I got some dislikes on this video. But why dislike this video? I gave hard facts. I'm just being honest with the evidence. We have to be honest with what the evidence actually says. That's what I did. And I did my best to do it. All truth is God's truth. So wherever the truth leads us shouldn't be a scary place.

To those who misunderstand: The point of this video is not to say the Bible is in error. But the common understanding of peoples' bibliology does need to change. Matthew uses an "erroneous" reading from the LXX for his text. That means there can be inspired "mistakes." It's not that it is a mistake though, but it is an interpretational difference that ended up in the NT from the LXX reading. In our modern world, we have the concern for exactness and we consider anything that deviates from that as an error. But I doubt the ancient reader would have seen this as an error. They would have seen this as an inspired interpretational development... Since this is in Matthew, it means we should be using the LXX, and be open to accepting multiple text types.

Reading thru those subsequent sections of Isaiah, certainly The Lord, Adonai, is making his case to Israel to trust in me and not idols or other false gods. Technically a mis-quote yes, but one that fits better with the context in Matthew and in the spirit of what was being communicated in Isaiah and other parts of the Bible where God is saying that we can & should trust in Him. So it's not a devious mis-quote imo, also that final line is so different than Isa 42:4 that the reader can understand it is as a paraphrase rather than direct quote.

What Coast Lands, Did it Say Exactly What "Coast Lands"?

@PhillipOnWater

11 күн бұрын

The word in Hebrew is the word for “islands” or “island nations”. But in actual Hebrew thought, this is the lands around the Mediterranean, like around Rome and Greece

@GODofAbrahamIsaacandJacob

11 күн бұрын

@@PhillipOnWater , thats a stretch, just because its around the locality, doesn't mean its talking about any one of them... That's Hugh Grey Area, from Over 2,000 years ago.... Nobody really knows....lol

@PhillipOnWater

11 күн бұрын

The word in Hebrew is אי (plural איים). What I told you is what the lexicons and scholarly resources say, like HALOT and DCH. The “island nations” were those in the Mediterranean because that’s the nearest sea to Israel where Biblical Hebrew was used. Does that make sense? That is not a “stretch.” That is common sense. Unfortunately, common sense isn’t very common. Secondly, I will teach you something more important here. A life lesson. When you ask a question to a teacher, you need to show respect. Not only to the teacher, but also to yourself, by using manners so that people more informed than you will want to help you. If you want to be childish and refuse to allow yourself to grow, you won’t get anywhere in life. Want to learn? Come. Let’s learn.

Very interesting. I would like to think that it’s all meant to be Lol. Christ is the fulfillment of the law, so maybe the Lord used this scribal error to inspire that passage even more

What a pitiful explanation.. it is obvious Matthew was manipulating the Hebrew as he did in other verses... There's another problem with that same verse that confirms this: *Matthew 12* 20 A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out, *till he has brought justice through to victory.* 21 *In his name* the nations will put their hope.” *See the correct translation of the verses from Isiah 42 (chabad):* 3 breaking reed he shall not break; and a flickering flaxen wick he shall not quench; *with truth shall he execute justice.* 4 Neither shall he weaken nor shall he be broken, *until he establishes justice* in the land, *and for his instruction, islands shall long.*

@PhillipOnWater

18 күн бұрын

How is it any less pitiful to flat out say Matthew was manipulating the text?… The other differences in his quote there are not radical differences. Those can be explained as differences in translational choices from the same text. Not the problem I pointed out in my video. That is a radical difference that cannot be derived from the Hebrew. So, the only way to explain it (without saying Matthew intentionally changed the text, which he wouldn’t have done), is to recognize in textual criticism the potential scribal habits that may occur, and allow for the evidence to form our bibliology. To the Apostles, it’s not about the “original text.” They used traditions from the MT, DSS, and the LXX, even, apparently, though the LXX copy Matthew used was defective at that spot… it’s not an error of content. It’s an error of transmission, that is apparently inspired. Otherwise, God would not have allowed Matthew to use it. It’s not the other way around. It’s not that “Matthew wouldn’t use an error.” Rather, it’s “this is not actually an error, because Matthew used it.” The point I’m trying to get at is this: The “error” in the tradition becomes the truth God wants us to see, even though it’s not the original text.

@Theravadadann

18 күн бұрын

@@PhillipOnWaterSo God had the Greek author of Mathew purposely use a fraudulent translation to change the text of Isaiah. You are saying that it was only God changing Isaiah because he didn’t get it right the first time. The Septuagint translation of Isaiah was created by for the author of Matthew.

@PhillipOnWater

18 күн бұрын

No I'm saying that is the completely wrong way of looking at it. Matthew had multiple text types/traditions before him. It is clear when studying the NT that they used readings that match different text types. So, Matthew recognized them all as Scripture. Its not about the "original text." The quest for the "original text" is a modern concern Matthew didn't necessarily have. He was simply looking at the traditions (the different textual forms) that were passed down to him, and then choosing the one that suited his purposes. So, some LXX manuscripts, I am suggesting, had this textual corruption, and Matthew chose it for his purposes. It's not an error to Matthew. It's only an error in our modern eyes. This is a difference of perspective. In short, For Matthew, its not about the "original." Its about, what versions did he have, and which ones did he select for his purposes. So, I know the Bible-haters are going to love spinning my content in the wrong way. But that wasn't my intention here. I believe Matthew even if he is wrong (though, I'm not saying he is wrong. This is a misunderstanding). I'll also add here that its more complicated than people think. It is possible there were Hebrew manuscripts that did read שׁם ("name") and we just don't have them. Jerome seems to suggest Matthew used Hebrew texts in his OT quotes, so that would lend support to that idea. However, we just don't know, and, in my conclusions I try to form opinions based on verifiable antiquity. You could talk all day about what "could be" in terms of what we don't have. But what do we actually have? I presented that in this video. At the end of the day, we have to be honest with the evidence. I tried to do that here. I believe Matthew's Gospel. And I believe it is inerrant. As I said, even if Matthew said something that was flatly wrong, I would still believe it. Matthew is divinely inspired Scripture, without error. So... that's the point. If Matthew is true, then how do you explain this problem? Again, that's the point... We have to change our understanding of bibliology. We should think like Matthew. Its not about finding a lost "original text." its about, what did he have to deal with. Those were all inspired text-types for Matthew, but the ones he actually uses in his Gospel are especially important because thats what God wants us to see. So, you should consider thinking about this in a different way. Take a step back and consider a different perspective.