Пікірлер

• 
  @PhillipOnWater16 сағат бұрын

  After more discussion, we think the Mark of 2 Timothy may be a different Mark than the Gospel author and bishop, St. evangelist John Mark. The date of his death at 62 is from Eusebius and Jerome.

• 
  @OrdinaryVizionary2 күн бұрын

  Ah that makes sense

• 
  @ellielynn82193 күн бұрын

  I’m so excited to watch this! Thank you so much! I hope you continue this project. We miss so much with translation to English, original language is so important.

• 
  @KayceRivera5 күн бұрын

  The recognition and classification of the Apocrypha books varied, depending on the councils and the theological views of each denomination. Some churches rejected these books, while others retained them.

• 
  @cydra_infinity14239 күн бұрын

  I love Tobit as a Catholic. It has so many Catholic teachings as well.

• 
  @Anurag-a-nq10 күн бұрын

  Heyaa, loved the energy🙌! I'm not really sure if it is the best time to ask but, I was wondering if I could help you create a better distribution by working on post-production like better storytelling through Edits, Keywords, think catchy intros and outros, or even some engaging short clips! Would love to chat if you're interested and keep creating good content:)

• 
  @MkaqPalapar10 күн бұрын

  Your compassionate spirit can inspire others, encouraging them to act with kindness and empathy.

• 
  @JulyanaCarvalho-xe9sn10 күн бұрын

  The differences between versions of the Christian Bible reflect the diversity of traditions and different perspectives on religious documents.

• 
  @JobJohn-s5y13 күн бұрын

  May Lord Jesus Christ bless your good works, in the name of the Father,and of the Son,and of the Holy Spirit,Amen

• 
  @BibleInOriginalLanguages13 күн бұрын

  It is a very good and wise suggestion! Very pressingly needed among Bible students too!

• 
  @PhillipOnWater13 күн бұрын

  I got 7 dislikes and 4 likes on this short so far. Why dislike this video? I’m pointing out a real problem. We think we know something because we know the topic by name and a little about it. It’s a delusion. we have to listen to someone directly to truly understand them. Why dislike a video that is telling you to read and avoid misunderstanding?

• 
  @taralebsack735015 күн бұрын

  I enjoyed this teaching! Thanks for not being monotone!!

• 
  @paulcohen672717 күн бұрын

  We’ll… that was real exciting

• 
  @bigtoad4523 күн бұрын

  I have been using the Keys of the Kingdom Bible from Christopher Sparks.

• 
  @henrydavis331Ай бұрын

  The problem is that Septuagint is not what we claim, first of all the seventy elders what portions of scriptures did they translate? Also did other people did a translation from Hebrew to Greek?

• 
  @Roz-zi1yeАй бұрын

  Yes, there are some errors here and there, but, thankfully, a lot of the errors can be solved by looking at the Greek or Hebrew texts. I am so thankful for interlinearly Bibles and Strong's Concordance.

• 
  @xrpforlovers6657Ай бұрын

  Hey Phillip how do I get in touch with you about learn Greek?

• 
  @PhillipOnWaterАй бұрын

  Hi XRP, you can add/pm me on fb: web.facebook.com/ProtagonistPhill/ ... you can also message me on fiverr: www.fiverr.com/protagonistp?up_rollout=true

• 
  @Fincher123Ай бұрын

  I dont trust Hebrew version. Its etablished in short time, so its a young language. Its like Latin, when u check these words and how they are written u notice that there reversed words missing here or there a bit. As a german i also would only trust one version: King James Version the Original old one.

• 
  @PhillipOnWaterАй бұрын

  KJV is good. Definitely better than many modern secularized translations that add crap like gender inclusive language… But why not study Greek? The early church used the Greek Old Testament, and wrote the New Testament in Greek. There’s a lot of great things to glean from the Greek

• 
  @OrdinaryVizionaryАй бұрын

  Thanks for having me on the show! Appreciate you and Jimmy. 🙏🏾

• 
  @PhillipOnWaterАй бұрын

  You are welcome here brother... We both learned something, and we're looking over some of the books you mentioned and stuff you referenced... Every time I rewatch these podcasts we do I pick up something new.

• 
  @johnnymav1Ай бұрын

  I appreciate sll your your work and It's making a lot more sense, we are up to 364, which makes total sense, is there 1.25 days that can be found or is the gregorian calendar off?

• 
  @PhillipOnWaterАй бұрын

  That is added in an intercalation week that is inserted after a certain interval of years

• 
  @johnnymav1Ай бұрын

  @@PhillipOnWater Very much appreciated..

• 
  @ChristoTheGreekАй бұрын

  would you like to interview me i am a orthodox christian civil rights activist

• 
  @PhillipOnWaterАй бұрын

  Add me on fb: web.facebook.com/ProtagonistPhill/

• 
  @nealcorbett1149Ай бұрын

  The septuagint is WRONG because it contradicts itself where the sons of Jacob are listed in Gen 46. Count them up and see for yourself. The LXX states there were nine sons of Joseph in v.27 but only seven are named in v.20 which are added to the sub total of 18 sons of Rachel in v.22. It also contradicts itself in Deu 10:22 where it says there were 70 souls who went down into Egypt, agreeing with both the MT and the SP.

• 
  @Cubasenet33Ай бұрын

  Septuagint in general agrees with NT (when quoting from AT), and also with the Dead See scrolls. Almost every time a Jew tells me that NT doesn't translate apropriately certain quoted hebrew text, I believe it's because in general Jews consider the Masoretic text as the standard. But it's not. Both, the LXX and the Dead Sea scrolls are about ten centuries older than the masoretic! And certainly the NT writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit, so most NT quotations from the AT were taken from the Septuagint, not from the extant hebrew manuscripts which 8 centuries latter would be known as the masoretic text. To me, your vid really makes sense. Thanks for it.

• 
  @PhillipOnWaterАй бұрын

  Yes exactly brother. This is exactly what is happening... The NT doesn’t lie. But the Jews who rejected (and continue to reject) the messiah i am perfectly willingly to accept are wrong.

• 
  @the-Glory-of-His-nameАй бұрын

  Even a close examination of the Septuagint suggests that 70 is correct. Consider the following points: 1. At Deuteronomy 10:22 the Septuagint gives the number as 70, indicating that manuscripts did exist prior to this translation that gave this reading. 2. At Genesis 46:26 we are told that the 66 souls that came with Ya'aqob are those "who came out of his loins", meaning that they are his children and descendants. Ya'aqob is not included in this number, for he could not beget himself. 3. At Gen. 46:27 the Septuagint mentions 9 sons of Yoceph. Adding the 66 souls to the 9 sons to get the total of 75 means that Ya'aqob and Yoceph are not included in the count. How does that make sense? 4. Where else in the Septuagint is there any evidence that Yoceph had more than 2 sons? At Gen. 41:50 there are 2 sons born before the famine came. At Gen. 48:1 Yoceph brings his 2 sons to his father. At Gen. 48:5 Ya'aqob claims the 2 sons of Yoceph as his own. At Gen. 48:9 &16 there is a blessing for the 2 sons of Yoceph upon whom the name of Ya'aqob and their forefathers is called. If there were more than 2 sons, why were they not also brought? At Gen. 50:23 Yoceph, in later years, saw the descendants of his 2 sons, up to the third generation; there is no mention of other sons or descendants at all. There is no good evidence to think that there were more. Even the Septuagint testifies that 70 is the most likely number, i.e. Ya'aqob + 66 souls that came with him + Yoceph + his 2 sons = 70.

• 
  @PhillipOnWaterАй бұрын

  This is good research brother. I checked and the Gottingen does, in fact, read 70 at Deut. 10:22 for the main text. ….But this doesn’t solve the problem. Because are you saying Stephen in Acts was wrong? The NT reading in the Greek is firm. He said “75.” And he had to have gotten that from the LXX. That’s the point I’m making. Stephen was using the LXX tradition, and so we should too. If your points there are “proof” the original read “70,” then that just proves my point even more… St. Stephen used a reading that disagrees with the original text from the LXX tradition, which means there can be inspired textual traditions that don’t represent the original text. Do you catch my drift? We need to re think bibliology, and the importance of the LXX.

• 
  @PhillipOnWaterАй бұрын

  My suggested solution: I am suggesting the difference of numbers given in Deuteronomy and Genesis is because the contexts are different in ways that isn’t readily clear. So the numbers are precise for what they are saying. But the grand total had to have been 75, as we find in Acts and the LXX of Exodus.

• 
  @derekk1Ай бұрын

  @@PhillipOnWaterGenesis 46 says the wives of Jacob’s children are not included in this count. So perhaps this is where the difference in numbers is (perhaps these were included in the 75 in Acts).

• 
  @PhillipOnWaterАй бұрын

  @@derekk1 Yes... ! I figured something like this was the reason. Thanks for pointing this out.

• 
  @LoudCryАй бұрын

  You made "the movie" for me! 🎉 By the way, I don't know any Greek. Only that the Armenian Acts of Paul included the epistle. However, thanks for elaborating on the Armenian church. Why do you cite Gregory as the founder of the Armenian church, when we have such an early apocryphal attestation of the presence of the church beforehand? Perhaps you can qualify it for clarity sake. I'm still listening, but does this speak more specifically why the Acts should be invalidated? Also, concerning Thecla (as controversial a figure as that may be), which was a highly esteemed figure in the church. Another question. Concerning Ephrem the Syrian. He wrote, or at least has been pseudonomously attributed, a great abundance of writings. It does seem that he draws upon an abundance of apocryphal and Rabbinic sources. Does that validate these writings, by way of having discernment? Whatever the case, enjoying the presentation thus far.

• 
  @PhillipOnWaterАй бұрын

  Hi LoudCry. Glad you liked it... Assuming those claims are true, here are my responses: "Armenian Christianity predates St. Gregory..." 1) St. Gregory caused the nation to accept Christianity, and had a huge influence on the Church there. So, its like, there were people in America before the founding-fathers, but you cannot say there was a nation there until the founding-fathers appear and do what they do. Consider that analogy. "Should the Acts of Paul be invalidated?... What about Thecla?" 2) I'm not making an argument for or against the Acts of Paul. You can put that issue aside for the time being. You don't need to accept it to accept Third Corinthians. And this goes both ways. You don't need to accept Third Corinthians to accept the Acts of Paul, either. Third Corinthians is a completely separate composition that is only associated with those Acts at a later date. Whether or not you want to accept the Acts of Paul is a separate issue entirely. That's the point. People are confusing two separate questions into one. It would be like me writing a book about Philemon, and a later editor of my book includes the whole book of Philemon in my bigger book about it. You don't have to accept my bigger book to accept Philemon. Nor do you have to accept Philemon per se to accept my bigger book. These are two separate issues. But people have completely erred. Because for many people, due to lack of good research, I think, assume the Acts of Paul and Third Corinthians are one. This is simply not true. It's simply incorrect... Let me state it more clearly for anyone else reading these comments: It is an error to assume Third Corinthians and the Acts of Paul are one. A later editor of the Acts of Paul inserted Third Corinthians into those Acts. It is a false association. "St. Ephrem draws from some questionable stuff though." 3) Paul quotes pagan poets. But you and I both know Jude quoting 1 Enoch in the way he does means 1 Enoch is Scripture. The point is *how* the author is using the source. St. Ephrem treats Third Corinthians like the rest of the New Testament. Everything has to be taken on a case by case basis. There isn't a sweeping generalization that works for anything, if you want to be accurate. I hope that helps. Would you provide some references to pre-St. Gregory Christianity in Armenia? And some references to St. Ephrem referencing rabbinical literature and apocryphal texts you think we should disagree with? I would be very interested to see that. Thanks for the comment brother. Hope all is well over there. Peace.

• 
  @PhillipOnWaterАй бұрын

  Or another more radical (but still analogous) example might be, imagine someone made an edition of Shakespeare and combined it with the Gospels... Do you have to accept Shakespeare to accept the Gospels? Do you have to accept the Gospels to accept the Shakespeare? The answer is certainly "no" to both questions. For my purposes here, it is irrelevant to ask if we should accept Acts of Paul or not. I do think it is a good question. But I don't want it to be a hindrance to people coming to Third Corinthians as the truth. It is a good question. And I will do more with it in the future.

• 
  @ChineseOrthodoxReadingАй бұрын

  Cool!

• 
  @PhillipOnWaterАй бұрын

  Thanks Jimmy. lol

• 
  @alanschuetz9552Ай бұрын

  ALWAYS go with the older extant texts…

• 
  @paulcohen6727Ай бұрын

  The early church also accepted The books of Enoch with angels having sex with women…

• 
  @PhillipOnWaterАй бұрын

  Yes. I also accept that book as divinely inspired Scripture, just like the Apostle and Saint Jude does in the Bible.

• 
  @BibleInOriginalLanguagesАй бұрын

  I love the trailer. I hope the movie is as good!

• 
  @PhillipOnWaterАй бұрын

  You would know.. you were in it. lol

• 
  @GODofAbrahamIsaacandJacobАй бұрын

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

• 
  @PhillipOnWaterАй 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

• 
  @GODofAbrahamIsaacandJacobАй 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

• 
  @PhillipOnWaterАй 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.

• 
  @ChineseOrthodoxReadingАй бұрын

  Good trailer! Good content! I can’t wait to see when the movie’s actually public

• 
  @IkeMann100Ай бұрын

  Κοινός (Common). η,ι,οι,ει,υ all make the same sound similar to ee as in bee. ü sounds a bit German. Seen these Greek pronunciation issues all over the place for several years now.

• 
  @PhillipOnWaterАй бұрын

  You just described modern Greek pronunciation. But that is not the historical reconstructed pronunciation, as put forth by Cambridge scholar Ben Kantor. That’s what I’m using.

• 
  @roberttrevino62800Ай бұрын

  That’s a pretty good trailer ngl Lol

• 
  @PhillipOnWaterАй бұрын

  Hello again all. Thanks for all the likes on this video. My new movie on Third Corinthians premieres this Friday. Here's a link to the teaser: kzread.info/dash/bejne/gqKuvLqSdt3Rhpc.html

• 
  @paulcohen6727Ай бұрын

  Surely He took on our infirmities and carried our sorrows; yet we considered Him stricken by God, struck down and afflicted. But He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed. We all like sheep have gone astray, each one has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid upon Him the iniquity of us all.…His life is made a guilt offering...My righteous Servant will justify many, and He will bear their iniquities..., because He has poured out His life unto death, and He was numbered with the transgressors. Yet He bore the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors.… Isaiah 53. This is the Gospel. We don't earn our salvation, Jesus earned it for us. We only need to faithfully walk with him until our death to receive the crown of life.

• 
  @PhillipOnWaterАй бұрын

  This is wonderful. Thank you for sharing. I’m not arguing against this, friend. I’m arguing against the idea that you gain a “status” of righteousness when you’re not actually righteous. If you want to put Isaiah 53 this way, okay. Agreed. We are on the same team! Please check out my latest video. I got a new movie coming out, it premieres this Friday.

• 
  @paulcohen6727Ай бұрын

  Could be a now lost Hebrew text from which the Septuagint was translated. The much older Masoretic text was revised again and again to minimize the messianic prophecies and prop up rabbinic Judaism.

• 
  @PhillipOnWaterАй бұрын

  Exactly. The Dead Sea scrolls show it was in Hebrew in the 2nd century BC

• 
  @ricklamb772Ай бұрын

  Fools Jesus the Son of God is above the dead sea scrolls.He is above all.

• 
  @PhillipOnWaterАй бұрын

  Is Jesus, being God in the flesh, above himself? Would Jesus contradict what God said? That’s the problem friend. I’m defending Jesus, and God, and God’s word, in this video, using the Dead Sea scrolls, which are better copies of the Bible than what the reformers had when they did their original English translational work.

• 
  @tearren1Ай бұрын

  Thank you for sharing

• 
  @robertleslie2467Ай бұрын

  God The Father Almighty and His Son The Lord Jesus Christ have never made a mistake. To say other wise is blaspheme.

• 
  @william3347Ай бұрын

  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.

• 
  @geraldcortez826Ай бұрын

  Beware the leaven of the Pharisees. This is why the old testament Greek lines up with the dead sea scrolls better. KJV is better than all other versions when you're judging between Westcott and Horrt. But don't think that the old testament hasn't been messed with in many places by unbelieving Jews. Not totally destroyed because most Jews would never do that but it only takes a word here and there that they know most people will not notice that it was changed over the years. Anything that God promised to Gentiles is the first thing that gets cut out. Not trashing KJV still think it is great. But we should study more than just the KJV Bible.

• 
  @PhillipOnWaterАй бұрын

  This is wonderful, couldn’t agree more. Thanks for the comment!

• 
  @PhillipOnWaterАй бұрын

  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.

• 
  @PhillipOnWaterАй бұрын

  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.

• 
  @PazPinhasRahamim9220Ай бұрын

  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.*

• 
  @PhillipOnWaterАй 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.

• 
  @TheravadadannАй 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.

• 
  @PhillipOnWaterАй 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.

• 
  @roberttrevino62800Ай бұрын

  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

• 
  @Nortyg33Ай бұрын

  😮

• 
  @PhillipOnWaterАй бұрын

  I will be reading my English translation soon, and discuss the evidence for this letter as being an authentic letter of Paul, and a genuine book of Scripture.

• 
  @Nortyg33Ай бұрын

  ​@@PhillipOnWater Great 😃💯💯 looking forward...u did great here in Ancient Greek

• 
  @carlosdanger1843Ай бұрын

  If I’m understanding your comment correctly, you say that the Reformers were wrong in trying to go back to the Masoretic text rather than the Dead Sea scrolls…but how could Luther et al have done that since the scrolls weren’t discovered until the mid 20th century? I see what Luther was trying to do, simply to put the Bible in the common language for the common man to read for himself…this is desirable no? BtW, I really enjoy your videos! Thank you!

• 
  @PhillipOnWaterАй бұрын

  That’s right. I’m just against people today clinging to the MT.

• 
  @PhillipOnWaterАй бұрын

  But also Luther is bad for other reasons.

• 
  @God-db9vpАй бұрын

  Luther can't not find dead sea scrolls but he can find septuagint but he rejected septuagint.