I don’t understand. We obviously haven’t found, for example, the original letters Paul wrote. And I don’t know how we would know they’re original even if we did find them. Are we expecting them to have an annotation on the page saying so? What standard are you comparing to when you say something is “original”? Of course we want the original and inspired, but God in his providence hasn’t given us the autographs. Wouldn’t the oldest manuscripts we can find be the next best thing?
@@jarrodmurdock5689 again as has been stated before in different ways, I'll ask of you; who is looking for what Paul gave the Church in the form of epistles? Is the Scripture lost? I would think what he means by 'original' is the Church has a body of original manuscript evidence, that Christians have said and believed in epochs past up to now is God's word, they believe God has inspired the Scriptures and passed that inspiration to copies through a faithful preservation., BY God's providence. Where does Scripture claim we have to have the autographs? Do you need the Scripture sent to you? Because I have both Old and New Testaments. What do you have? Who said we must have an older rendering to know the Scripture? Your claims of older is better is based on what authority?
I am sympathetic to this position, but not fully convinced. I asked you previously about the looming question, "Which TR?" You pointed me to your website, and I looked around the website but could not find anything that clearly dealt with this question. Did miss it? Personally, I think it's a huge question. If the idea is that the Greek text has been perfectly preserved, and there are multiple, varying revisions of the TR, then in which one is the Greek text perfectly preserved, and upon what reasoning can we base that conclusion? In short, what is THE perfectly preserved Greek text? Where is it and how can we know that's the one?
I like commonly received as in the 39 Articles of Religion, All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.
I agree. "Received Text" is how I prefer to refer it to, and "Received Text advocate" might be the most accurate description of those of us who support the TR and MT. I'm surprised he didn't mention it.
@@CAHiredGun A council of Carthage mentioned it in 419 against a bishop of Rome. Canon 24 Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.
Taylor, I don't want to steal your thunder in upcoming episodes, but I wonder if you might deal briefly with the criticism that the KJV has had several editions and some have also said to me that the TR has been changed too. I can't find the historical evidence for these claims and would appreciate your input.
What do you think about the MEV ? It says it’s translated from the textus receptus. If so I think I’m okay with it. Is that accurate? Thanks for your help !!!
The MEV has a copyright in 2014. The question you have to ask is "how did this bible qualify for a copyright"? The answer to that question opens a can of worms.
I will listen to these vids soon but if you want to hear a story about how I, a regular Christian who was entirely against your position in every way, was completely convinced to confessional bibliology, hit me up. Thank you for the videos. Another video of yours on the Comma (I think it was) awhile back put me down this blessed rabbit hole originally!
@@theyoungtextlessandreforme7113 I’d happily tell it! It is a tad on the longer side, but I’d love to text, message, video chat, etc. I can even give a breakdown of the exact moment it all clicked and how/why it took a couple of years for me to agree with it. To be honest though, I do not know how YT works all that well, or if/how to message you privately. Or I can add you on FB and message, text, FaceTime, whatever works.
most people on the planet can't read the received text, Don't get me wrong I believe in the received text but I say that it has been preserved in the KJB the most read book on the planet!
15:00 I prefer "Bible believer" over KJV ONLY but I admit around the general population, agnostics and such I still coin KJV ONLY from time to time, although I agree it has indeed been weaponized against us we shouldn't fear their manipulation and should firmly stand by what it actually means. A perfect and preserved bible.
With respect, I can’t take your criticism of “unhelpful labels” seriously. You complain that “KJV Only” is a misleading smear term, yet you have another video where you spend 40 minutes calling everyone who disagrees with you on this matter “textual atheists.” Is that not a charged term?
Textual athiest refers to people who do not believe The Bible exists today and is available as written. I believe I make that clear that that is who I am referring to.
I also never said I was against "Charged terms". I am against inaccurate terms such as "KJV Onlyist" being applied to everybody who doesn't read the Critical Text .
@@theyoungtextlessandreforme7113 In your view, do people that “do not believe The Bible exists today and is available as written” include people who believe critical text Bibles (ESV, NASB, etc.) are the Word of God?
I agree the terms KJV only and such aren't accurate but I would argue that when a "KJV onliest" says KJV ONLY what they really mean is that they believe in a perfect and preserved bible that happens to be the King James Bible. We're not kjv only simply to be kjv only.
8:00 hits right on the money. There is ONLY one true God, yet many false gods, so why would it be wrong to teach that there is ONLY one true Bible, yet many false "bibles"?
we should warn people that a High Church view of scripture is Catholic with man as authority, We should instead read what scripture says about itself/man and show how the received text is the High Scripture view that show God is the Authority and has used faithful men to see the scripture and corruption as it has been/being preserved throughout history.
I love your teachings but you also seem very very closed off to others in a sense you make them seem crazy. God is the one who reveals the late to us. And some people do get some things wrong. We actually all do. But People will know we are Christian’s by our love. We should patient and kind. You tend to be harsh and it will lead people away from truth even though you may be right. And again I affirm much of what you say it’s just you gotta say things more graciously and gently in a sense.
Thanks for the comment. Respectfully, I disagree. I do not believe we need to argue like a mother. That is why the church gave the Bible away to the world. We need to argue like men, and not be afraid to argue like Elijah, mocking the false prophets.
@@theyoungtextlessandreforme7113 I agree with you in a sense but there’s time and place lol. Anyways really good content. I have come to believe the textus receptus is the best translation and we should be using. Videos extremely helpful. It’s a little uncomfortable but my friends hear me talk about and they are as shocked as I am about the CT side lol
![[#SHORTS CLIP] ครูอึ้ง กรรมการอึ้ง ฮ่าๆ l ซานิเบาได้เบา l One Playground](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qeBTuMJs4t0/mqdefault.jpg)
"We care about original and inspired, not earliest and best". (43:30 min)
Spot on old son. You hit the bullseye!
I don’t understand. We obviously haven’t found, for example, the original letters Paul wrote. And I don’t know how we would know they’re original even if we did find them. Are we expecting them to have an annotation on the page saying so? What standard are you comparing to when you say something is “original”?
Of course we want the original and inspired, but God in his providence hasn’t given us the autographs. Wouldn’t the oldest manuscripts we can find be the next best thing?
@@jarrodmurdock5689 again as has been stated before in different ways, I'll ask of you; who is looking for what Paul gave the Church in the form of epistles? Is the Scripture lost? I would think what he means by 'original' is the Church has a body of original manuscript evidence, that Christians have said and believed in epochs past up to now is God's word, they believe God has inspired the Scriptures and passed that inspiration to copies through a faithful preservation., BY God's providence. Where does Scripture claim we have to have the autographs? Do you need the Scripture sent to you? Because I have both Old and New Testaments. What do you have? Who said we must have an older rendering to know the Scripture? Your claims of older is better is based on what authority?
I like the title because it says "Part I"... that means that there is a part II hehe
Another valuable and resourceful video on a subject riddled with misconceptions, emotions, and bias.
Love your work!
THIS is an EXCELLENT study! So clear, so powerful, so faith-building. Thank you!
I am sympathetic to this position, but not fully convinced. I asked you previously about the looming question, "Which TR?" You pointed me to your website, and I looked around the website but could not find anything that clearly dealt with this question. Did miss it?
Personally, I think it's a huge question. If the idea is that the Greek text has been perfectly preserved, and there are multiple, varying revisions of the TR, then in which one is the Greek text perfectly preserved, and upon what reasoning can we base that conclusion? In short, what is THE perfectly preserved Greek text? Where is it and how can we know that's the one?
Ahhh...another of Mark Ward's dummy pseudonym accounts. You know, Mark, your style is really much too obvious.
@@Benjamin-bq7tc You are bearing false witness right now. You should know that's a sin.
@@sorenpx Apparently you don't even know what bearing false witness is, Mark.
I like commonly received as in the 39 Articles of Religion, All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.
I agree. "Received Text" is how I prefer to refer it to, and "Received Text advocate" might be the most accurate description of those of us who support the TR and MT. I'm surprised he didn't mention it.
@@CAHiredGun "surprised he didn't mention it"... Maybe because it's Part 1.
@@CAHiredGun A council of Carthage mentioned it in 419 against a bishop of Rome. Canon 24 Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.
@@jamessheffield4173 Thank you for the insight!
@@CAHiredGun Welcome. Pax.
Taylor, I don't want to steal your thunder in upcoming episodes, but I wonder if you might deal briefly with the criticism that the KJV has had several editions and some have also said to me that the TR has been changed too. I can't find the historical evidence for these claims and would appreciate your input.
I can deal with this in the translations episode
What do you think about the MEV ? It says it’s translated from the textus receptus. If so I think I’m okay with it. Is that accurate? Thanks for your help !!!
The MEV has a copyright in 2014. The question you have to ask is "how did this bible qualify for a copyright"? The answer to that question opens a can of worms.
I will listen to these vids soon but if you want to hear a story about how I, a regular Christian who was entirely against your position in every way, was completely convinced to confessional bibliology, hit me up. Thank you for the videos. Another video of yours on the Comma (I think it was) awhile back put me down this blessed rabbit hole originally!
I'd love to hear your story!
@@theyoungtextlessandreforme7113 I’d happily tell it! It is a tad on the longer side, but I’d love to text, message, video chat, etc. I can even give a breakdown of the exact moment it all clicked and how/why it took a couple of years for me to agree with it.
To be honest though, I do not know how YT works all that well, or if/how to message you privately. Or I can add you on FB and message, text, FaceTime, whatever works.
@@WTR91 My email is taylordesoto@protonmail.com if you want to start there!
I'm for the received text, just not KJVO
most people on the planet can't read the received text, Don't get me wrong I believe in the received text but I say that it has been preserved in the KJB the most read book on the planet!
So, what translation would you consider is correct when it disagrees in translation with the KJV?
Full proof
15:00 I prefer "Bible believer" over KJV ONLY but I admit around the general population, agnostics and such I still coin KJV ONLY from time to time, although I agree it has indeed been weaponized against us we shouldn't fear their manipulation and should firmly stand by what it actually means.
A perfect and preserved bible.
With respect, I can’t take your criticism of “unhelpful labels” seriously. You complain that “KJV Only” is a misleading smear term, yet you have another video where you spend 40 minutes calling everyone who disagrees with you on this matter “textual atheists.” Is that not a charged term?
Textual athiest refers to people who do not believe The Bible exists today and is available as written. I believe I make that clear that that is who I am referring to.
I also never said I was against "Charged terms". I am against inaccurate terms such as "KJV Onlyist" being applied to everybody who doesn't read the Critical Text
.
@@theyoungtextlessandreforme7113 In your view, do people that “do not believe The Bible exists today and is available as written” include people who believe critical text Bibles (ESV, NASB, etc.) are the Word of God?
@@jarrodmurdock5689 Where there is disagreement between the NASB and ESV (for example Gen 3:16) which one do you feel is the authority?
I agree the terms KJV only and such aren't accurate but I would argue that when a "KJV onliest" says KJV ONLY what they really mean is that they believe in a perfect and preserved bible that happens to be the King James Bible.
We're not kjv only simply to be kjv only.
8:00 hits right on the money.
There is ONLY one true God, yet many false gods, so why would it be wrong to teach that there is ONLY one true Bible, yet many false "bibles"?
we should warn people that a High Church view of scripture is Catholic with man as authority, We should instead read what scripture says about itself/man and show how the received text is the High Scripture view that show God is the Authority and has used faithful men to see the scripture and corruption as it has been/being preserved throughout history.
I love your teachings but you also seem very very closed off to others in a sense you make them seem crazy. God is the one who reveals the late to us. And some people do get some things wrong. We actually all do. But People will know we are Christian’s by our love. We should patient and kind. You tend to be harsh and it will lead people away from truth even though you may be right. And again I affirm much of what you say it’s just you gotta say things more graciously and gently in a sense.
Thanks for the comment. Respectfully, I disagree. I do not believe we need to argue like a mother. That is why the church gave the Bible away to the world. We need to argue like men, and not be afraid to argue like Elijah, mocking the false prophets.
@@theyoungtextlessandreforme7113 I agree with you in a sense but there’s time and place lol. Anyways really good content. I have come to believe the textus receptus is the best translation and we should be using. Videos extremely helpful. It’s a little uncomfortable but my friends hear me talk about and they are as shocked as I am about the CT side lol