You are hereFree Preterist Study Bibles

Free Preterist Study Bibles

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/vaduva/ on line 842.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/vaduva/ on line 745.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/ on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/ on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/ on line 149.

By watton - Posted on 07 March 2007

The Our Life In Christ web site (, home of the Our Life In Christ Orthodox Christian Teaching Program is offering free Orthodox Study Bibles. This is the most preterist study bible on the market. NKJV translation of New Testament and Psalms with study notes from the Orthodox perspective. As an introduction, according to OLIC: "The Orthodox Church is evangelical, but not Protestant. It is orthodox, but not Jewish. It is catholic, but not Roman. It isn't non-denominational - it is pre-denominational. It has believed, taught, preserved, defended and died for the Faith of the Apostles since the Day of Pentecost 2000 years ago."The OLIC website is the home of an Orthodox internet radio program hosted by Steven Robinson and Bill Gould. So before you request the study bible be sure to check out the OLIC audio archives ( You can download programs in MP3 format and listen to them anytime. Of special interest to Planet Preterist readers is their four part program on "The Book of Revelation and Orthodoxy" a four hour introduction to end times. Its focus is mostly to educate Orthodox believers, by defining the vocabulary that their protestant friends are confusing them with. Much more is covered including quotes from early Church fathers and an entertaining history of failed predictions of the End. Presented in a chatty format with wonderful musical interludes (especially in parts 3 and 4). The a capella choral singing alone is worth the price of these programs.

plymouthrock's picture

But aren't Study Bibles part of the problem? Dispensationalism as a theological position has virtually become orthodoxy through the promulgation and popularity of the Scofield and MacArthur Study Bibles.

One must acknowledge that any words, even seeming truthful Preterist words, placed in footnote fashion immediately following the Sacred Text gives any such opinions certain validity and authenticity that it would not have were it placed separately in some other book.

In essence, I am saying that whatever comments we have regarding Scripture are just that, commentary. and are better left for publishing separately outside of the Bible itself.

I am not sure why we as Christians are so compelled to place our interpretations of things alongs side the Script itself. By doing so, we are promoting our opinion (though I believe the preterist position is correct). The Bible is a marvelous book on its own. And commentary in the form of Study Bibles should be left for separate publishing away from the Bible. I believe editor's notes and rendering choices are the only necessary aids that should be placed at or near the Text itself.


Starlight's picture

I'm having a problem understanding why introducing study notes in a Bible is such a problem. Especially if they are concerned with straightening out nearly 2000 years of incorrect teaching on Christ coming. I for one would buy one in a second and hand them out in droves if it was authored by Don Preston or Sam Frost (only the NT version Sam ;-).

You re point about study Bibles being the problem is only partially correct. We also know what a straight forward literalistic reading of scriptures without background knowledge can produce. Its called Futurism. I do agree there is danger but isn't there more danger from reading without knowledge?

My other question is why do the notes need to be outside the Bible? If they should be would you have a problem with Bibles that are shrink wrapped with a Preterist study guide packaged with them? Of course the Preterist study guide might get lost or stuck in a drawer and never referenced.


plymouthrock's picture

Oh, don't misunderstand, I love Sam and Don. However,your response I believe effectively demonstrates the problem. We so badly want to influence the thinking of others that we place our commentary next to the words themselves. If the Bible is a special book (I will respond to you too Virgil) it should stand alone and let the debate over its meaning transpire outside of it, if you will. When we seek to include our thoughts next to the words, we, in many ways, reduce the book to whatever man-made theory we are positing, no matter how legitimate the theory or good natured the intent.

Secondly, you don't combat the literalistic reading of Scriptures through Study Bibles. We must acknowledge that even as Preterists we don't have every single issue worked out. We believe our framework to be the correct one, but we don't have all of the answers yet (or rather there is some disagreement on some issues). So, in many ways, this preterism thing is progressive, no? So, with much learning to do, how can we pen anything next to the Word of God?


Starlight's picture

“We so badly want to influence the thinking of others that we place our commentary next to the words themselves.”

I don’t disagree with you categorically as I’m with you to a certain extent. But I will give you an example. When I came to Preterism I found out that I had been depending upon translators to provide me with honest/accurate translations. Well it turns out translators have dropped the ball and not lived up to their responsibility. I had always known this but did not know to what extent it affected my understanding until I started reading the scriptures from the Preterist viewpoint. This also goes for the Old Testament where translators with dispensational and Futurist viewpoints have inserted words that do not meet the proper exegesis. If they had provided me with the broad meaning of “eretz” (land) instead of world/earth I might not have been so inclined to believe in their Global Flood proposition. This is where the translation of scriptures is in essence man’s judgment of the contextual meaning as best they can determine. So if we have this hidden commentary in place then your premise is already damaged as the word comes to you in varying degrees of damaged goods from our well intentioned translators.

Continuing from that premise then it would be helpful to insert extensive notes of background meanings for readers and let them draw their own conclusions. You could also do the same with difficult language usage by providing scriptural background information say on how the term “Heavens and Earth” are utilized in the various locations and then let the reader draw their own distinctions. At least they would have contextual background that may help them. I think where you may draw the line would be inserting commentary but that in itself is a slippery slope that would be hard to manage and their fore unrealistic in the long run.
So what do you do?
Put out the Preterist study bible and let truth sort it out.


plymouthrock's picture

Great points.

From a pragmatic viewpoint what you say is true, "Put out the Preterist study bible and let truth sort it out." However, as a purist, I cannot forget that some of the information, no matter how hard we would try to sanitize it, would be commentary and necessarily untrue or misleading at some point, even if only minutely.

So, because this is true, I won't seek to bombard the reader with my thoughts immediately after they read Matthew 24:34. The problem with Study Bibles is that the reader doesn't get a chance to breathe and reflect on the verse itself absent any help from anyone other than the Holy Spirit himself.

With respect to translations, simply because others, in times past, have engaged in revisionist editing of the Scriptures does not mean we need to cure that problem with Study Bibles.

One of the great joys I have had since discovering the truth of the Word has been reexamining anything and everything in light of my new understanding, gaining new insight and learning more as a result. But when we seek to pre-package the Bible with "everything they need to be a Preterist", we rob them one of a great opportunity to study to shew themselves approved: examining versions of the Bible (I like the Concordant Literal New Testament myself), reading articles or books, writing, listening, reasoning, debating, etc.

Study Bibles are part of the microwave, McDonald's, instant gratification society that is eating away at the intellectual strength of Christian Americans. From your vantage point, in order to help others, shouldn't we put everything in (Josephus, Eusebius, Origen, Frost, Vaduva)? How much background information is enough, too much, etc.?

I purchased Josephus for a dollar at a yard sale and I was so glad to have it. I bought The Parousia from Max King and company. So all total, I paid 20 dollars to learn the truth. My growth since then has been an operation of my subconscious mind as illumined by the Spirit and my constant searching for more information to filter through the Preterist framework.

People need to learn to test the spirits, search the scriptures, and so forth. We shouldn't be so much engaged in seeking to do this work for them.

I think a great compromise would be to include a copy of "Can God Tell Time" by Don Preston. Yeah?


Starlight's picture

Again I don’t have a huge difference with you, my wife and I have been having this debate for years. She’s on you’re side ;-)
But I get amused when I catch her pulling out all her assorted helps and they are spread out all over the bed beside her when she’s reading.

In other words we’re going to get our commentary one way or the other.
But we both like to read with just the word and the spirit at times as we and find that very rewarding.

I will also say that because I have studied for so many years that I now have a clear advantage over my readings twenty years ago. I get more out of the scriptures without having to go to helps now, but it was the leg work in research that has helped me to get there. And yes I have used Study Bibles in the past and now when I pick one up I still find it helpful at times but not always.

You stated…“We shouldn't be so much engaged in seeking to do this work for them.”
I personally do not have a problem trying to encourage, assist or teach. I do this as a teacher in my church and in the local Prison where I help teach a weekly bible study. This is part of my mission that I feel called to do and I think it is an honorable thing.
But I also think it is an honorable thing to put Biblical helps in Bibles to make it convenient for the student instead of having to spread their books all over the place.



Virgil's picture

Could it be that we often fail to look at a translation of the Biblical texts as what they really are...human and man-made translations? And if that is the case which one is "sacred" then?

What if we start looking at the Scripture as a divine narrative rather than a collection of pages with black marks on it that we nearly worship? Could it be that the message is Sacred, rather than the book itself? And how can then margin comments be any more defaming than your own margin notes written by hand next to a verse or passage you had questions or explanations about?

plymouthrock's picture

No argument here regarding the Sacred message.

However, that does not eliminate my concern. Your personal, hand-written notes in the margin of your favorite version is the product of your own reasoning and supports or does not support your convictions, views, etc. The point is they are your own work product.

I have a problem when we seek to put our own work product next to the text. The more proximate the opinion to the text, the more authority or veracity the opinion seems to garner by virtue of the authority that people have already given to the text. People, subconsciously or not, tend to think to themselves that, "if it's in the Bible it must be true." And we have Dispensationalism as proof of this fact. It would not have grown to the stature it now enjoys were it not for the Scofield Reference Bible. We should realize that we are taking advantage of the Bible-Is-Truth phenomena when we seek to sneak in our own man-made words next to words that has been vouched for in ways our thoughts never could.


Virgil's picture

Right and if Dispensationalism is proof that Study Bibles actually work, that should be even a greater motivator for us Preterists to use the same working methodology to promote TRUTH regarding eschatology.

I do see your concern, but as long as readers have the common sense to understand that the commentaries are not the text of the Bible, I see absolutely no problem with it whatsoever. If Christians cannot discern between the two, then the problem is deeper than Scripture vs. Commentaries. You would then be dealing with just plain ignorance and you would need another path of education to solve that...

plymouthrock's picture

And I think you hit the main vein of my point Virgil; Christians, in times past, did not differentiate between commentary and text and made Dispensationalism orthodoxy. So, we really are dealing with a real different animal altogether here.

Partially, I think that the pervasiveness of the Dispensational doctrine here in the US has dulled the intellects of our Christian populace (the ones we are seeking to persuade of the truth of fulfilled eschatology) so much so that they can't or wont do the reasoning work required to differentiate text from commentary (see generally Noll, Fit Bodies, Fat Minds).

I guess the question is, are we so wedded to Study Bibles as a tool that we: (1) ignore its dangers; and (2) fail to seek other valid methods that don't present such problems?


plymouthrock's picture

Yes, when I mean commentary, I also include cross references. I have found several Scofield-type assumptions in the Thompson Chain Reference Bible.

But doesn't all this talk about error in current Study Bibles send a red flag to everyone? We are never going to be error free in our attempt to help others learn the truth of the Word. So, let's be honest enough with ourselves and fair to others and not seek to put our version of things immediately next to the text (insert whatever version you like) and bind them in the same book. Sure its efficient but it is misleading.

We should also be honest about what we are doing. When we seek to put our words next to biblical words, we seek to hijack the popularity that the Bible enjoys and make it our own. In other words, why are we so afraid to write a book entitled, "Everything You Need To Know" or whatever and be done with it? Because we are afraid our book will not be read by as many people as we would like. We should not overlook the dangers of Study Bibles in our effort to promote the "truth", because in the end the dangers may have yet unforeseen consequences.

At the end of the book of Revelation there is an admonition that nothing be added or deleted from that book of prophecy. Shouldn't we take that as a cue for the rest of the books as well? Or do we say (in self-righteousness) that our comments and interpretations placeed next to the text are not such additions or deletions?


Kyle Peterson's picture

But utilizing your logic means we can't seek out any human interpretation of God's Word. In my mind there is no difference between margin notes and Billy Graham standing before thousands offering up his interpretation of 1 Cor. 15.

The Open Bible Project doesn't seek to indoctrinate the masses. We aren't trying to give people a shortcut here. The ultimate goal is to encourage readers to read for themselves and get closer to God's Word. The commentaries the OBP uses are to simply point readers to an alternative (Covenantal) viewpoint of eschatology, but yet encourage them to seek and test out the scriptures for themselves.

If I had to guess, thousands of Futurists will pick up this study bible for the sole purpose of discrediting it. I am confident that during that process many will have a huge paradigm shift.

plymouthrock's picture

In the end Kyle I only wanted to warn against the dangers inherent with commentary near text in a bound volume.

And I was not advocating against seeking out human interpretation of God's Word, only arguing that Study Bibles, in some senses, stifles the student's ability to make certain connections on their own.

I am not arguing against teaching or assisting only acknowledging that some dangers exist in the Study Bible method.

What happens when we start producing bound Preterist Study Bibles and 10 years later realize that we had taught real error on some subject that mattered?


Kyle Peterson's picture

Well, ultimately it's up to each individual to "be a Berean" and see if the notes in their Study Bible jive with what the scriptures actually teach.

My guess is the only people interested in the Open Bible will be those that already know about Preterism, have a base knowledge of eschatology and are either interested in studying it specifically or trying to disprove it. This wont be distributed in the manner Gideons are - to new or non-Christians.

flannery0's picture

"What happens when we start producing bound Preterist Study Bibles and 10 years later realize that we had taught real error on some subject that mattered?"

We revise. :)

plymouthrock's picture

touche (sp?)


Virgil's picture

I think a Preterist Study bible is long overdue but the task is enormous.

A project is already well under way...feel free to jump in:

Spartan-117's picture

I totally agree.

I think what a "real" preterist study Bible would be is one that helps the reader understand the Hebrew and Greek. In other words something like an Interlinear with Strong's numbers but more than just the Interlinear Bible, one that includes Hebrew and Greek lexicons, concordances, and theological dictionaries and historical background information. This would be like a computer program that allowed the user to click on a word and up comes Greek/Hebrew definitions etc... All theses "helps" and texts are in book format and computer format but to put many of them that , in my opinion, would be a great study bible.

If I recall, doesn't Norm do something with computers? :-)


Starlight's picture


Of course I like computers since that is how I make my living. But I deal with the hardware/networking side of it and leave programing up to my youngest brother.

But to be honest with you I do my best studying curled up in a chair or on the bed reading. That is why its good to put consise data into one book so I don't have to surround myself with an assortment of books. My problem is that the print is having to get larger and larger for me each year which means I have to get giant print bibles now and forego the helps. It's getting to be that I need a Bible as big as the old family Bibles just to read them. Can't put any thing extra in there as you couldn't lift them.

I do use my computer versions quite a bit but need to upgrade to some more modern versions of software. There are some great packages out there but you can also just use online helps a lot nowdays as well without having to spend a lot. It helps to have a high speed connection though.
What the bottom line I thinking about though is a basic Preterist study bible that doesn't get too far out of the mainstream by keeping it simple. That puts the preterist concept in front of folks in a subtle but effective manner. Now that would help folks as it might start the ball rolling.


tom-g's picture

Dear Norm,

As a licensed LDO and Vice President of the State Opticianry Board we see many people with your problem it is defined as "Presbyopia".

There is an optical aide that can be prescribed by a doctor to help with this optical anomaly, it is called "Bifocals" Originally invented, I think, by Ben Franklin.

Of course being the vain person that I am I refuse to wear them, I prefer to continue stumbling around and straining my eyes, but I would recommend them for you. (Just kidding of course.)


Starlight's picture


I have the progressive (liberal;-)) version of bifocals but still can't stand having to wear them. It's kind of like Solomon describes in Ecclesiastes where our windows just kind of fog over whether we like it or not.


tom-g's picture

Norm seriously,

I don't know how long you've had them but many times your optical professional does not properly teach their correct usage.

The greatest amount of refraction for reading is a small area located in the very bottom of the lens. And from the description you gave of the position you like to be in when you do your serious reading it is possible the position of the greatest assistance in the lens might not be the most beneficial for you. It probably requires you to be constantly tilting your head back to utilize this small reading area. I get a stiff neck this way.

If this is a problem then you could get a second pair with your reading correction only, this would also make the whole lens available for you when reading in any position. I would also suggest a computer pair with only your intermediate or trifocal correction, a fixed distance equal to the distance from your computer, this would also make the whole lens available for you on the computer instead of tilting your head. It is critical that your computer pair be corrected for UV light transmission.

As special use glasses, they would be single vision lenses and in inexpensive frames they should not cost more than $99 for the pair.

Just trying to be helpful

Starlight's picture


Indeed you have just send my bill to Virgil ;-)


Kyle Peterson's picture

John, the sort of reference Bible you suggest would be optimal but also 2000 pages long. I've looked at interlinear Bibles and they are already quite crammed w/ microscopic text.

This is why the Open Bible Project focuses more on commentary and cross-referencing related passages. There will be some reference to Greek & Hebrew but theologians like Sam have already labored over linguistic and cultural relevance so that we may read succinct and accurate summaries of passages.

The Open Bible will be a great tool, but if you are like me you'll end up having 6 different Bibles - each with something unique to offer.

JohnRiffe's picture

I am looking forward to the New Orthodox Study Bible that is due for delivery early 2008. Its Old Testament is primarily based upon the Greek Old Testament LXX for reasons the Orthodox have always understood: the extant Greek Old Testament manuscripts date to 200BC, that is, about 1,000 years older than the Hebrew Masoretic Old Testament texts, brought forth 2 centuries before anybody had a motive to alter the Bible to counter teachings of Jesus, the Apostles, & the New Testament. The link to this is here:

But if you want a complete, printed, Greek-English INTERLINEAR Bible based entirely upon the Greek Texts, Old and New, there is only one place to go:

FREE Download:

Printed Edition, First (a sure Collectors' item):

Home page

This is the closest thing we have to the Bible that Paul carried on his missionary journeys. This is a great Septuagint LXX Interlinear (Greek-English) with Strong's numbers. Its actually a whole Bible and helps make the connections between Old and New Testaments by their common Greek vocabulary. FREE downloads!

Why Septuagint LXX? Look at this:

Well, below here is the contact info for the interlinear Bible I'm talking about. It is comprised of the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint LXX) mated to the New Testament with the English words below each of the Greek all in a traditional printed Bible format, suitable for taking to church, reading, etc. This is important for me because so much more of the New Testament's citations of the Old are from the Greek Old Testament than any other. And the Hebrew texts of today date back to the 800's AD after having been handled by Christ-spurning Masoretic Rabbinical scholars for the first 800 years of Christ's Gospel era. Even the Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) manuscripts of Hebrew Old Testament texts actually date to the time of Simon Bar Cochba, circa 132AD, granting certainly enough time for the Christ-spurning scholarly community within Judaism to alter Texts in response to Christian preaching. The oldest Greek Old Testament manuscripts date back 1,000 years older to circa 200BC, before anyone had a motive to alter Texts to undercut Jesus & His Gospel message. I say this because the Hebrew Scriptures as we have received them do not support key positions of the Apostles' message. When one looks to today's Hebrew Scriptures to see how the Apostles quoted from them, we find a tortured discrepancy, discrepancy at key points that gut the New Testament's message & credibility. This discrepancy is often cited by followers of Judaism for their rejecting the New Testament as altogether unfaithful to the Bible of the Hebrews. Here is a link and a quote:

The Septuagint in the New Testament

An excerpt: "And even if the Septuagint is thick with mistranslation, its errors are frequently sanctioned by the New Testament. For instance, if the word “virgin (parthenos in Greek)” in Isaiah 7.14 is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word almah, Matthew has given his assent to this error. In fact, those of us who believe the New Testament to be inspired by God are required to believe that many “errors” of the Septuagint are inspired also, because they are incorporated into the New Testament directly. If the errors that are quoted have Divine sanction, on what basis can we reject the errors that are not quoted? Or, consider what we imply if we say that the Masoretic text alone can lay claim to being the genuine Old Testament. The clear implication is that the authors of the New Testament were benighted and, ignorant of the truth, used an inferior text. The theological implications they drew when they quoted from “mistranslations” in the Septuagint should be rejected. Thus, the logical corollaries to the proposition that the Masoretic text alone is worthy to be considered the Old Testament include: Christ was not born of a virgin, the angels do not worship the Son, Christ did not come to restore sight to the blind, the behavior of the Jews was not cause for God’s name to be blasphemed among the Gentiles, etc. In short, we are forced to conclude that the New Testament is not inspired."

JL's picture

Thanks John,

I'll be getting in line for one the day Amazon lets me pre-order.



JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

MiddleKnowledge's picture


I appreciate your plug for the Septuagint. I agree with your comments.

You are aware that the Septuagint chronology in Genesis (if taken literally) shows that Methuselah lived until 17 years after the flood? This proves the flood was local - related to a covenant context.

The translators of the Septuagint could not have believed in a universal flood in Genesis if Methuselah lived before, during, and after Noah's Flood. The Septuagint proves a local flood.


Tim Martin

Starlight's picture

“the extant Greek Old Testament manuscripts date to 200BC, that is, about 1,000 years older than the Hebrew Masoretic Old Testament texts, brought forth 2 centuries before anybody had a motive to alter the Bible to counter teachings of Jesus, the Apostles, & the New Testament.”

Most Christians and most likely many scholars over look the significance of the influence of those who have handed the scriptures down to us. We have trusted those whose motives we should have suspected but didn’t perform due diligence in verification.
It becomes painfully apparent of the problems once we delve into the literature of the time before AD70. My recent sampling of three writings Jubilees, Enoch and Barnabas has been an eye opener to say the least. It’s very easy to see why Enoch and Barnabas were discredited by the Jews and eventually futuristic assuming Christians. It would be very similar today to leaving the dating of Revelation and John’s Gospel and epistles to the dispensationalist. When you read in Enoch the clear teaching of an AD70 New Heavens creation you can see why Jewish influence would work to reduce its influence, especially after its history of acceptance by the early Christians. Makes you wonder why early Christians were so enamored with it?

Many Christians think that fallible men were spirit inspired in sorting out the literature and deciding what writings were authentic. Of course this is interesting that Preterist who disbelieve that there was any spiritual guidance after AD70 would also fall in line with this blind allegiance as well. It just goes to show how susceptible we are still to traditions of men.

I’ll quote a few of my favorite potential paradigm changing excerpts from these writings.

Jubilees 4:24…And on account of it (God) brought the waters of the flood upon all the land of Eden;

(Jubilees was a very popular Jewish writing which I personally cast as a commentary upon Genesis and Exodus, it was believed to have been written around 200-100 BC.)
Kind of interesting don’t you think that the Jews would author this description of the flood especially since they had never heard of Tim Martin ;-)

Jubilees 4:29…thereof, Adam died, ……And he lacked seventy years of one thousand years; FOR ONE THOUSAND YEARS ARE AS ONE DAY IN THE TESTIMONY OF THE HEAVENS and therefore was it written concerning the tree of knowledge: On the day that ye eat therof ye shall die.’ For this reason he did not complete the years of this day; for he died during it.

Enoch 10:10….for length of days shall they not have. ……for they hope to live an eternal life, and that each one of them will live five hundred years.

Enoch The Last Three Weeks :
There shall be the great eternal judgement,
In which He will execute vengeance amongst the angels.

And after that there will be many weeks without number for ever,
And all shall be in goodness and righteousness,
And sin shall no more be mentioned for ever.

This is just a couple of tidbits from Enoch; you can easily see why the Jews would not want Enoch in the accepted writings. It would be a bitter reminder of the fulfillment of AD70. Christians fell in line with the Jews just blindly accepting their rationale thinking the Jews must be the experts.

Barnabas 4:3 The last offence is at hand, concerning which the scripture speaketh, as Enoch saith. For to this end the Master hath cut the seasons and the days short, that His beloved might hasten and come to His inheritance.
4:9…Wherfore let us take heed in these last days. For the whole time of our faith shall profit us nothing, unless we now, in the season of lawlessness and in the offenses that shall be, as becometh sons of God…
6:13 Again I will shew thee how the Lord speaketh concerning us. He made a second creation at the last; and the Lord saith; Behold I make the last things as the first.


watton's picture

I too look forward to the complete Orthodox Study Bible. It has been a long wait! I question you on this quote: "Even the Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) manuscripts of Hebrew Old Testament texts actually date to the time of Simon Bar Cochba, circa 132AD". I have read much on the Scrolls and have only seen dates that are pre AD 70 mentioned. I am tempted now to refresh my memory by checking the most reliable source of information on the internet: Wikipedia!


JL's picture


I've heard that the Dead Sea Scrolls generally agree with the LXX and differ with the Masoretic in those places where they differ. Here's an interesting link.




JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Recent comments


Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
No only registered users should comment
What are you talking about?
Total votes: 43