Have you seen the crossbible video. They do an interesting summary, I think in some ways the LXX is more accurate often quoting the Dead Sea scrolls Hebrew rather than the masoretic. But I would say you need consider all three sources. Having said that the LXX would be the majority (most copied versions) text because of the Byzantine copies.

What is RP?

Do you happen to have any examples of where the LSB brings out nuances that are in the Greek text?

What is more important? Defending conservative Christianity? Or the truth?

What will be the difference in the current RP?

Hi The Septuagint was translated into Greek BY JEWS PRIOR to the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which is a vital point as all the messianic texts were accepted ie Isaiah 53 (not banned ) After the life death and resurrection of Christ the Masoretes actually perverted the text of Psalm 22 to say ‘ LIKE A LION at my hands and my feet’ Instead of ( Thank God) what BOTH the Septuagint AND the Dead Sea scrolls say HAVING BEEN WRITTEN PRIOR TO CHRIST ‘They PIERCED my hands and my feet’ which tallies with Zech 12:10 ‘And they shall look upon me whom they have PIERCED’ Shalom to us only in Christ Yeshua PRINCE OF PEACE returning soon to fulfil the feast of Tabernacles by reigning over Creation on David’s throne from Jerusalem for the seventh millennium to the glory of God The Father!

I prefer the Septuagint

It is my understanding, that the Peshita is from the 2nd century (perhaps 150ad) and it lines up well with the MT. If this is true, why do we always say or agree that the critical text, from the Vaticanis and Sinaticus is older?

Insightful and concise presentation.

This is a great video to watch if you enjoy confusion...

I prefer the 1537 Matthew Bible, which is probably mostly based on the Hebrew (OT). Although, I would also think it has a stronger Septuagint influence than the Bibles that followed after. But, I do not think the “Septuagint” that we have today (ie. Codex Vaticanus for the most part) is the Septuagint that they had back then. I don’t even know if we truly have that Septuagint anymore. What I do know is that I did read a couple “Septuagint” translations (that we have today), and I felt the Lord leading me back to the older reformation Bibles. Notably the Matthew Bible.

The Hebrew MT was doctored in the 2nd century by the Masorites so I prefer the Septuagint which lines up more with the Dead Sea scrolls

It makes sense, especially when you look at it from God's perspective: He married Israel and they cheated on him. The mother of harlots meaning she gave birth to monotheism?

Mat 10:23 makes it pretty clear which generation is being referenced.

The correct pronunciation of the ελληνικά / Hellenic / Greek language then and now! A/α=alfa (pron. always clear Α as in "car" - not ay) B/β=veeta (v sound) as in "valley" Γ/γ=γάμα (like y-es or w-hat) Δ/δ=thelta (like (th-e) E/ε=epsilon (e-pitaph) Ζ/ζ=zeeta (Z-oo) Η/η=eeta (pronounced ee) as "infinit-y" Θ/θ=theeta (as th-uner) Ι/ι=eeota (pronounced ee) as "infinit-y" Κ/κ=kapa /K as "c-at" Λ/λ=lamtha / L as "L-eo" Μ/μ=mee / M as "m-om" Ν/ν=nee / N as "n-ou-n" Ξ/ξ=xee / X (as on e-x-odus) Ο/ο=omikron / O "Door" Π/π=pee / P not paee but as "p-olice" Ρ/ρ=ro /R as "r-egula-r" Σ/σ/ς=siγma / S (ther's no sound like γ in latin, g is complitely wrong) as "s-ound" Τ/τ=taf / Τ as "tea" Y/υ=eepsilon (pronounced ee) as "infinit-y" Φ/φ=fee / F as "fall" Χ/χ=hee / J in spanish / He in english as "h-urry up" Ψ/ψ=psee / ps Ω/ω=omeγa / O (ther's no sound like γ in latin, g is complitely wrong) as "door" Ιι / Ηη / Υυ / ει / οι are always ee, only when εϊ = e-ee, and αϊ=a-ee Also: μπ=b / ντ=d / τζ=j / γκ=g (G-ary) / ευ=ef or ev / αυ=af or av /αι=e (end) / ου=ou or u in (Lulu) [Only when there is (¨) the pronunciation change] eg: εϋ = e-ee / αϋ = a-ee / αϊ = a-ee / οϋ = o-ee / εϊ = e-ee / οϊ = o-ee The «ευ» and «αυ», pronounced ef and af, when the letters κ, π, τ, χ, φ, θ, σ, ξ, ψ follow. eg: (εύκολο/eukolo=efkolo, αυχένας/auhenas=afhenas, αυστηρός/austeerόs=afsteerόs etc.) The «ευ» and «αυ» are pronounced "ev" and "av", when the letters β, γ, δ, ζ, λ, μ, ν, ρ and vowels follow. eg: (Ευγένιος/Eugenios=Evgeneeos>Eugene in English, ευνομία/eunomia=evnomia, ευέλικτος/eueliktos=eveliktos etc.) Let's make a few words with the correct pronunciation of the Greek letters. Ήλιος / eeleeos / sun (stress in the first e) αύριο / avrio / tomorrow (stress in a) λίθος / leethos / stone (stress in e) παραγωγή / parawowee / production (w as in why - stress in e) σήμερα / seemera / today (stress in first e αύριο / avrio (stress in a) παιχνίδι / pehneethee / toy (h as in he, th as in the - stress in the first e) ψεύτης / pseftees / liar (stress in the first e) Ωκεανός / Okeanos / Ocean (stress in the o) Ευρώπη / Evropee / Europe (stress in o) Γυμναστική / weemnasteekee / gymnastics (w as in why - stress in the last e)

Because the Western world was taught Greek mainly by Erasmus during the Renaissance, it was natural for there to be many misunderstandings as to the correct pronunciation of the letters, because he himself had never heard Greek. So since the Greeks were absent, this mistake grew and took root as right. But who knows the language better than the people themselves who have kept it alive for at least 4000 years? Of course, I do not argue that everything has remained unchanged over the centuries - that would be unnatural - but the terrible barbarities heard today by would-be "Hellenists" are something we are now forced to constantly fight to correct. I will end by saying that Erasmus himself at the end of his life - after meeting with educated Greeks - admitted his mistakes, but the damage had been done. Modern Greek keeps the pronunciation of all the letters and the thousands of word roots of antiquity. Some differences in pronunciation appeared with the common Greek of the early Christian years and the church kept the same pronunciation for the next 2000 years (this is our main source of knowledge about the evolution of the language). Yes, we know that the letters that used to cross the point of the δασεία/daseea (Ὑὑ-Ἐἑ-Ἰἱ-ᾉᾁ, etc.) were pronounced heavier (today the same words in English still hold the letter "H" in front to indicate this difference (Ϋδρα>Hydra, Ὑποκρισία>Hypocrisy, Ἐλικόπτερο>Helicopter...

GOD'S WORDS FOR FREE? YOUR FALSE JUST LIKE THOSE WHO FLEECE THE FLOCK

6:27

3:00

A BUNCH OF PROGRAMS! NO REGENERATION! AFRAID TO PREACH TRUTH'S NO FEAR OF GOD! FREE FROM THE WRATH OF GOD

THERE'S NO TRUE PREACHING ANYMORE? INSERTING THERE OWN IDEAS! VOID OF THE SPIRIT COMPROMISING! WOMAN PASTORS! ALL THE FRILLS NO POWER NEVER PREACHING ABOUT SIN OR HELL CLOUDSS WITHOUT WATER FALSE TEACHERS

Same. For me it's the Vorlagen behind the ancient translations (Vulgate, Peshitta, etc.). These are quite close to the Byzantine Text and offer geographical majority support for the BT. To believe that the Critical text is closer to the original would require inventing a conspiracy theory of how the Byzantine text was spread all around the world and how early Christians in Egypt, Italy, Ethiopia, Israel, Germany, etc. were all convinced to abandon their inherited texts and adopt the Byzantine text. It's much simpler and easier to believe that those texts agree with the Byzantine text so much because the Byzantine text is closest to the originals.

There is no mystery for those who study the bible. It tells you no less than 20 times that Israel is the harlot in the OT

God Told Jerusalem He Would Give Her Two Harlot Daughter To Her As Daughters. - Ez.16:61 Making Jerusalem "The Mother Of Harlots" - Rev.17:5

Great video.

The 1000 symbolic years began at the coming of the Lord in aD70 at the resurrection of the martyrs who were slain for not worshipping the beast. It is so clear. Rev 20:4 " And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years." The 1000 symbolic years began with the binding of satan when the beast was destroyed in AD70, when the devil was prevented from deceiving the nations like he did in the AD66-70 period of 3.5 years when the beast ruled in Jerusalem. But after the 1000 symbolic years end in the future, then satan will be loosed for a short period to deceive the nations to attack God's people (the Church) and then the final judgment of the world will happen. That will be the resurrection of the rest of the dead.

Jesus Christ's olivet discourse was all about the destruction of Jerusalem. Rome the city was never spoken of by any of the apostles. God called "my people" out of Babylon - and given that Revelation 7-14 is all about the 12 tribes of Israel, that would mean God calling Jews to come out of Babylon by faith in Christ before Jerusalem was destroyed. if Revelation was pre-AD70, then Babylon was AD70 Jerusalem (First Jewish-Roman war) Or if Revelation was written post-AD70, then Babylon was AD136 Jerusalem (Bar-Kokhba revolt). Either way, Rome was not destroyed in the time frame of Revelation.

Revelation was the words of Christ, dictated to John. Jesus said He was coming "soon" and gave John the description of the 6 seals in Revelation 6 and so much of the book of Revelation deals with the 12 tribes of Israel (Rev 7-14, etc) The 6 seals of Revelation 6 matches Matthew 24 where Jesus says He was coming in that generation with all the similar signs (wars, false messiahs, famine, earthquakes, sun/moon turning dark, etc). Therefore Revelation was most likely written prior to AD70. Also Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 2 that the man of lawlessness would sit in the temple of God when Christ would come to destroy him. Given that the Jerusalem temple was the main temple of God pre-AD70, then it most likely seems that Christ's coming of judgment on Israel was in AD70. But I guess the question is this: who was the beast? Was it the zealot-led Jewish army? Or was it Rome? Rome was not destroyed by Christ in AD70. It was the zealot-led Jewish armies that were destroyed. But then again, the Jewish forces led by Simon Bar Kokhba recaptured Jerusalem in AD132-136 before the Romans defeated them again. The Roman empire became Christian and then the empire collapsed in the 4th century. If Revelation was written before AD70, then AD70 was the main focus of Revelation. Otherwise, the AD136 war was the main war in focus.

Maurice Robinson is the OG & final boss of textual criticism. No one comes close.

The Bible has contradictions that can be reconciled and that cannot be reconciled. Literally makes the Bible not inerrant. The evidence given here is heresay and speculation. So not evidence. Also there’s like 5 locations of the tomb, when there can only be one right? So basically, you need to do better research…

Israel means nothing for Christianity

Trump is going to bring with him abortion (he's already changed the Republicans' platform effectively), more mainstreaming homosexuality (he's the first president to recognize gay marriage), a stronger surveillance state in that he wants to backdoor all encryption. That latter is much more dangerous than people realize. Encryption is, pretty much, a _sine qua non_ today to defend against a government panopticon. Most people don't use it and chase convenience over virtue, but the option is there, and it's a hindrance. If we combine that with what Biden has been trying to do with the currency, one of the most important restrainers to the government gets removed. We lose the ability to speak privately in any way but face to face, and usually not then, and can only do any given transaction if we have permission. Both of us interpret Revelation typologically, so I can say this safely without coming off as an end times prophet: Trump is a leader who was wounded, accounted as defeated, and is rising again. He's not a big "A" but fits the pattern that has played out before and will play out after him. He may well lead the way to a seeming revival, but it will be a political revival, of people wanting to endorse an idea to avoid ones they don't like, to find a St. Constantine where there is none to find. We have "defeated" wokeness several times in cycles since the 60s. Each time it comes back stronger and harsher. The best we can hope for from Trump is a placebo that lulls conservatives into thinking the culture war is in our favor again, when it is decidedly not in our favor. The worse would be much worse.

I find it interesting that we can’t actually know for sure exactly what God’s word says.

@achildr1 Then tell me then, when was Zech.12:9,10 fulfilled in 70 ad? You'll just spiritualize an answer with allegory. When was one in the field, mill, and bed taken and the other's left behind. Everyone one was going to parties and getting married contrary to the worst tribulation the world has ever seen; Mat. 24:21. Use your scriptural gymnastics and answer the questions.

I myself am in a similar spot, though closer to the Textus Receptus for practical reasons (I use KJV and NKJV almost exclusively). Even with its flaws, the TR represents what the Church has passed down to us, even if some readings are better attested in other versions like the Latin.

Did the Lord Jesus merely 'give up PART of himself' or did he give ALL of himself? Well Greek philosophy based 'orthodoxy' suugests the former! thats WRONG! Phil 2:7 says he "emptied himself" 2 Cor 8:9 "Though he was rich he BECAME poor for us". "The Word BECAME flesh". He was made "lower than the angels" * heb 2: ( Surely the son of God, still partly 'God' would be greater than an angel? The idea then that Jesus merely 'put on' a human form is not different to the condition of materialised angels who appeared in Abreham and Lot's times! Consider, if he was from his birth '100% human & 100% God' ( Athanasius) why then did the Father NEED to anoint him with Holy Spirit and announce "This is my Son the beloved, I have approved him"? ( Matt 3:16) that wouldnt make sense would it?

I appreciate this video. I was raised on critical text and mocking KJV/Byzantine. But after looking into the details (to reinforce my beliefs) I became convinced that SOME of the Byzantine Text arguments could be true, and that the whole view is muddied by KJV only arguments. I brought the evidence to my father who has a degree in the field and he was surprised that he’d been given the same strawman arguments against Byzantine texts. Anyway, I’m really interested to hear more from people who are in between “KJV only” and “the woman caught in adultery has to be made up.”

👍

Rome is surrounded by hills Jerusalem sits on Hills. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Every Sabbath I meet with 2 other people and we read only the bible (KJB). We also concluded that the whore/harlot is Jerusalem. We are not church goers just bible readers.and read Josephus. Currently we are studying the image of revelation 13:5. We’re thinking AI, what are your thoughts?

Is there a free online resource you could point me to where I can see translations of all the different manuscripts or where I can look up a verse and compare manuscripts or see which manuscripts agree with which translations? I am KJV only because it’s safe but I’d really like to dig deeper. I have some knowledge on the different manuscripts groups but my information is limited to second hand. I’ve been extremely content to be Textus Receptus only but I don’t fully understand the difference amongst TextusR, ByzantineT, and MajorityT. I’d really like to compare the three as well as the CriticalT. Bring into that the confusion of Mesoretic Vs Septuagint and I’m lost. I’m currently particularly interested in the “contradiction” found in Genesis 46:27 and Acts 7:17 (70 Vs. 75 Souls in total) Thanks for any advice or direction.

you say "they did a terrible job" if however, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are being a part of the counter-Reformation's attack on the "Paper Pope", then the changes had to be very subtle in order for them to not being rejected by a then still more alerted Christian community, and as such they have have served very well to the extent that people like yourself are not aware of what's going on, and as such the origin of genuine Christian doctrine has been attacked as though it has developed instead of being a genuine testimony that came down from the Apostles

The context of 'This generation' is the parable of the fig tree. 'When the leaves grow their figs you know that summer as near. Therefore WHEN YOU SEE THESE THINGS TAKE PLACE you know that he is near. So the generation that sees these signs will see Christ return.

I recently found the World English Bible very intriguing and I enjoy it.

Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism. I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin, but not the Greek so out it goes. Good will towards men Doxology in Matthew Without cause God manifest in the flesh Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin, so out they go The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek and Latin so out they go. Even the “not yet” found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8 some throw out. If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem, what would you see as a problem?

Let's be careful about this subject because a bad artist from Austria with a horrible mustache became a tyrannical leader of Germany and survived numerous assassination attempts. Are we to say God was protecting the bad Austrian painter with a bad mustache as well?

Yes and amen!

Give the starving children food? 👎 Save the guy thats vocal about wanting to fuck his own daughter? 👍 This is not a god that should be worshipped if this is true.

boo

Possibly the most smooth brained take I’ve ever seen. Trump is incredibly not Christ like so maybe check yourself too bud.