>>597600
>>598050
First of all, this guy's 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.

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.

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.

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.