I knew that the Tanakh and the Protestant Old Testament ordered the books differently, but I hadn't heard that about the rhetorical significance of the order before. Fascinating!
@@sarban1653 - The Catholic Old Testament has more books than the Protestant Old Testament, and I think orders them differently from Protestants, too. Different Orthodox Christians sometimes have different Old Testaments from both Catholic and Protestant ones. Not everybody uses the same Bible.
@sarban1653 did you hear the video? He points out how Protestants removed the apocrypha in the 19th century. If someone says the Catholic old testament they mean the old testament with apocrypha. If they say Protestant old testament they mean the books you would find in the KJV and many modern translations. You have probably noticed Catholic Bibles explicitly say Catholic Bible on them. Dan explains the removal of the apocrypha in the 2nd half of the video
@@sarban1653Christian protestants. This is to distinguish them from Christian Catholics. You know, mostly the only Christians for more than a millenia.
It is amusing to note that when US evangelicals speak of inerrant scripture they are quoting from a volume of books which was altered, translated and edited many times, by other men.
@@MrAndreiPegasus The problem with that claim is that we do not possess the original maunscripts and we would have no way of identifying them as originals if we found them.
@@MrAndreiPegasus.....of which we have exactly NONE. So, unless there are some "inerrant original" manuscripts laying around somewhere as yet undiscovered, we're left with old-older-oldest copies and those inerrant originals aren't helping us at all.
Unfortunately, if you believe that a manuscript can be inspired in the first place then you probably won’t have any difficulty believing that any changes were also inspired.
Thanks very much for this explanation. As a former Orthodox Jew, I have always been scrupulous to call it the Hebrew Scriptures. Calling it the "Old Testament" indicates that there's a "New and Improved" Bible, and we never believed that.
@@BradyPostmaas a former Christian who is kind of floating between Noahide and a consideration for Jewish conversion, I have no problems at all with Hebrew Bible or Hebrew Scriptures. I personally refer to it as both those when talking with friends and family.
@@ChristianCarrizales I respect your decision to explore the Noahide route, or conversion, but I want to offer something for your consideration. If you pursue 'gerus' in Judaism, it is a very long, and difficult path, and your sincerity will always be questioned for quite awhile, and even after conversion, one negative statement about anything related to Torah / Talmud, or Yiddishkeit, may again cause some Yidden to call into question your sincerity, no matter whether it is Reform, Conservative, or Orthodox. There are also hundreds and hundreds of things - outlined in the 'Shulkhan Arukh' (Set Table) - that you will have to forever abide by, and any lapse may cause people in your community to call into question your sincerity once again (-even post-gerus and immersion in the mikveh). However, a born Jew, no matter even an atheist, or the worst criminal, will NEVER have his / her "Jewishness" questioned if that person can prove that his mother was considered Jewish by the Rabbonim. I don't how far along you are in your studies, but a relatively well known primer in requirements for Orthodox gerus is, The Gerus Guide - The Step by Step Guide to Orthodox Conversion, by R' Aryeh Moshen. It's interesting that you frequent a channel about textual criticism of the Bible, as it calls numerous religious claims into into question, and demonstrably proves that many are NOT supported "by the data". However if you want to be religious, as a non-Jew, the Noachide path makes the most sense, as your identity will rarely be scrutinized by the Torah Community. And you'll never have to remember which shoe to tie first. ;) Having said that, the Noahide path is lonely, as there are very view non-Jews who go down that road. All the best...
I use Tanakh - modern Jewish canon in a specific order of books Hebrew Bible - content of “holy” books written in Hebrew, regardless of order. So Tanakh is included in this term. Old Testament - only when clarifying terms to Christians or others who are familiar only with “OT”. “OT” implies the original testaments have been replaced, which is a Christian-specific view.
I would even argue that today Christians still accuse Jews of removing or censoring the Messianic things in the Hebrew Bible. I’ve seen countless arguments by Christians, albeit weak arguments, about the so-called forbidden chapters not to be read in synagogues.
Yep, the Christian assertion that Jews do not read / study these "forbidden chapters" is nonsense. And for any doubting Christian who holds to that opinion, and who can also be persuaded by evidence, I would suggest two Jewish Orthodox CZcams channels, 1) JewsForJudaismCanada, and 2) ToviaSinger1
Regarding the name for the "Jewish Bible": you are 100% correct, I never heard it being called anything else. Although, I grew up in Israel speaking (modern Israeli) Hebrew, it might be different in other Jewish communities. But considering most of them use Hebrew in religious contexts, I'm pretty sure it's the same.
To my understanding modern translations like the ESV use the masoretic text most of the time, but lean on the Septuagint, the Peshitta, and the Vulgate for interpretation.
I thought that the LXX was translated a few hundred years before Jesus, wouldn't any messianic prophecies found in it be "legitimate" if the text is older than the fulfilment? How is it correct to say that the greek was written to specifically include passages that point to Jesus as the messiah? do we not have codices for LXX that go back to a time period before Christianity?
The term "Tenach", if it doesn't date in that form to the pre-Christian era, it is absolutely used in full at that time, given that the Greek translator of Sirach in the late 2nd century BCE used the phrase "the law, the prophets and the other books", and Luke 24 refers to "the law, the prophets and the psalms", perhaps using "psalms" synechdochically to mean the Kethuvim more generically.
Question Dan? If the writers in the NT and therefore the folks 1st Century used the Septuagint as their scriptures (as I understand it, that was the most prevalent translation at that time), it is interesting that in Protestant bibles the 7 deuterocanonical books are missing... 🤔... Could not one make an argument that if the early church considered it scripture, then Christians now today should? Doesn't Paul say "ALL SCRIPTURE (2 Tim 3:16)... which at that time he was referring to the LXX. I know there are a lot of layers to the history of this and I believe that the Council of Trent played somewhat of a role in how the modern Protestant bible is... but I find it interesting in learning about how it seems like the main reason Protestant bibles dont have them is because of Luther who by the way also wanted several NT books removed (e.g. James, Revelation, etc.). The Protestants at that time were seemingly following Jewish scholars who completely rejected the deuterocanonical books as scripture. But ironically it seems like one of the reasons (not the only reason) they rejected it was because the early Christians used LXX and they wanted to separate themselves from them, in some sort of a way to make it seem like Christians were in error and it was the Masoretic Text that was the correct translation because it was in Hebrew. Thoughts? Edit: I posted this before I finished the video and you tackled a lot of what I said. Still, if Paul is referring to the books found in the LXX, why wouldn't they be considered authoritative/inspired to ALL Christians? Strange to me...
Luther rejected the Apocrypha/Deterocanonical books not only because they weren't in the original Hebrew canon (mostly because they were relatively recent writings), but also because some of the books supported Catholic doctrines that Luther rejected. An example is praying for the souls of the departed, in 2 Maccabees 12:41-45.
Couple of points: first, II Timothy isn't one of the seven Pauline letters most scholars today accept as actually being Paul's work and, second, I could be wrong, but I was always taught and believed that the "all scripture" being referenced here meant the Hebrew scriptures, not any Christian writings at all. Christian scriptures, as such, didn't even exist yet as far as I know.
I don’t know but it’s got a lot of doctrinal nuggets in there, even though the narrative is kind of nuts. I think the most interesting thing is Jehovah and the Lord of Spirits being two different personages.
Can someone explain to me if Moses lived with pharaoh and pharaoh was documented a black African was Moses African black also cause he was with the family for 40 years I’m confused help
While I am sure that the composers of the LXX modified the text to suit their purposes, the same can be said of the Masoretes, e.g. changing the story of Elhannan slaying Goliath to him slaying the brother of Goliath. From the fragmentary evidence I've seen that predates the LXX, the Masoretic text seems no more trustworthy or reliable a representation of the original ancient sources than the LXX.
You sure you posted your comment on the right video? Dan doesn’t even mention the masoretic text nor he says it is more reliable than the LXX. He just says that the Hebrew text is not translated, which is factual.
@@pansepot1490 the "Hebrew text" he refers to is the Masoretic. This is the Hebrew text used as the source of Protestant translations of the Old Testament. Everyone knows this.
@@k98killer They altered the story by including 3 versions? If all 3 references agreed, would you have any clue the story was altered? The truth is that Chronicles disagrees with the other books on a lot of details. The most likely explanation is that the authors had different traditions that they recorded. Why the book of Samuel disagrees with itself is the better question. The answer is probably that it is a mistake which became canonized. There is no way to know what the original story or text was.
Good video, but I think you missed one important thing. And that is the fact that the Septuagint has the word virgin in Isaiah 7:14. This would imply that the original Hebrew used the word virgin in that the Masoretic text, which came after Christ was changed to "young woman" by the Jews.
No, the Dead Sea Scrolls use “Almah” and it means “young woman”. The DSS came before the Christian era. The Septuagint was interpreting certain passages and adding Hellenistic influence to the original passage. Dan actually covers this in a recent video that he made.
Dr. McClellan discussed this very thing in this video regarding "almah" in the Tanakh meaning "young woman", whereas in the Septuagint, that word in Isaiah 7:14, is changed to "virgin" which ignores the entire context of the preceding verses in Isaiah chapter 7, and what is discussed in chapter 8, and following chapters. And Dan covers this topic briefly - in this video - beginning at 00:27 - 01:15. However, immediately following that explanation, Dr. McClellan also discusses why Christian bible publishers use the order of books of the Septuagint, rather than the Tanakh (aka: the Hebrew scriptures), because the final book of the Old Testament ends with Malachi 4:5-6 which talks about Elijah the prophet returning "...before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes." Which then immediately segues into the book of Matthew, and Jesus of Nazareth. Ironically however, is verse 4 which states, "“Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel." Whereas Christian theologians lean heavily on the antinomian (against the law) declarations of St. Paul of Taursus, and teach they "we" are no longer under "the law". In the Tanakh, or Hebrew Scriptures, the order of the books after the Torah (aka: the Pentateuch) is different, and the final chapter is 2 Chronicles, which ends with chapter 36:22-23, which states the following: "Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth hath the LORD God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? The LORD his God be with him, and let him go up."
@@What_If_We_Tried Kindly explain to me how in any context it is a sign for a mere young woman having a child a male child or a female child is a sign. Isaiah 7 10 Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, saying, 11 “Ask for a sign from the LORD your God, whether from the depths of Sheol or the heights of heaven.” 12 But Ahaz replied, “I will not ask; I will not test the LORD.”… 13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, O house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God as well? The Lord Himself shall give you a sign a young woman shall conceive and bear a child. Really that is a sign? 14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call Him Immanuel. Which one is a sign??
@@MarcillaSmith The many ways of looking at reality, does mean there are many realities. Having many religions, does not mean there are many truths. Since Jesus practiced a sect of Judaism, this proves Christianity is a false religion.
YHWH is God Most High in Genesis 14:22 what would he be Most High of Except created Elohim ( gods) of other Religions ! God Most High gives the Sons of God ( these created Elohim to the nations as their gods). Deuteronomy 32: 8 original (Sons of God) of The LXX and changed to (Sons of Israel) in the Hebrew Bible.
It seems that authors of the gospels used the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible. Therefore, I think Christians should use that as well. It means that Luther’s argument wouldn’t be that valid.
The problem is that the story of Jesus was taken from the OT prophecies, especially Isiah. So it is often the case that Christian interpretations of Isiah, including the translation of "alma" as virgin are more accurate to the Hebrew meaning than the Jewish translations, which have some anti-Christian bias baked in. In general, the Jewish interpreters get everything except Isiah right, which is a clear indication that Isiah is the main source-text for NT doctrines.
Over700 changes mistranslation addition modifications made to the orthodox Hebrew Tanakh. Rabbi Tovia Singer channel has details on this. Isaiah 7:14 " virgin in future tense" just one modification. תודה רבה שלום
I'm eagerly awaiting our coming Christian Nation to codify what is and isn't a Bible and how we choose our National Catechism. As long as I yet live in the American Wars of Religion, I will constantly remind the combatants, "This is exactly what our Founding Fathers did NOT wish to repeat!" Of course, I expect to be marked as a non-believer early on, so ....
Is it right to call one the 'old testament' & the other the 'new'? its debatable. Its ALL God's word and since its quoted for a backing of authority throughout the Christian scriptures it would be wrong to imagine the entire 66 books as like a new garment partly made with 'old cloth'!. Paul siad that all that was written in the Hebrew scriptures was written "To teach us, in order that we might have hope" ( Rom 15:4 )
There are hundreds of variant versions of the Christian bibles none used match the original koine Greek new testament or Hebrew Scripture sources. Which one you use? There is only one orthodox Hebrew Tanakh in history all match word for word from Yemen to Russia verify that.
The gospels all say Jesus came for Israel, not Gentiles. Yet Christians want to believe Jesus came to abolish his own religion, and replace his Jewish followers with Gentiles. This is why "Old Testament" is the preferred term for Christians. Christians don't seem to mind worshiping a man whose religion is not their own.
We have Paul to thank for that. If anyone started their own religion, it was him. Jesus preached that faith and good works were means by which people would enter God's kingdom. But Paul, knowing that people of other faiths, such as Jews, also performed good works, de-emphasized good works, and focused on faith in Jesus and the Resurrection as an atonement for sin. BTW, this is probably why so many evil people can unironically consider themselves good Christians. Not because they "do unto others" as Jesus commanded, but because they claim to believe that Jesus was God, and died for their sins. Thus, it frees them for feeling love, tolerance and compassion for and assisting others less fortunate than themselves, outside of their own families, friends and associates. Imagine claiming to believe a man is God Incarnate, but feeling no need to abide by his teachings and commandments.
Jesus the Christ, in plain English, is Joshua the Chosen. There are two Books of Joshua one from Tribe of Ephraim and one from Tribe of Judah. Joshua Son of Nun was from Tribe of Ephraim. Born in Egypt. Everyone agrees the Tribe of Judah's Book of Joshua is not Jesus the Christ (Joshua the Chosen). Anyone read the Tribe of Ephraim's Book of Joshua? It's called the Samaritan Chronicle. Extra: did you know Joshua Son of Nun was originally named Hoshea Son of Nun? Moses changed his name with the implied meaning "May God save you from the conspiracy of the scouts".
❤😂❤Attention all sheep. Jesus power. Warning it is intense. We will separate the flock after. All enjoy. All old aches and pains will be washed away. Takes 30 minutes. Best to relax and shut yr eyes.
I knew that the Tanakh and the Protestant Old Testament ordered the books differently, but I hadn't heard that about the rhetorical significance of the order before. Fascinating!
Protestant? It's Christian.
@@sarban1653 - The Catholic Old Testament has more books than the Protestant Old Testament, and I think orders them differently from Protestants, too.
Different Orthodox Christians sometimes have different Old Testaments from both Catholic and Protestant ones.
Not everybody uses the same Bible.
@sarban1653 did you hear the video? He points out how Protestants removed the apocrypha in the 19th century. If someone says the Catholic old testament they mean the old testament with apocrypha. If they say Protestant old testament they mean the books you would find in the KJV and many modern translations. You have probably noticed Catholic Bibles explicitly say Catholic Bible on them. Dan explains the removal of the apocrypha in the 2nd half of the video
@@sarban1653Catholic Bibles usually/always include some or all the apocryphal books omitted from Protestant translations.
@@sarban1653Christian protestants. This is to distinguish them from Christian Catholics. You know, mostly the only Christians for more than a millenia.
It is amusing to note that when US evangelicals speak of inerrant scripture they are quoting from a volume of books which was altered, translated and edited many times, by other men.
You definitely are muslim.
Most Evanghelicals I know mention that Scripture is inerrant in its original manuscripts
@@MrAndreiPegasus The problem with that claim is that we do not possess the original maunscripts and we would have no way of identifying them as originals if we found them.
@@MrAndreiPegasus.....of which we have exactly NONE. So, unless there are some "inerrant original" manuscripts laying around somewhere as yet undiscovered, we're left with old-older-oldest copies and those inerrant originals aren't helping us at all.
Unfortunately, if you believe that a manuscript can be inspired in the first place then you probably won’t have any difficulty believing that any changes were also inspired.
Thanks very much for this explanation.
As a former Orthodox Jew, I have always been scrupulous to call it the Hebrew Scriptures.
Calling it the "Old Testament" indicates that there's a "New and Improved" Bible, and we never believed that.
Is it bothersome to you when Christians (like myself) say "the Hebrew Bible" instead of "the Hebrew Scriptures?"
@@BradyPostmaas a former Christian who is kind of floating between Noahide and a consideration for Jewish conversion, I have no problems at all with Hebrew Bible or Hebrew Scriptures. I personally refer to it as both those when talking with friends and family.
A Jewish friend of mine in high school referred to them as "The Old Testament and The Older Testament"
@@BradyPostmaAs a lapsed Jew, it doesn’t bother me.
@@ChristianCarrizales I respect your decision to explore the Noahide route, or conversion, but I want to offer something for your consideration.
If you pursue 'gerus' in Judaism, it is a very long, and difficult path, and your sincerity will always be questioned for quite awhile, and even after conversion, one negative statement about anything related to Torah / Talmud, or Yiddishkeit, may again cause some Yidden to call into question your sincerity, no matter whether it is Reform, Conservative, or Orthodox.
There are also hundreds and hundreds of things - outlined in the 'Shulkhan Arukh' (Set Table) - that you will have to forever abide by, and any lapse may cause people in your community to call into question your sincerity once again (-even post-gerus and immersion in the mikveh).
However, a born Jew, no matter even an atheist, or the worst criminal, will NEVER have his / her "Jewishness" questioned if that person can prove that his mother was considered Jewish by the Rabbonim.
I don't how far along you are in your studies, but a relatively well known primer in requirements for Orthodox gerus is, The Gerus Guide - The Step by Step Guide to Orthodox Conversion, by R' Aryeh Moshen.
It's interesting that you frequent a channel about textual criticism of the Bible, as it calls numerous religious claims into into question, and demonstrably proves that many are NOT supported "by the data".
However if you want to be religious, as a non-Jew, the Noachide path makes the most sense, as your identity will rarely be scrutinized by the Torah Community. And you'll never have to remember which shoe to tie first. ;)
Having said that, the Noahide path is lonely, as there are very view non-Jews who go down that road.
All the best...
I absolutely love Law's _When God Spoke Greek._ It transformed my entire understanding of early Christianity.
I use
Tanakh - modern Jewish canon in a specific order of books
Hebrew Bible - content of “holy” books written in Hebrew, regardless of order. So Tanakh is included in this term.
Old Testament - only when clarifying terms to Christians or others who are familiar only with “OT”. “OT” implies the original testaments have been replaced, which is a Christian-specific view.
Please tell me that "setting the table for Elijah" was in intentional passover pun. 😅
I caught that one too.
I see what you did there with Elija. “Sets the table”…. 😂
Thank you sir for increasing my understanding this cold snowy morning. Thanks for blessing us with your thoughts and words!
I would even argue that today Christians still accuse Jews of removing or censoring the Messianic things in the Hebrew Bible. I’ve seen countless arguments by Christians, albeit weak arguments, about the so-called forbidden chapters not to be read in synagogues.
Yep, the Christian assertion that Jews do not read / study these "forbidden chapters" is nonsense. And for any doubting Christian who holds to that opinion, and who can also be persuaded by evidence, I would suggest two Jewish Orthodox CZcams channels, 1) JewsForJudaismCanada, and 2) ToviaSinger1
Regarding the name for the "Jewish Bible": you are 100% correct, I never heard it being called anything else. Although, I grew up in Israel speaking (modern Israeli) Hebrew, it might be different in other Jewish communities. But considering most of them use Hebrew in religious contexts, I'm pretty sure it's the same.
Informative as always
To my understanding modern translations like the ESV use the masoretic text most of the time, but lean on the Septuagint, the Peshitta, and the Vulgate for interpretation.
As a general rule when it comes to learning about our world......I lean to discarding any content that mentions magical happenings. Works for me.
I thought that the LXX was translated a few hundred years before Jesus, wouldn't any messianic prophecies found in it be "legitimate" if the text is older than the fulfilment? How is it correct to say that the greek was written to specifically include passages that point to Jesus as the messiah? do we not have codices for LXX that go back to a time period before Christianity?
Please anyone to lead me to where i can get the old hebrew bible jewish or tankah the original full in English please original one
The term "Tenach", if it doesn't date in that form to the pre-Christian era, it is absolutely used in full at that time, given that the Greek translator of Sirach in the late 2nd century BCE used the phrase "the law, the prophets and the other books", and Luke 24 refers to "the law, the prophets and the psalms", perhaps using "psalms" synechdochically to mean the Kethuvim more generically.
Question Dan? If the writers in the NT and therefore the folks 1st Century used the Septuagint as their scriptures (as I understand it, that was the most prevalent translation at that time), it is interesting that in Protestant bibles the 7 deuterocanonical books are missing... 🤔... Could not one make an argument that if the early church considered it scripture, then Christians now today should? Doesn't Paul say "ALL SCRIPTURE (2 Tim 3:16)... which at that time he was referring to the LXX.
I know there are a lot of layers to the history of this and I believe that the Council of Trent played somewhat of a role in how the modern Protestant bible is... but I find it interesting in learning about how it seems like the main reason Protestant bibles dont have them is because of Luther who by the way also wanted several NT books removed (e.g. James, Revelation, etc.). The Protestants at that time were seemingly following Jewish scholars who completely rejected the deuterocanonical books as scripture. But ironically it seems like one of the reasons (not the only reason) they rejected it was because the early Christians used LXX and they wanted to separate themselves from them, in some sort of a way to make it seem like Christians were in error and it was the Masoretic Text that was the correct translation because it was in Hebrew.
Thoughts?
Edit: I posted this before I finished the video and you tackled a lot of what I said. Still, if Paul is referring to the books found in the LXX, why wouldn't they be considered authoritative/inspired to ALL Christians? Strange to me...
You may as well ask why a rebellious adolescent insists on being different for seemingly no other reason.
Luther rejected the Apocrypha/Deterocanonical books not only because they weren't in the original Hebrew canon (mostly because they were relatively recent writings), but also because some of the books supported Catholic doctrines that Luther rejected. An example is praying for the souls of the departed, in 2 Maccabees 12:41-45.
Couple of points: first, II Timothy isn't one of the seven Pauline letters most scholars today accept as actually being Paul's work and, second, I could be wrong, but I was always taught and believed that the "all scripture" being referenced here meant the Hebrew scriptures, not any Christian writings at all. Christian scriptures, as such, didn't even exist yet as far as I know.
Why is book of enoch left out
I don’t know but it’s got a lot of doctrinal nuggets in there, even though the narrative is kind of nuts. I think the most interesting thing is Jehovah and the Lord of Spirits being two different personages.
@@DBPCINC yes i also find that interesting, as far as being nuts i think this world is quite nuts so i personally dont think its far stretched
So was the old testament originally written in Greek or Hebrew
Hebrew.
Hebrew Greek as a language did not yet exist at that time.
@@JoyPeace-ej2uv Hebrew and Greek did not exist during the Alleged time of Moses but Greek existed when they decided to create the old testament
Can someone explain to me if Moses lived with pharaoh and pharaoh was documented a black African was Moses African black also cause he was with the family for 40 years I’m confused help
🤘
While I am sure that the composers of the LXX modified the text to suit their purposes, the same can be said of the Masoretes, e.g. changing the story of Elhannan slaying Goliath to him slaying the brother of Goliath. From the fragmentary evidence I've seen that predates the LXX, the Masoretic text seems no more trustworthy or reliable a representation of the original ancient sources than the LXX.
You sure you posted your comment on the right video? Dan doesn’t even mention the masoretic text nor he says it is more reliable than the LXX. He just says that the Hebrew text is not translated, which is factual.
@@pansepot1490 the "Hebrew text" he refers to is the Masoretic. This is the Hebrew text used as the source of Protestant translations of the Old Testament. Everyone knows this.
Given that the Masoretic text contains both versions, to say they changed it is simply wrong.
@@avishevin3353 Dan explained in one of his videos how the Masoretes altered that story. I'm simply agreeing with past Dan.
@@k98killer
They altered the story by including 3 versions? If all 3 references agreed, would you have any clue the story was altered?
The truth is that Chronicles disagrees with the other books on a lot of details. The most likely explanation is that the authors had different traditions that they recorded.
Why the book of Samuel disagrees with itself is the better question. The answer is probably that it is a mistake which became canonized. There is no way to know what the original story or text was.
Good video, but I think you missed one important thing. And that is the fact that the Septuagint has the word virgin in Isaiah 7:14. This would imply that the original Hebrew used the word virgin in that the Masoretic text, which came after Christ was changed to "young woman" by the Jews.
The Septuagint was written in English? I doubt it...
@@davidm5707Greek word for virgin.
No, the Dead Sea Scrolls use “Almah” and it means “young woman”. The DSS came before the Christian era. The Septuagint was interpreting certain passages and adding Hellenistic influence to the original passage. Dan actually covers this in a recent video that he made.
Dr. McClellan discussed this very thing in this video regarding "almah" in the Tanakh meaning "young woman", whereas in the Septuagint, that word in Isaiah 7:14, is changed to "virgin" which ignores the entire context of the preceding verses in Isaiah chapter 7, and what is discussed in chapter 8, and following chapters. And Dan covers this topic briefly - in this video - beginning at 00:27 - 01:15.
However, immediately following that explanation, Dr. McClellan also discusses why Christian bible publishers use the order of books of the Septuagint, rather than the Tanakh (aka: the Hebrew scriptures), because the final book of the Old Testament ends with Malachi 4:5-6 which talks about Elijah the prophet returning "...before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes." Which then immediately segues into the book of Matthew, and Jesus of Nazareth.
Ironically however, is verse 4 which states, "“Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel." Whereas Christian theologians lean heavily on the antinomian (against the law) declarations of St. Paul of Taursus, and teach they "we" are no longer under "the law".
In the Tanakh, or Hebrew Scriptures, the order of the books after the Torah (aka: the Pentateuch) is different, and the final chapter is 2 Chronicles, which ends with chapter 36:22-23, which states the following:
"Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying,
Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth hath the LORD God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? The LORD his God be with him, and let him go up."
@@What_If_We_Tried Kindly explain to me how in any context it is a sign for a mere young woman having a child a male child or a female child is a sign. Isaiah 7 10 Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, saying, 11 “Ask for a sign from the LORD your God, whether from the depths of Sheol or the heights of heaven.” 12 But Ahaz replied, “I will not ask; I will not test the LORD.”… 13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, O house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God as well? The Lord Himself shall give you a sign a young woman shall conceive and bear a child. Really that is a sign? 14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call Him Immanuel. Which one is a sign??
If religion was real or true WOULDNT there only be one religion?
If reality was real, wouldn't there only be one way of looking at it?
@@MarcillaSmith The many ways of looking at reality, does mean there are many realities.
Having many religions, does not mean there are many truths.
Since Jesus practiced a sect of Judaism, this proves Christianity is a false religion.
@@waitstill7091calm down
@@waitstill7091 Enjoy your one of many realities then, and I'll not disturb it.
YHWH is God Most High in Genesis 14:22 what would he be Most High of Except created Elohim ( gods) of other Religions !
God Most High gives the Sons of God ( these created Elohim to the nations as their gods).
Deuteronomy 32: 8 original (Sons of God) of The LXX and changed to (Sons of Israel) in the Hebrew Bible.
It seems that authors of the gospels used the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible. Therefore, I think Christians should use that as well. It means that Luther’s argument wouldn’t be that valid.
The problem is that the story of Jesus was taken from the OT prophecies, especially Isiah. So it is often the case that Christian interpretations of Isiah, including the translation of "alma" as virgin are more accurate to the Hebrew meaning than the Jewish translations, which have some anti-Christian bias baked in. In general, the Jewish interpreters get everything except Isiah right, which is a clear indication that Isiah is the main source-text for NT doctrines.
Dont tell me i saw a pride thingy on your wrist💀
Over700 changes mistranslation addition modifications made to the orthodox Hebrew Tanakh.
Rabbi Tovia Singer channel has details on this.
Isaiah 7:14 " virgin in future tense" just one modification.
תודה רבה שלום
*EVERY bible has been destroyed by blackmagic in the last few years.*
@@residuejunkie4321lol KJV fanboy😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
@@residuejunkie4321 there is only one orthodox Hebrew Tanakh in history all match word for word from Yemen to Russia verify that
It is easy to be consistent when you make it in a much more advanced age, with an established religion, with strong funds.@@MitzvosGolem1
@@SatanFollower1LOL, "tare'' who has no idea what God's word said before it was ruined...
Lllll pm
I'm eagerly awaiting our coming Christian Nation to codify what is and isn't a Bible and how we choose our National Catechism. As long as I yet live in the American Wars of Religion, I will constantly remind the combatants, "This is exactly what our Founding Fathers did NOT wish to repeat!" Of course, I expect to be marked as a non-believer early on, so ....
So the Tanakh has been corrupted, this is the conclusion, since Jesus is the Messiah.
Is it right to call one the 'old testament' & the other the 'new'? its debatable. Its ALL God's word and since its quoted for a backing of authority throughout the Christian scriptures it would be wrong to imagine the entire 66 books as like a new garment partly made with 'old cloth'!. Paul siad that all that was written in the Hebrew scriptures was written "To teach us, in order that we might have hope" ( Rom 15:4 )
There are hundreds of variant versions of the Christian bibles none used match the original koine Greek new testament or Hebrew Scripture sources.
Which one you use?
There is only one orthodox Hebrew Tanakh in history all match word for word from Yemen to Russia verify that.
R u stupid?
@@MitzvosGolem1o shut up as if ur scripture hasn’t been changed either, look up the Dead Sea scrolls
You're presupposing univocality of the text, which the evidence does not support.
@@digitaljanus Please explain.
The gospels all say Jesus came for Israel, not Gentiles. Yet Christians want to believe Jesus came to abolish his own religion, and replace his Jewish followers with Gentiles. This is why "Old Testament" is the preferred term for Christians.
Christians don't seem to mind worshiping a man whose religion is not their own.
Nope
We have Paul to thank for that. If anyone started their own religion, it was him.
Jesus preached that faith and good works were means by which people would enter God's kingdom. But Paul, knowing that people of other faiths, such as Jews, also performed good works, de-emphasized good works, and focused on faith in Jesus and the Resurrection as an atonement for sin.
BTW, this is probably why so many evil people can unironically consider themselves good Christians. Not because they "do unto others" as Jesus commanded, but because they claim to believe that Jesus was God, and died for their sins. Thus, it frees them for feeling love, tolerance and compassion for and assisting others less fortunate than themselves, outside of their own families, friends and associates.
Imagine claiming to believe a man is God Incarnate, but feeling no need to abide by his teachings and commandments.
We don't "worship a man." Our lord is the eternal _Logos_ of the Father, Who came to Earth as a man, according to scripture.
@@MarcillaSmith Yeah, because anything written down must be true. Especially anything written down thousands of years before science existed. 🤣
@@MarcillaSmith Well Christians believe Jesus was fully human. If you believe this, then you worship a man.
Jesus the Christ, in plain English, is Joshua the Chosen.
There are two Books of Joshua one from Tribe of Ephraim and one from Tribe of Judah.
Joshua Son of Nun was from Tribe of Ephraim. Born in Egypt.
Everyone agrees the Tribe of Judah's Book of Joshua is not Jesus the Christ (Joshua the Chosen).
Anyone read the Tribe of Ephraim's Book of Joshua? It's called the Samaritan Chronicle.
Extra: did you know Joshua Son of Nun was originally named Hoshea Son of Nun? Moses changed his name with the implied meaning "May God save you from the conspiracy of the scouts".
❤😂❤Attention all sheep. Jesus power. Warning it is intense.
We will separate the flock after. All enjoy. All old aches and pains will be washed away. Takes 30 minutes. Best to relax and shut yr eyes.