/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Why do baptists have to lie to argue? MUH TRAIL OF BLOOD !!!

In Chapter one, Floyd does speak of the discrepancies between the Masoretic Hebrew text and the Septuagint text, as far the length of years that some Patriarchs lived. However, he has a pre-conceived idea that, since the Masoretic Hebrew text is more accurate, that the Septuagint must be wrong. He does not consider the possibility that the Septuagint could be correct, and the Masoretic Hebrew incorrect.

One of the reasons he gives for why the Septuagint is wrong is because of the age of Methuselah. The Septuagint records that he was 167 at the birth of Lamech (Genesis 5:25), while the Masoretic Hebrew reads 187. Here is his reasoning:

“The majority of LXX manuscripts give 167 as the age of Methuselah at the birth of his son, Lamech (the Masoretic Hebrew reads 187 - Gen. 5:25). However, if Methuselah were 167 at the birth of Lamech, Lamech 188 at the birth of Noah, and Noah 600 at the Flood (as recorded in the LXX), Methuselah would have been 955 at the date of the Flood. Since he lived to be 969 (the life span given in both), the LXX becomes entangled in the absurdity of making Methuselah survive the Flood by 14 years! Yet Genesis 7-10 and II Peter 3:20 are adamant in proclaiming that only Noah, his three sons and all four of their wives; that is, only 8 souls survived the Deluge.”

It "seems" like a good argument! The only thing wrong with it is that Floyd is lying as to what the Brenton's edition of the Septuagint states! Both the Septuagint and Masoretic texts state that Methuselah died at 969 years of age; the Septuagint does not say 955 years old. Both manuscripts are in harmony with each other on this point. Floyd says the Septuagint records Methuselah being 167 at the birth of Lamech, Lamech being 188 at the birth of Noah, and Noah 600 at the Flood, which totals 955! Thus, he claims the Septuagint says Methuselah was 955 years old when he died. This is a lie!

In the Brenton's edition of the Septuagint, even though it does record that Methuselah was 167 at the birth of Lamech (Genesis 5:25), it records Lamech being 802 years at the birth of Noah (Genesis 5:26), and not 188 as Floyd claims it says. Therefore, 167 + 802 = 969 years old! Exactly what it's supposed to be. As a matter of fact, the Septuagint specifically states that Methuselah lived to be 969 years old in Genesis 5:27!!!

Therefore, Floyd's claim that the Septuagint records Methuselah being 955 is a blatant lie! The Septuagint says no such thing. Dear reader, you must not believe everything you read from those who would attack the Word of God. Please test these people, and read the Septuagint for yourself to see if it really says what these people claim it says.

After Floyd's blatant falsehood, in the very next paragraph he speculates as to why Methuselah's age is different in the Septuagint (which it is not); What is his claim? Because it is “a philosophy which embraced the basic precepts of evolution. That is, they were primeval evolutionists.”

So, here is Floyd accusing the writers of the Septuagint of being evolutionists! He comes to this conclusion on nothing more than his claim that the Septuagint says Methuselah lived to be 955! Yet, as is easily verified, the Septuagint says no such thing! The Septuagint says Methuselah lived to be 969 years old, just like the Masoretic Hebrew text states.

Not only is Floyd debating opinions of others about who wrote the Septuagint, but now he is digressing into his own opinions (based on a lie to begin with) about those "mystery" writers being evolutionists! Dear reader, God does not respect opinions and lies, but Truth.

>>597496

So it's that Lamech was actually around 800 when he gave birth to Noah and not 188? Also how old does the (((Septuagint))) say Lamech lived total in Genesis 5:31, KJV says 777?

>>597499

It does seem to say 167

And Mathusala lived an hundred and sixty and seven years, and begot Lamech.

>>597496

>>597499

>>597504

>it records Lamech being 802 years at the birth of Noah

No it doesn't. That's how long Methulsaleh lived after beggetting his son "26 And Mathusala lived after his begetting Lamech eight hundred and two years, and begot sons and daughters." "28 And Lamech lived an hundred and eighty and eight years, and begot a son. 28 And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son:

29 And he called his name Noe, saying, This one will cause us to cease from our works, and from the toils of our hands, and from the earth, which the Lord God has cursed."

I used this BTW

http://ecmarsh.com/lxx-kjv/genesis/gen_005.htm

>>597505

Also Lamech didn't even live to be that old "31 And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred and fifty-three years, and he died."

>>597499

>>597504

>>597505

>>597507

we have ids here you know

>>597510

Yeah, and I repsonded to myself

>>597496

Reading comprehension please. The Septuagint says that Lamech was born 20 years earlier, and that Noah was born 14 years earlier. This means that when Noah was 600, Methuselah was only 955, not 969. Yet the Septuagint still says Methuselah lived to the age of 969, meaning he survived the flood. The problem is that is DOES say he lived 969, while changing the timeline so that the flood happened 14 years earlier. Instead of in the same year Methuselah died, it says the flood was 14 years before Methuselah died.

>>597507

Yeah, if Methuselah lived an additional 802 years, yet the flood only happened 188+600 years later, that means Methuselah survived Noah's flood by 14 years, which means Genesis 6-8 and 1 Peter 3:20 are contradicted.

Well i just opened up my OSB which is supposed to be Septuagint and the numbers are

Lived to be 969

Meth was 187 years when lamech was born

lamech was 188 years when Noah was born

flood was 600 years after noah

so 187+188+600= 975 so after Methuselah would be dead. I dunno if the OSB isn't using Septuagint or what

Papists never fail at demonstrating the truthiness of the kjv.

>masoretic kosher Jew text

Into trash

>>597516

OSB is based on NKJV( which is based on the MT ) and compared against LXX. There is no Eastern Orthodox pure translation of the lxx to English. Your best bet is to look at the Douay rheims

I don't understand why the greeks didn't just fix this. It's not like the error is a recent find or anything, Augustine talks about it in City of God

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VI1yRTC6kGE

/thread

>>597600

I can't watch it right now but your just changing the argument and the Bible never mentions the pyramids

>>597443

Sorry but what are LXX and MAS?

>>597606

LXX = 70 = Septaguint

MAS = Masoretic

>>597611

Alright, thanks.

Polite sage.

bump

>>597561

>I don't understand why the greeks didn't just fix this.

Something to do with Egyptian chronology I think. The reason I laugh is that nobody can actually take this seriously which is why there are never any Bible translations using it.

>>597605

That's just the title

It goes into a septuagint vs mesoretic section to prove when the pyramids were built

Masoretic = Masonetic

>>597516

As >>597559 says the OSB is a Septuagint flavored NKJV. The NETS reports the error exactly as described.

>>597600

>>598050

>https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VI1yRTC6kGE

First of all, this guy's entire theory is fundamentally flawed because it assumes that the originals are gone and admits this at 18:43, that his favored Septuagint is not perfect, while also criticizing the so-called Masoretic. He claims the original Hebrew is lost today. But this contradicts Psalm 12:6-7, which says that the words of the LORD will be preserved by Him "from this generation for ever", and it contradicts the words of Isaiah 59:21 as well:

As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

We know that from this, as well as Deut. 29:29, Prov. 30:5, Ps. 119:160, Isaiah 40:8, Mt. 5:18, Mt. 24:35, and 1 Peter 1:23-25. The original and uncorrupted word of God will always be preserved for every generation, never lost. That's what the word of God itself clearly says, and so doubting these facts is tantamount to rejecting the veracity of the Bible as a whole. If you don't think these prophetic statements were fulfilled even to the present day, you don't hold that the Bible is the word of God. And the only possible candidate for meeting these numerous statements, are the original language Greek NT and Hebrew+Syriack-Chaldee OT which we have always had with us, in every generation, from the time they were written until this very day. In other words, the received text. The video-maker posits that no Bible on earth meets this standard, neither his Septuagint nor the sources we used for the KJV; which is in contradiction to the above passages. I posit that Scripture is in fact true, and that the very sources from which were translated the KJV (and previous translations before it) were truly received originals, despite all of those who doubt this today. Now to address the other failures in the presentation of this video.

At 5:23 he states that it is incorrect that the sojourn in Egypt was 430 years, that it was only 215 years. Yet Galatians 3:17 clearly states that it was 430 years.

>>598119

Now, the main claim that it "makes more sense" to follow the Septuagint timeline for Shem-to-Abraham is not based on any kind of impossibility argument, for instance saying that fathers dying before their sons is simply "the way of life" (9:21) is not a disproof, and arguing that 30,000 workers were needed to build Babel is a baseless assumption in itself. And life isn't necessarily made to look neat on a graph chart.

Arguing that multiple witnesses are always better is turning a qualitative argument into a quantitative one. The other witnesses being used could simply be based on the first. So, another fallacy used repeatedly.

And lastly, the chronology derived from the received sources gives the flood at 2578 BC. This is because flood to Abraham's birth is 352 years, birth of Abraham to the sojourn is 290 years, the sojourn lasts exactly 430 years, the Exodus to the first temple is 480 years, the temple construction to the captivity is 420 years, and there is 70 years from the captivity to the first year of King Cyrus (~536 BC). This gives 536+70+420+480+430+290+352 = 2578 BC. This can be considered altogether accurate give-or-take about 20 years maximum due to rounding to the nearest year.

Therefore, the given date of "2350 BC" by the video, as the premise for all of this, is not accurate either.

Now, regarding the "motive" given for corrupting the Scripture in this place. I would start by directing the reader to Jeremiah 36 where it is related that the king of the Jews burned the writings of Jeremiah in his fire on the hearth, but God simply directed Jeremiah to re-write, inerrantly, from scratch, the whole book to that point.

Jeremiah 36:32

>Then took Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah; who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire: and there were added besides unto them many like words.

We see from this account that any efforts to corrupt the received text are entirely in God's ability to prevent, even to the point of miraculously giving Jeremiah the ability to copy down again the entire book of his prophecy until that point. Even though the original was destroyed. No Jewish effort to erase the original scripture is possible, God won't allow it to happen, so this is a whole possibility of doubt that is not needed.

>>598120

The same can't be said for the greek translation known as Septuagint. The earliest known manuscripts date far later than the given date for the translation.

>Relatively complete manuscripts of the LXX postdate the Hexaplar rescension and include the Codex Vaticanus from the 4th century CE and the Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century.

Thus, from all the sources before these, there is only attested the existence of the first five books of Moses only as having been translated to Greek: the other books of the Septuagint Old Testament being produced much later, as late as the 4th century AD. Furthermore, there is no reason to think that the version of the Septuagint we have now is the same as that which was translated in pre-New Testament times. It is not the received original scripture after all, it's a translation, so it might have been altered. The version of Septuagint that we have today may have in fact been EDITED to include such things as Cainan from Luke 3, and ALL of the alleged quotations made by the New Testament writers— because the Septuagint as we know it was produced after the New Testament! Promoters of this manuscript, such as the video creator, constantly attempt to conflate the historical Pentateuch translation that was called "Septuagint" and existed for the apostles, with the post-New Testament Septuagint (from Codex Vaticanus) that we actually have. But these are certainly not the same thing, the latter has clearly been influenced by the New Testament in its translation of the Old Testament, the former consisted only of Genesis-Deuteronomy, which may have subsequently been edited to account for Luke 3:36 and Acts 7:14.

>>598121

Now regarding the matter of Acts 7:14, this is easily shown, firstly, to be consistent in the KJV source account. The 70 people methodically being counted up in Genesis 46:8-27 consist of "the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt," which are explicitly counted and named; namely 66 people, plus Jacob himself, plus Joseph and his two sons, which totals to 70 people OF THE SEED OF JACOB WHICH CAME INTO EGYPT. This counts Jacob, Joseph, and in the loins of Joseph, his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh.

Now read Acts 7:14. Stephen clearly states that Joseph "called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls." First, you will notice Stephen counts Jacob separate. There are 75 plus Jacob himself. Yet Joseph didn't call HIMSELF into Egypt, or his two sons. This can be explained. Take the 70 people of Genesis 46:27. Remove Jacob, Joseph and his two sons. You have 66 people. Now remove from this 66 the two sons of Pharez, Hezron and Hamul: Pharez himself was born in Genesis 38, if you will recall. So, he was not yet old enough to have had children. Joseph hadn't been in Egypt that long. This leaves 64 people. Now add the 11 wives of Jacob's sons. This is 75 people, plus Jacob himself who were called by Joseph into Egypt.

Now about Hezron and Hamul. They were counted in the 70 as entering Egypt in the loins of Pharez, but they were not counted in the 75 as being explicitly invited into Egypt by Joseph, because they weren't born yet, whereas the 11 wives were NOT of the seed of Jacob, they were NOT listed in the 66 people of Genesis 46:8-26 (confirmed by verse 26). But they were invited by Joseph, making that count 75.

So, the KJV is consistent. Whereas the Septuagint is not, because the editors thought to modify the supposed error in Genesis 46:26 and Exodus 1:5 to say 75, based on Acts 7:14. And they even added a false explanation for the extra 5 people being the grandsons of Joseph. But there's one major problem. Those grandsons weren't born yet when this happened, and they forgot Deuteronomy 10:22. All versions say 70 there. The Septuagint and the originals both say 70 in Deuteronomy 10:22, so the OT account of the Septuagint is in disagreement with itself, whereas the originals say 70 in all three places.

And finally, the prophecy of recovery of sight to the blind is found in the KJV in Isaiah 28:19. It's not missing.

>>598119

>>598120

>>598121

>>598122

this

>>598119

> But this contradicts Psalm 12:6-7

Ah undying argument of preservation. Guess what. It works against MT. For perseverance of word of God requires that it's consistent through centuries and accepted by majority. LXX, Samaritans, Paul, Christ, Josephus, Philo, Stephen &c agree with eachother while MT contridicts them in antichristian (i.e. false) manner.

>

We know that from this, as well as Deut. 29:29, Prov. 30:5, Ps. 119:160, Isaiah 40:8, Mt. 5:18, Mt. 24:35, and 1 Peter 1:23-25. The original and uncorrupted word of God will always be preserved for every generation, never lost. That's what the word of God itself clearly says, and so doubting these facts is tantamount to rejecting the veracity of the Bible as a whole. If you don't think these prophetic statements were fulfilled even to the present day, you don't hold that the Bible is the word of God. And the only possible candidate for meeting these numerous statements, are the original language Greek NT and Hebrew+Syriack-Chaldee OT which we have always had with us, in every generation, from the time they were written until this very day. In other words, the received text.

Which itself is collection of manuscripts that had to be ADJUSTED according to Vulgate.

Basis of Textus Receptus was Byzantine texts from middle ages.

>At 5:23 he states that it is incorrect that the sojourn in Egypt was 430 years, that it was only 215 years. Yet Galatians 3:17 clearly states that it was 430 years.

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

430 after what? Promise of Abraham.

>>598120

>Now, the main claim that it "makes more sense" to follow the Septuagint timeline for Shem-to-Abraham is not based on any kind of impossibility argument, for instance saying that fathers dying before their sons is simply "the way of life" (9:21) is not a disproof, and arguing that 30,000 workers were needed to build Babel is a baseless assumption in itself. And life isn't necessarily made to look neat on a graph chart.

Main argument is: we have more ancient witnesses for this chronology than for MT version.

You are not good listener btw. He compares that Giza pyramid's 30000 workers to much more monumental bulding, Babel tower and that to have enough people to bulid that you would need growth of 8% a year which is downright ridiculous knowing that we would have bilions of bilions of people today.

> So, another fallacy used repeatedly.

Even single one of those witnesses is more reliable than Masoretes and you know it.

>Therefore, the given date of "2350 BC" by the video, as the premise for all of this, is not accurate either.

irrelevant.

> No Jewish effort to erase the original scripture is possible, God won't allow it to happen, so this is a whole possibility of doubt that is not needed.

Giving this interpretation we would still have original Jeremiah scroll. Or any other for that matter. But we don't. Even among masoretic texts there are differences.

Or maybe your interpretation of God's promise is to hyperbolic. For you yourselv would have to agree that word contined in english bible would have to identical to hebrew one even though words used are not exaclly the same in meaning (which is really funny considreing usage of dynamic translation in KJV)

>>598121

>The same can't be said for the greek translation known as Septuagint. The earliest known manuscripts date far later than the given date for the translation.

Same story with MT

>Thus, from all the sources before these, there is only attested the existence of the first five books of Moses only as having been translated to Greek: the other books of the Septuagint Old Testament being produced much later, as late as the 4th century AD

Josephus, Philo and Justin Martyr woudl have the word with you

>Furthermore, there is no reason to think that the version of the Septuagint we have now is the same as that which was translated in pre-New Testament times. It is not the received original scripture after all, it's a translation, so it might have been altered. The version of Septuagint that we have today may have in fact been EDITED to include such things as Cainan from Luke 3, and ALL of the alleged quotations made by the New Testament writers— because the Septuagint as we know it was produced after the New Testament! Promoters of this manuscript, such as the video creator, constantly attempt to conflate the historical Pentateuch translation that was called "Septuagint" and existed for the apostles, with the post-New Testament Septuagint (from Codex Vaticanus) that we actually have. But these are certainly not the same thing, the latter has clearly been influenced by the New Testament in its translation of the Old Testament, the former consisted only of Genesis-Deuteronomy, which may have subsequently been edited to account for Luke 3:36 and Acts 7:14.

And this is classical baseless assumption that throws Ockham's razor through the window.

>>598122

>First, you will notice Stephen counts Jacob separate. There are 75 plus Jacob himself.

Actual KJV: "called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls."

Jacob+kin=75

>So, the KJV is consistent.

75=/=70

> Whereas the Septuagint is not, because the editors thought to modify the supposed error in Genesis 46:26 and Exodus 1:5 to say 75, based on Acts 7:14.

Josephus, Philo and Qumran community would again have word with ya

>ll versions say 70 there. The Septuagint and the originals both say 70 in Deuteronomy 10:22

Ver. 22. Seventy. Some copies of the Septuagint add "five,"

Anno Domini 1859. And we have more than that today.

>And finally, the prophecy of recovery of sight to the blind is found in the KJV in Isaiah 28:19. It's not missing.

It its MT. Do I have to remind you that translators of King Jimmy used Vulgate as reference?

>>598438

>For perseverance of word of God requires that it's consistent through centuries

It is

>and accepted by majority. LXX, Samaritans, Paul, Christ, Josephus, Philo, Stephen…

Are you just adding random names trying to sound like these are each a different source? You people really are natural charlatans.

>Basis of Textus Receptus was Byzantine texts from middle ages.

But guess what, the KJB itself wasn't based purely on an edition of the TR, there were many different TR's, first Erasmus' editions, then Stephanus' editions of the TR, then Beza's. But the KJB didn't just follow one of these, it wasn't reliant on a single source either. But we know for a fact that it used only the sources that was always available, since the Alexandrian corruptions weren't discovered yet. So it represents the overall total word that we have always had, in English. Whether some TR was affected is not even relevant. Because the KJB didn't just blindly follow Erasmus, Stephanus or Beza TR either, and if you compare them all, it is closest to Stephanus' 3rd edition but not the same.

>430 after what? Promise of Abraham.

No. You just lied. It does not say that. It says "that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul,"

Galatians 3:17 says the covenant was CONFIRMED before of God. And this is when God spoke to Jacob in Genesis 46:2-4, he CONFIRMED the covenant.

Genesis 46:3-4

And he said, I am God, the God of thy father: fear not to go down into Egypt; for I will there make of thee a great nation:

I will go down with thee into Egypt; and I will also surely bring thee up again: and Joseph shall put his hand upon thine eyes.

And you are saying Genesis 15:13 and Acts 7:6 are both false.

Acts 7:6

>And God spake on this wise, That his seed should sojourn in a strange land; and that they should bring them into bondage, and entreat them evil four hundred years.

Therefore, the first 30 years in Egypt were good, and the later 400 years until the Exodus were bondage. You can't fit that into 215 years. So therefore, you say that Genesis 15:13 and Acts 7:6 are both false for no reason.

>He compares that Giza pyramid's 30000 workers to much more monumental bulding, Babel tower and that to have enough people to bulid that

You don't know how much workers it would take. That is an empty assumption to require a certain amount of men when the account says nothing about how many people worked on it.

>irrelevant.

That's the alleged reason for the entire video. And I just showed why you missed several centuries of time here. It is the most relevant information for dismissing this video, it assumes the wrong date for the flood on the side of the creationist.

>Giving this interpretation we would still have original Jeremiah scroll. Or any other for that matter.

Don't you read very well? It says the original scroll was burned in the fire. Jeremiah simply had Baruch write a new one which contained "all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire."

>(which is really funny considreing usage of dynamic translation in KJV)

It used strict formal equivalence. Dynamic equivalence is what the "scholars" today do.

>And this is classical baseless assumption that throws Ockham's razor through the window.

The "original" Septuagint was only Genesis-Deuteronomy, and it was edited later by the time of Codex Vaticanus to correct "mistakes" that "conflict" with Luke 3:36 and Acts 7:14 and to make it appear like the NT quoted it in the later books of the OT.

>75=/=70

The 70 that were of the house of Jacob did include Joseph and his two sons. Read Genesis 46:27. Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh are within the 70 of Genesis 46:27. Now read Acts 7:14. Joseph did not call himself or his two sons into Egypt, he was already there. So Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh are NOT within the 75 of Acts 7:14.

I explained all of this before. You just didn't read it.

>Josephus, Philo and Qumran community would again have word with ya

Build that time machine then, because you are assuming falsehoods. Also, none of that is scripture anyway. The people in Qumran would be a terrible source actually. In addition to the normal Isaiah scroll, they had some other manuscripts they were "modifying" to fit their strange doctrine! Not trustworthy at all.

>It its MT. Do I have to remind you that translators of King Jimmy used Vulgate as reference?

My mistake, I meant to say Isaiah 29:18. All versions say this in Isaiah 29:18, so you can't say the Bible is missing this prophecy.

>>598002

>zeitgeist level wordplay

>actually zeitgeist can do better

>In Jesus name amen = In Zeus name amen ra

>>597443

>according to the LXX, Methuselah lived another 14 years after the flood

He was a really, really good swimmer.

>>598484

>It is

And it's called LXX

>Are you just adding random names trying to sound like these are each a different source? You people really are natural charlatans.

<Paul is Stephen, Josephus is Philo, and Samaritans were Greeks

Next you gonna tell me that LXX was made by Orgien who was of course time traveler

>But guess what, the KJB itself wasn't based purely on an edition of the TR, there were many different TR

Each based on Byzantine manuscripts. But we are not talking about TR, which I already said. We are talking about Old Testament.

>Alexandrian corruptions

You are mixing memes m8. Alexandrian Corruption is meme about basis of NT translations. We are talking about Old one.

>No. You just lied. It does not say that. It says

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

To Abraham were promises made, the covenant, the law was four hundred and thirty years after. It's in plain text.

>Galatians 3:17 says the covenant was CONFIRMED before of God. And this is when God spoke to Jacob in Genesis 46:2-4, he CONFIRMED the covenant.

Gal 3:17 says that covenant=law was 430 years after promise as prooven above.

>Therefore, the first 30 years in Egypt were good, and the later 400 years until the Exodus were bondage. You can't fit that into 215 years. So therefore, you say that Genesis 15:13 and Acts 7:6 are both false for no reason.

No. Watch vid related because I have no willingness to go through it yet again. But let me remind you that Israelites were in Egypt, under Joseph (ergo they could not be slaves at the time) 71 years. Not 30. 71.

>You don't know how much workers it would take. That is an empty assumption to require a certain amount of men when the account says nothing about how many people worked on it.

Common sense. Heard about it? You cannot build such monumental buildings with such little workforce. Or maybe you want to argue that Giza was greater than Babel. Why would then God strike Nimrod and not Mizram sons is beyond me.

>That's the alleged reason for the entire video. And I just showed why you missed several centuries of time here. It is the most relevant information for dismissing this video, it assumes the wrong date for the flood on the side of the creationist.

let me rephrase it: Even with additional 300 years it's still not enough because time between Flood and Babel stays the same.

Also, anserwingenesis, one of most known creationist site date it at 2350 BC https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/ so yeah.

>Don't you read very well? It says the original scroll was burned in the fire. Jeremiah simply had Baruch write a new one which contained "all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire."

And we have no this version either. Or we have, drowned in corrupted versions.

<Inb4 Masoretic is correct one

Which one?

>It used strict formal equivalence. Dynamic equivalence is what the "scholars" today do.

"may it not be"="God forbid", "May the king live"="God save the king" only in dynamic equivalence. Not to mention that Easter is not Passover.

>The "original" Septuagint was only Genesis-Deuteronomy, and it was edited later by the time of Codex Vaticanus to correct "mistakes" that "conflict" with Luke 3:36 and Acts 7:14 and to make it appear like the NT quoted it in the later books of the OT.

You do know that we have Greek Pentateuch from times BEFORE codex Vaticanus? Philo used one. Demetrius the Chronograph used one. Eupolemus used one. And they all written before Luke written gospel and acts.

>The 70 that were of the house of Jacob did include Joseph and his two sons. Read Genesis 46:27. Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh are within the 70 of Genesis 46:27. Now read Acts 7:14. Joseph did not call himself or his two sons into Egypt, he was already there. So Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh are NOT within the 75 of Acts 7:14.

I trust Stephen quoting scripture over you.

>Build that time machine then, because you are assuming falsehoods. Also, none of that is scripture anyway.

<Let's not trust people who quote Scripture because they are not Scripture even though they quote Scripture word for word.

>The people in Qumran would be a terrible source actually. In addition to the normal Isaiah scroll, they had some other manuscripts they were "modifying" to fit their strange doctrine! Not trustworthy at all.

Fragments of Pentateuch are consistent with LXX. Corruption is also there, then it's consistent with MT.

>My mistake, I meant to say Isaiah 29:18. All versions say this in Isaiah 29:18, so you can't say the Bible is missing this prophecy.

Bible of course do not. MT does.

>>598608

KJV is literally God in some circles so errors of KJV=God is not perfect

>>598791

>And it's called LXX

At 18:43, your pyramids video admits that the Septuagint is not perfect.

>But we are not talking about TR,

You literally said "textus receptus" in your previous post. In fact you brought this topic up. You were the first person to mention textus receptus. So, I can't respond to that because "we are not talking about it" anymore?

>We are talking about Old Testament.

Alright then.

>Alexandrian Corruption is meme about basis of NT translations.

The Septuagint came from Alexandria as well, as did Origen and his version of it, via the Hexapla. It's ALL coming from the same place. Both the NT and the OT corruptions.

>To Abraham were promises made, the covenant, the law was four hundred and thirty years after.

>Gal 3:17 says that covenant=law was 430 years after promise as prooven above.

That is incorrect. Covenant =/= law. The covenant and the promises are the same thing. The Law is what Moses received, 430 years after the covenant was CONFIRMED. The promises=covenant is what is told to Abraham first, and then is CONFIRMED to Jacob in Genesis 46:2-4. Read Genesis 46:2-4 for yourself. This is the start of the 430 years. This has to be, because Genesis 15:13 and Acts 7:6 both say they were evil intreated for 400 years. So that means the first 30 years were well, then 400 years were bondage. You simply can't fit that into 215 years, it's a lie.

>Common sense. Heard about it? You cannot build such monumental buildings with such little workforce.

Not an argument. You don't know how many workers were required. You don't know a lot of things that you pretend to know about this.

>Also, anserwingenesis, one of most known creationist site date it at 2350 BC

Do I look like I came from there? I'm telling you they are wrong, it's approximately 2578 BC. I gave you the actual timeline we used.

>Or we have, drowned in corrupted versions.

Yes, but the real version survives and is used in the KJB. It's the only one that never changed away from original Hebrew+Syriack-Chaldee and original Greek. And so the prophecies were fulfilled. Now all the doubters in the world can make up inaccurate stories about it, but it still exists in spite of them.

>You do know that we have Greek Pentateuch from times BEFORE codex Vaticanus?

Yes, incomplete fragments of the first 5 books. But the real question is why did God allow them to be lost until 1947? Why didn't we have this all along? And why was Vaticanus/Sinaiticus lost until the late 1800's? And why are the "original" Hebrew sources of them still lost? Where are they? That tells me they are corruptions that don't meet their own standard, of Psalm 12:6-7, Isaiah 59:21, Matthew 5:18, etc.

We can use the prophecies in the word of God to know which is correct. It's obvious then. It has to be unchanged from the original language and used and accepted in all generations. Sorry if you have problems with this, but those are the simple facts. Psalm 12:6-7, Isaiah 59:21, and so on are true. The consequences for making up alternates to this is extreme and it amounts to being a false prophet.

>>598979

>Or maybe you don't know that Textus Receptus means received text then I am sorry.

I was referring to the received Old and New Testament, not specifically to the stuff Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza published. The received text means the whole word of God that has been received. Not to be confused with corrupted things that were discovered after being lost for a while.

>Also, Orgien while being convenient scapegoat for ya does not neglect the fact there are more ancient witnesses to LXX than him.

They say it existed. The oldest one we have is from Origen, and it can be edited by him. You can't just assume the older version being mentioned that existed is the same as Origen's version, which is what we have. Like I already quoted:

<Relatively complete manuscripts of the LXX postdate the Hexaplar rescension and include the Codex Vaticanus from the 4th century CE and the Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century.

Hexaplar rescension → Origen.

>I say that covenant, the law, cannot disannul.

The law cannot disannul the covenant. I know! But the law came 430 years after the covenant, it's not the same thing. This is saying the law isn't going to disannul the covenant that came before it.

It seems you were even more confused than I thought, you don't even get the point of this sentence.

>I say that covenant, the law, cannot disannul. This is what Paul is saying. Covenant=Law.

No. You are giving an incomplete sentence. Disannul needs an object. If I say "I cannot disannul" you have to ask what I am disannulling?

"I say that X cannot disannul." is an incomplete sentence! You haven't stated what is being disannulled by X.

You have to say X cannot disannul Y. Without Y, it makes no sense. If you want to say X itself cannot be disannulled, you have to say "X cannot be disannulled," which is a sentence. You can't just say "X cannot disannul." That is not a sentence!

The fact is that X is the law, and Y is the covenant, which the law cannot disannul.

>First you claimed that he used flat out wrong number and now you are just saying that your calculations are different. Stop being intellectually dishonest.

No. You are making a false accusation and provoking me. That number is wrong. I've always said that. You are lying and making a false accusation to provoke me. I've said the same thing all along.

>KJV have errors.

You can't even explain a single one. I've already covered both Acts 7:14 and Luke 4:14 and how they are consistent.

>Josephus' works were not lost. Nor Philo's. Nor Demetrius'. Nor Eupolemus'.

Josephus wrote a complete Bible? He wrote a complete Old Testament? No, he just mentioned it and quoted what it allegedly said in certain places. But the actual full Old Testament that he quotes was lost. Which is what you are avoiding to answer, in an intellectually dishonest manner.

>They were discovered because times were demanding and God provided.

Proverbs 30:5-6

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

<It has to be unchanged from the original language

>Check.

It's in Greek. Did Isaiah prophesy in Greek?

>words of our Lord who quotes from LXX and not MT.

More like Origen's version of the Greek Old Testament plagiarizes the NT in those places.

>>599015

>I was referring to the received Old and New Testament, not specifically to the stuff Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza published. The received text means the whole word of God that has been received. Not to be confused with corrupted things that were discovered after being lost for a while.

Then sorry for not knowing that invented by you lingo.

>They say it existed. The oldest one we have is from Origen, and it can be edited by him. You can't just assume the older version being mentioned that existed is the same as Origen's version, which is what we have. Like I already quoted:

We have enough of early pieces to say that those versions are relatively the same. Also, why you assume that Codexes that postdate hexaplar=hexaplar version? It's conspiracy theory at best. Shitty one considering that LXX of Orgien was done in accordance to Hebrew Textes

>The law cannot disannul the covenant. I know! But the law came 430 years after the covenant, it's not the same thing. This is saying the law isn't going to disannul the covenant that came before it.

The law cannot disannul the promise. We know that. Law came 430 after promise. This law is covenant talked about in Galatians.

It seems you were even more confused than I thought, you don't even get the point of this sentence.

>No. You are giving an incomplete sentence. Disannul needs an object. If I say "I cannot disannul" you have to ask what I am disannulling?

Let me get it in the most basic level I can since you have reading comprehesion of a child.

Whole sentence: 16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made.

Promise was made to Abrham and his seed. Let's name promise X.

He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Seed not seeds. Seed=Christ.

And this I say, that the covenant,

Paul is speaking about Covenant, from there Y.

that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law

Y is confimed before God in Christ is Law. This is the only possible way you can understand this sentence. Law=Y

the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul

What Law/Covenant cannot disannul? Only possible anserw - Promise.

"that it should make the promise of none effect."

It here is Covenant which is Law.

You really didn't read Galatians, did you?

>No. You are making a false accusation and provoking me. That number is wrong. I've always said that. You are lying and making a false accusation to provoke me. I've said the same thing all along.

"And lastly, the chronology derived from the received sources gives the flood at 2578 BC. " And yet, other creationist useing same sources have 2348 BC https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/timeline-for-the-flood/

>You can't even explain a single one. I've already covered both Acts 7:14 and Luke 4:14 and how they are consistent.

Want one? Disbelief is not correct translation of apeithōn. Disobedience is. I have more, which you ignored.

>Josephus wrote a complete Bible? He wrote a complete Old Testament? No, he just mentioned it and quoted what it allegedly said in certain places. But the actual full Old Testament that he quotes was lost. Which is what you are avoiding to answer, in an intellectually dishonest manner.

<Josephus: Scripture says X

<Philo: Scripture says X

<LXX: X

<You: those are alleged quotations.

>Proverbs 30:5-6

We know that Masoretes are in hell for their corruption.

>It's in Greek. Did Isaiah prophesy in Greek?

Did he in English?

Now, is LXX consistent with original bible, as proven above? Yes. Is MT? No. Is KJV consistent with either? No.

>More like Origen's version of the Greek Old Testament plagiarizes the NT in those places.

We have pre-Orgien quotations from LXX. Which you will ignore for the x time mister "orgien is time traveler".

heh papists BTFO

>>598982

>This is clasical circular reasoning.

all reasoning is ultimately circular