text. Hence why you should see his video. The Old Testament in the early Apostles time was the Septuagint. Even Jesus Himself quoted from it. Also compare the Old Testament/Masoretic/Septuagint for example with parts of the Dead Sea scrolls. So is the KJV better than any modern versions? Perhaps. God is Spirit, because of Jesus we receive the Holy Spirit.If God can talk through Donkey's then He can talk for sure straight to your heart through any translation. Thats for me not the point. But I still share your view that the KJV comes most close to the original source text and that is very important! Although, keep in mind, the masoretic text was the Jewish modern version in the days of the KJV translators! And yes it is corrupted! Specially timeline..
Why do u consider no other translations a “self-interpreting whole with its own internal set of terminology and concepts”?
How do u know that "the KJV, is inspired by the Holy Spirit (other versions are not)"?
You trusting Wikipedia is like a child trusting a stranger
Orthodox Study Bible. Get one.
I wonder what Hovind's response will be hahaha
That woman is whack... It made Hovind illogical in one area.
In a synagogue in the 1st century, one could only read the Hebrew scrolls or the Targum (a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic). Greek was forbidden. Recall that Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the Solomon’s temple circa 170 BC. Thus, the need for Herod to build the 2nd temple. The Jews of the 1st century despised the Greeks, for that and other reasons.
The only evidence for a BC Septuagint is the letter of Aristeas, which no one believers but everyone quotes. It is a fantastic tale (read fantasy). There is no reference to a Septuagint prior to 50 AD (+/-). If you trace all the reference to a BC Septuagint, you will find that each and every on them references the Letter of Aristeas in one form or another. So, the only witness to a BC Septuagint is the Letter of Aristeas (LOA)
If one believes the LOA, one has to believe also that the 10 northern tribes of Israel were not dispersed to four winds after 721 BC. From this diaspora they never returned. Rather you have to believe that they were still in Israel in 285 BC, since the LOA claims that 12 scribes from each of the 12 tribes of Israel were assembled in Egypt. Incidentally, a land to which the Jews were forbidden ever to return to. Deuteronomy 28:68.
Only the Levites were to handle the scriptures (with the exception of the King who had to make a copy for himself). So, one has to add to that belief that 72 scribes (not Levites) defiled themselves among the Greeks and defied the scriptures and God’s wishes in order to handle the scriptures as well as going to a land to which they were forbidden ever to return.
More so, add to that belief, that 72 scribes, each without a copy of the Hebrew scriptures, translated them from memory into Greek in 72 days and every single word was identical all the while being locked up in 72 chambers on the isle of Pharos without any collaboration between them. And by the way, why is it called LXX "The 70"?
And may I say ”Incidentally” again?
Incidentally, the Pharos light house was not built until 280 BC, 5 years after the blessed event. A minor point.
To sum up, we are to believe that God inspired the work of 72 (not 70) disobedient, non-Levitical scribes who rendered 72 identical copies of the Hebrew scriptures from memory into Greek. Really?
Incidentally, the LOA section 176 also says that the whole scroll was written in gold. Really? Where is it? You’d think that someone would have a vested interest in preserving such a priceless document. Where is it? It doesn’t exist!
Finally, If you were to get a copy of the Septuagint, you would find that it is nothing more than the Old Testament portions of the codex Alexandrinus, the codex Sinaiticus and the codex Vaticanus, along with the Apocrypha.
If you believe that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, you have to also believe that Jesus endorsed the Apocrypha.
Including purgatory!
Really?
You aren't proving anything at all by showing what "translators" of kjv claimed🤦♂️. This forward is meaningless
Origen's Hexapla serves as a bottleneck for all our current copies and knowledge of the Septuagint. In the Talmud (Megillah 9) early post-2nd temple rabbis are discussing the LXX favorably, but mention a dozen text variants that are not found in our current copies!
I believe the KJV is absolutely superior to all English Bibles, in prose, doctrine, theology, and scholarship. But the KJV New Testament still quotes back to Septuagint readings. KJV-onlyists deny this and say they were Holy Spirit-approved paraphrases of the Masoretic. Lately I have realized I just can't accept this. I actually believe the Masoretic to be a superior text *overall,* but it is impossible to deny that the NT authors were quoting from an LXX-like document; which raises the possibility that this document *could* be closer to the original autographs in certain places than the Masoretic.