Hello! I’m Stephen Hackett and the goal of this channel is to enrich your study of the scriptures by sharing things I’m learning as I study the scriptures and providing reviews of books and resources to help deepen your study.
The battle cry of the Reformation was “ad fontes” -to the fountains-and returning to the fountain of the scriptures is something I strive to do on this channel.
thne problem with the Hebrew text is compounded by the fact that the meaning of the hebrew words (which had been lost in many cases) has been established in contemporary times on the basis of the Greek translations, mostly that of the Septuagint... lol lol
i guess there were also many different textual traditions in Hebrew, and there is no reason to accept the Massoretic text except for the fact it is the only full version of the text available nowadays
I have the "The New Testament Byzantine Text Version" and "The Text-Critical English New Testament" translated by Mr. Boyd, from Amazon. Chapter by chapter I am comparing the BTV with eight other translations and I'm having a blast! The CTEN and BTV are must haves in a biblical library IMHO. Thank you Mr Boyd
I have the Nelson Majority Text Greek New Testament Interlinear, which uses the Farstad and Hodges Majority Text. I also have the Robinson and Pierpont Byzantine text. But then I prefer the Received Text and I have one published by the Trinitarian Bible Society, which is the Scrivener edition.
Is text criticism a scholars domain? That's like saying only Hall of Fame football players can coach football or even have a viable opinion about the sport.
The begetting ages: {Genesis 11:11-26} Shem: MT (*100 years), LXX (100 years), SP (100 years)na Arphaxad: MT (35 years), LXX (**135 years), SP (135 years) Kainan: LXX (°130 years)? Shelah: MT (30 years), LXX (**130 years), SP (130 years) Eber: MT (34 years), LXX (**134 years), SP (134 years) Peleg: MT (30 years), LXX (**130 years), SP (130 years) Reu: MT (32 years), LXX (**132 years), SP (132 years) Serug: MT (30 years), LXX (**130 years), SP (130 years) Nahor: MT (29 years), LXX (**79 years), SP (79 years) Terah: MT (*70 years), LXX (**70 years), SP (70 years) Rule: (MT) = Masoretic Text (☆minus 650 yrs and 130 yrs - Kainan/m) (LXX) = Greek Septuagint (SP) = Samaritan Penteteuch (°) = Luke 3:36 second witness (*) = The MT, the LXX, and the SP are in agreement. (**) = Josephus is in agreement with the LXX and SP. (na) = Josephus does not give a witness. ^ Flavius Josephus was a first century historian. 'Antiquities of the Jews' "The things narrated in the sacred Scriptures, are, however, innumerable, seeing that they embrace the history of *5,000* years..." (Ant. 1:13) Josephus claimed to use *Hebrew* text in his recitation of Genesis and other OT books. (Against Apion, 1:1, 54; Ant. 1:5, 9:208, 10:218) Rabbinic deflation theory (after 70 A.D.): a), Motive....Chrono-Messianism b), Means and Athority....Rabbi Akiba 40-137 A.D. c), Opperatunity....Judaism had been reduced to one Pharisaic sect after 70 A.D. -->There is no unbiased reliable second witness to the complete time-line of the MT before Eusebius in the 4th century A.D. Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in *a good old age* an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people. (175 years) {Genesis 25:8} ^ By MT Chronology this statement would be untrue. According to the MT, Eber was still alive and lived to be a good old age of 464 years, more than twice the age of Abraham. Shem lived to be 600 years old, yet according to the MT he only dies 25 years before Abraham death. (The Jews also falsely claim that he is the high priest of Salem, Melchizedek in a vain attempt to discredit Christ claim of being a priest in the order of Melchizedek.)
A good explanation for me concerning the word “Day”, since every word has 2 or more meanings depending on context is this: All 3 basic definitions of the word Day are presented in their own particular context in the first 35 verses in Genesis. 1:3-5: the daylight portion of a day. Verse 5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31: a 24 hour day. And then chapter 2:4, “these are the generations of” “in the day that the Lord God made” I believe a case can be clearly made that this represents the period of time that God created. I didn’t come up with this so I’m not taking credit, but thought it would be helpful and relevant to the conversation.
Question for anyone fluent in Greek. I am working through Ivan Panin's Numerical Greek New Testament, particularly the long ending of Mark. He frequently has καʹ ʹκεινοι where other texts have κάκεινοι. I see it in Mark 16:11 and Mark 16:13. Are they equivalent? I am confused about the space between the punctuation, is he considering them two words? I am just a beginning student in Greek so I imagine this is a basic question, but any help would be great. :) Thanks
Also, the King James used the term, "new wine", when the Hebrew word was grape juice and pomegranate juice. The Jews who translated the Hebrew into the Greek used the term new wine (Greek = neo oinon). The King James translators translated from the Greek translation of the Hebrew. They did not translate from the original.
The King James was translated from the Hebrew text? Are you sure? If they did, then how did they get the word, firmament, from the Hebrew word, rqio, which translates into English as expanse? The mistranslation comes from the Greek translation of the Hebrew, when the Jews in Alexandrea mistranslated by using a Greek word that meant a spreading of a shield.
Lost verses in the New Testament and lost verses and words in the Old Testament. I just noticed this today when looking up a particular verse which also seems pertinent to the subject. King James Version Deuteronomy 4: 1-2 Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes, and unto the judgments which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land, which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you. DSS [translated by Martin Abegg, Jr., Peter Flint & Eugene Ulrich] Deuteronomy 4: 1 And now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and to the ordinances which I am teaching you to do, so that you may live, and go in and take possession of the land which the LORD, the God of your fathers, is giving you. Notice verse 2 is missing, but the verse I'm focusing on is the first one. LXX [translated by C.L. Brenton] Deuteronomy 4: 1-2 And now, Israel, hear the ordinances and judgments, all that I teach you this day to do: that ye may live, *and be multiplied,* and that ye may go in and inherit the land, which the LORD God of your fathers gives you. Ye shall not add to the word which I command you, and ye shall not take from it: keep the commandments of the LORD our God, all that I command you this day. Notice how the words: (and be multiplied) is in the Greek OT but not in the Hebrew DSS or MT. You can also see this where Jesus quotes from Isaiah in Luke 4: 18 where Jesus says, (recovering of sight to the blind) in the KJV but looking up Isaiah 61: 1 in the KJV you will see that portion of the verse is missing. But you will see it in the DSS and the LXX. Unfortunately, I'm not fluent in Biblical languages and need to rely heavily on the English translations available. It occurred to me that the translators of the English version of the DSS that I use have selected certain texts from the many copies available. Could there be a remote possibility that some of the other copies may have the missing or extra words than what they chose for their translation? Also, when you compare non Biblical text in English translations available you will find that some of the translations vary to a degree that you get a different understanding of the text. Which translation is correct? The same with Brenton's translation of the Greek. It's not 100% infallible how he translated all of the text.
Besides other people's comments that I found interesting. The Masoretic text and the Septuagint represent two of the three primary ancient textual traditions of the Hebrew Bible that scholars work with today. While both are invaluable sources, they have essential differences in their origins and transmission. The Masoretic text was produced by Jewish scribes known as the Masoretes, who lived between the 6th and 10th centuries CE. The Masoretes meticulously compared and reviewed numerous existing Hebrew manuscript copies of the biblical text. Their goal was to create a standardized, authoritative version. Whenever they encountered variations between manuscripts, the Masoretes made editorial decisions, often adding small symbols to indicate how certain words should be properly read. In contrast, the Septuagint is an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, dating back to the 3rd century BCE. Unlike the Masoretic text, the Septuagint was never subjected to the same degree of standardization so different Septuagints contain noticeable variations. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has shed additional light on these textual traditions. Some Septuagint readings align more closely with the biblical texts found among the Dead Sea materials, as does the Samaritan Hebrew Pentateuch, which sometimes aligns more closely with the Septuagint than the Masoretic text, showing that the Septuagint preserves readings predating the Masoretic standardization. Overall, I agree with your argument that the Masoretic text is generally considered the most reliable witness to the original Hebrew biblical text we have today because of the Masoretes' careful review and standardization process. I look forward to archeologists finding out more.
They say there is nothing worse than someone who pretends to know a lot about something they know next to nothing about, that is almost all atheist who act as a biblical authoritarians!!
Humm the article came out in 2014 that is the same year Bart Ehrman's book How Jesus became God was released. The article’s line about translations of translations is Bart Ehrman's opening line in his normal attack on the New Testament. Sounds like Bart had a fan . Cool video Blessings Bill
Newsweek is ran by CEO Dev Pragad born in India lived in England then New York he has no connections to being Jewish. And if you read his take on Israel he not a fan
@@LarryLarpwell a second coming yes called up in the sky no . The word rapture in Greek more refers to a public meeting of the people going out of a city to their Lord and returning back to the city with Him triumphant . I tend to be on the Amill side of eschatology and see the church as God’s people
Ditto to the comments here about your honesty of having questions on both sides of the issue. Most just want to call people useful idiots if we don't agree with them. I have been having much concern over these things lately. On one hand I feel like "we walk by faith not by sight" and we will never fully understand many of these things so just leave it in the LORDS hands. On the other hand, why didn't GOD make it stupidly clear to us. There are so many views, everyone thinks there's is correct and everyone uses the same line of "let scripture interpret scripture" and yet we have all these factions. And so I find it really makes it hard for me to want to tell others about "Christianity" (this is so hard for me to say. I use the word Christianity because I can't bring myself to say I don't want to tell them about Jesus). I want them to know about Jesus, but I don't want to invite them into this confusion of all the ist's and ism's. Please remember me in prayer.
Don't know if you've done a video on this, but I would love to see one on how the Gospel isn't about how "Jesus came and died for your sins" but rather the Gospel is that the Kingdom of God is here. The Gospels themselves make that VERY clear over and over and over again.
Psalm 9 and 10 were one Psalm in the Greek. The fact that it was one Psalm and was split is seen in the fact that the first few verses are acrostic in nine in the last few verses are a classic in 10. If it were English, it would be like starting acoustically with ABC and then ending acoustically with wxyz
Prior to the TR there limited translations available. Wycliffe based his translation off of the Latin. The Coptic was based on mostly Alexandrian manuscripts. The Syriac Peshitta was based on the Byzantine Greek manuscripts mostly
Great clip for KJV onlyism 😅 P.S. I'm KJV Only and love your channel. I read most of the books from my point of view and watched their videos and do appreciate another point of view. I've learned a few things listening to your channel and TR guys. BTW, it's very clear, to me at least, that you aren't KJV only, which is fine.
Do you know, or can you refer me to a website, that lists any major changes between the KJV and Geneva (1500s one)? I've looked at it a little in the major passages and haven't found any, which makes sense considering same text. I've always heard and would like to say that it is very similar to KJV and that it is a reliable translation, but I want to be sure. I've searched in vain for any major differences.
As with the mid/pre/post rapture debate so is this one. There's something most aren't considering. What if there's more than 1 rapture/gathering? 2 witnesses, those in Rev 14, the judgment of the nations in Mt 25 and Paul's for the church, 1 Thessalonians. If this is so, but most think there's 1, that would explain the difficulty and why there's so many different teachings. (Same with gospels, baptisms, church, etc... there are multiples which explains why heretics can quote plenty of Bible to prove anything). Jesus COULD have returned and set up his kingdom (Mt 11, "If ye shall receive it this is Elias." Acts 1:6, 3:19-21 where they are expecting his return. See much of Matthew which is mostly the promise of the physical kingdom being offered to Israel, very little church age doctrine). So all these passages that seem to say Christ's coming was 1st century are because they could have been, Israel rejects their king and the gospel goes to the gentiles for the mystery body of Christ which was hidden, unknown and found nowhere in the OT (other than in typology and applying gentile millennial passages to the church)
The stars will fall from the sky....meaning angels.........the stars are living angelic lights........ And the sky or Dome firmament will roll up like a scroll......so the pretribers hate this verse Because he comes after tribulation ....so yes it says what it says and it will happen like its stated. Mathew 24 is what it is .....earth is flat and the sun moon and stars are all living powers ....the so called planets are fallen stars or angelic fallen powers all pushing satans heliocentric lie.... This guy is wrong
Do you think there's any validity to what Ruckman, Waite and Floyd Nolan Jones say that it never existed and the letter of Aristeus is a fable and the LXX is just quotations from Hexapla and Vaticanus? Also, Gipp suggests there's so much acceptance to the LXX because it's in Greek which the scholars already know and that Hebrew is a much more difficult language.
Hi Brian! Thanks for joining the membership!! I think the letter of Aristeas probably is a fable. But I don’t think they are right about the LXX being merely from the Hexapla and Vaticanus. As far as Gipp’s claim….I am sure that some scholars who favor Greek over Hebrew are a little biased in that direction but I don’t think that’s a huge factor.
