I used my NAS for years! But now after much study, I have come to realize that I bought the critical text from 'scholars' that I knew personally. I then came to another conclusion and found several of these scholars don't even believe we have Jesus' words in the gospels! I will stick with the KJV from now on and trust that we DO have God's very words.
One crucial point that I wish you would have added to your helpful presentation, is that the vast majority of differences in the Majority text (consistently assessed above the 90th percentile) are simply spelling errors.
Thanks for sharing your insights into the Byzantine Textus Receptus manuscripts. I grew up on the KJV bible and have since picked up several translations based on the Alexandrian text but lean toward the TR when in doubt.
Your bias is very obvious in this. I was hoping for a good neutral standpoint based on the title in which we talk facts and not opinions. Obviously I think both majority and critical texts have value and we can learn from both.
Thanks for sharing in an honest way. It should be noted that the French Louis Second is based on the critical text though. In French, we have the Martin, Ostervald that follow the Textus Receptus.
Excellent Video. I personally prefer the Majority Text over the Critical Text myself. I still use the ESV knowing that it is a conservative revision of the RSV, but that's because I have the ESV Study Bible and Concordia's Lutheran Study Bible (NOT the Augsburg Fortress One - smile - ) on my bookshelf. As you may remember, the KJV is my favorite English Translation, but I do like the New King James also. I like that the textual notes tell the reader what is in the Majority Text and what is in the "NU" text (Nestle-Aland and United Bible Society Greek texts). The ESV takes out traditional readings whereas the NKJV keeps the traditional English reading in, even 1 John 5:7 which I believe is too late to have been in the original autographs. So, even though I like the way the ESV reads, I use the KJV and NKJV as my "tag team champions" (smile).
What I love about both texts, is there is no other Lord's day than the sanctified holy Sabbath. It's as if the word, " holy", is a foreign language to the vast majority of professing Christianity. It's not rocket science. Is God not holy?
My question would be, if the Alexandrian texts are older and more reliable as the Word of God, then why don't all of these new translations include the complete texts the claim to be more reliable, which would add all the apocrypha, the "The Shepherd of Hermas", "The Epistle of Barnabas",Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Maccabbees 1&2. Or is it filled with non inspired words?
Excellent and so true. We as Bible believing Christians have to stand for the Authorized King James Bible for the English-speaking people and the traditional, Byzantine, majority text Bibles in the other languages especially during these last days for Christ!
Pastor Waldron I have seen elsewhere on TH-cam this - the early church pastors and teachers, as in the 2nd-4th centuries AD (after the apostles) overwhelmingly (as in 80%+) used a byzantine text. If this is true, it would seem to me that the argument is over at that point - the byzantine was used by the early church pastors and teachers, there is no reason to consider any other text type today regardless of how old the new manuscripts may or may not be.
Just to be clear that when he says that "you have to put them in the context of real Bible understanding and inspiration", he actually means compare every manuscript to his favourite Bible version.This applies to Byzantine text type manuscripts, but especially to Alexandrian text type manuscripts.Everything else should always be compared to the KJV, and not the other way around.Some people are sadly paralyzed in their reasoning, and they proudly wear ignorance as a badge of distinction.
Why would anyone want to use the Alexandrian manuscripts if they can't agree with one another? Is there more to the story or are they just blantly refusing to accept the KJV?
There's more to the story. As this gentleman points out, there's no 2 manuscripts that are exactly alike. He then, for some reason I cannot begin to understand, groups the Byzantine text and the "Western and Caesarean texts" together into the same group as all being basically the same. The Western text is very different from the Byzantine, so it's pretty misleading to say "pretty much all manuscripts say this except only the Alexandrian copies..." The differences between the two major codices are significant, no getting around that, but not every single difference is meaningful, many of them can't even be translated. And the reason scholars continue to hold those manuscripts in high esteem is because of the discovery of the papyri - fragmentary manuscripts from the 3rd-4th centuries, a few even reaching back to the 2nd, which confirm many of the readings in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, so there's a lot more significant agreement between Alexandrian witnesses than he would lead one to believe. And lastly, his thing about Erasmus refusing to use anything from the Vatican is complete horse crap. Erasmus was a CATHOLIC PRIEST. He dedicated his first edition of the text to the POPE. I can't begin to express how MORONIC it is to say Erasmus had a prejudice against Rome!! What *actually* happened, as we can tell from Erasmus's personal correspondences with Bombasius, is that he requested Bombasius consult Vaticanus on his behalf because he *wanted* to know what the text said. I'd be weary to take anything a KJV Only person says about Alexandrian manuscripts too seriously. There's an unprecedented prejudice in the camp against anything that might prove that the KJV isn't 100% perfect in every respect.
Connor Ham Because of the many words confidently declared fraudulent by the modern critics and therefore left out of the new versions, it is important to consider at the outset whether the judgment of the critics is valid. Their argument is that the manuscripts nearest to the originals are more apt to be pure, just as the stream nearest to the source is apt to be most pure. When all pertinent facts are known, this proves to be untrue (if it is the Scriptures that are in view). Historical facts prove it untrue, since parties on both sides agree that some of the most vicious tampering with the biblical text occurred in the first three centuries after they were written. The proposition is also without force because (contrary to the critics' assumption), the Scriptures are not like any other book. They are Divine! Even before the NT was complete the apostles Paul and John warned that ravening wolves and antichrists would mount fierce opposition to the Word of Truth. Dean John W. Burgon illustrates the difficulty by comparing a scrap of a manuscript containing Mark 10:17-31 found in the study of Clement of Alexandria (150 - c. 215 AD.) with the Traditional Text, and also with the Westcott/Hort Greek. Burgon demonstrated that in 15 verses of Mark, within the 297 words in Clement's scrap containing Mark 10:17-31, if compared to the Received Text, 39 words were omitted; 11 added; 22, substituted; 27, transposed; 13, varied; and a phrase altered at least 8 times. He concluded this was a 38 % error rate . When one objected to a comparison with the Received Text, Burgon then demonstrated that within these same 15 verses: Clement's text compared to the Westcott and Hort 'text was found to have omitted 44 of the words Westcott/Hort chose as virtually being the original God-breathed words, 13 words were added; 23, substituted; 34 transposed; and 16 varied - an error rate of 44%! Burgon concludes: "It is impossible to produce a fouler exhibition of St. Mark 10-17-31 than is contained in a document full two centuries older than either Codex B or Aleph." And Clement is one of the most famous of the early fathers, the personal instructor of the even more famous Origen. So much for the idea that the extant manuscripts are purer because they were executed closer to the originals. Clement's scrap from Mark no doubt was executed no more than fifty years after the death of John, and the closing of the NT canon. In that same second century one Caius wrote an accusation against his peers for putting out manuscripts which differed considerably from the manuscripts they were supposed to be copying, saying that when confronted with the originals, they could not deny their guilt.
@@JesusIsLord-sp9tu My argument wasn't simply that "older manuscripts must be purer than younger ones." Just like we can't say "manuscripts closer to the geographic region where they were originally written are purer than manuscripts found in Egypt." Both of those would be silly things to say because it's entirely plausible that an early manuscript could be mistaken in any given place, or that a manuscript from the same region as the autograph could have an error in any given place. However, it is not irrelevant than the papyri and the oldest codices agree significantly in readings that also have higher intrinsic probability, such as shorter readings, and readings which are more difficult to explain. But regardless, I can respect someone's position if they think, like Robinson for example, that the Majority Text is superior because it's statistically more probable for the correct reading to persevere in the majority, or something like that. Fine. We can agree to disagree on the specific theories of scribal practices, the merits of church father quotations and ancient versions, the canons of textual criticism, etc. In either case, our texts are going to be very similar. I like how Dr. Ron Milton put it: “A small portion, perhaps 8%, of these two text-types actually differ and less than one percent of the Greek New Testament is significantly different. If the two major differences (John 7:53-8:11 and Mark 16:9-20) are not considered, the significant difference is very small - only about one thousandth of the total.” (The Making and Preservation of the Bible, p. 176.) What concerns me, and what I would think it's worthwhile to debate as Christians, is whether or not the critical editions and the translations based on them are *bad* or *evil*. Because that's a much more severe accusation than simply believing they're based on inferior manuscripts. From my perspective, the KJV is based on inferior manuscripts, but I'd never say it was bad or evil. God uses many different English translations to reveal himself and to edify his church.
Connor Ham I know, I was just mentioning a basic fact about those texts. And I absolutely agree! It’s my belief that the texts used for modern versions are inferior to the Received Text, but I still believe that Christians who read an NIV, ESV, NASB, etc. have God’s Word. That’s where I draw the line with KJV Onlyists. They claim the the new versions are satanic alterations of God’s Word (for them, the KJV). It’s honestly ridiculous
Not aimed at you pastor....we disagree on a lot, but I respect you nonetheless....anyway...all one needs to do to find the finest Bible scholars on earth is to pull up TH-cam. Never have so few regurgitated "scholarly" pre-scripted phrases been uttered by so many in one venue. I wish I could be an expert like everyone else here. 😞😂
@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa Thankyou. Your video helped simplify this subject for me as Ive been watching videos on this subject. Something that is confusing is that Textus Receptus is known as the majority text(roughly) but then Im hearing that most scholars use the critical text because they have the most manuscripts to study.
How do we know what versions are Alexandrian or Byzantine? I know KJ version is of from Textus Receptus so that would be of the Byzantine but what about the NAS, etc
Most translations are the critical text which is ultra-eclectic. The TR is “ from” the majority-Byzantine family but it is a “ specific “ selection of those manuscripts. I believe God preserved HIS word within the majority-Byzantine family , not the modern CT one.
@@Kenneth-nVA Thankyou. Do you know if scholars who study textual criticism use Byzantine texts or do the just stick with the newer manuscripts of the Alexandrian type? I know it's called critical text but wasn't sure if they used all available texts or just the newer ones
@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa wow I’d say that’s pretty significant. I read several translations. I feel I get a better angle on the text. I like to know what all ancient manuscripts say.
εὐαγγέλιον euangélion Ministry kjv is God’s word preserved are you calling God a liar? That he didn’t preserve his word? It’s definitely not preserved in modern translations
εὐαγγέλιον euangélion Ministry Alexandrian church father in the early third century, said: "...the differences among the manuscripts [of the Gospels] have become great,either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they lengthen or shorten, as they please." Irenaeus in the 2nd century, though not in Alexandria, made a similar admission on the state of corruption among New Testament manuscripts. Daniel B. Wallace says, "Revelation was copied less often than any other book of the NT, and yet Irenaeus admits that it was already corrupted-within just a few decades of the writing of the Apocalypse" The fact that churches outside of Egypt used a non-Alexandrian text as early as in the 3rd century should caution us from equating "the earliest extant Alexandrian text" with "the earliest text of the New Testament", especially since Origen testified that Alexandrian manuscripts were already corrupt by the 3rd century. The only conclusion that we can logically make from the evidence of Alexandrian manuscripts is that the Alexandrian church in Egypt used the Alexandrian text-type. There is not a shred of manuscript evidence that churches elsewhere used the Alexandrian text-type. The one manuscript from outside of Egypt prior to the 5th century (Codex 0212) proves the contrary. If critics wish to establish that the Byzantine text-type supplanted the Alexandrian text-type after the 5th century, the burden of proof is on these critics to prove that the Alexandrian text-type was ever considered the standard text prior to the 5th century in the regions where the Byzantine text-type was used. This has never been proven.
εὐαγγέλιον euangélion Ministry the other translations are laughable and all the information you need is on the internet but you want me to sit here and type it all... why!??!!? I don’t have time to explain to every single person I’ve already done that then you people just go silent go study for yourself
εὐαγγέλιον euangélion Ministry what happens when I answer it? Huh? You go silent not even a ty . I’ve seen it over and over again. Take yourself to google or TH-cam type in kjv vs NIV kjv vs ESV and start there I could tell you two things right now about the NIV changing verses about the number of Solomon’s horses soldiers and chariots because they couldn’t understand the kjv had it right the first time you lose horses and men in battle so they had teams of horses and men the numbers are correct but NIV changed it because they’re stupid and deceived or how about the ESV “I can do all thing through -him- that gives me strength vs Kjv “I can do all things through CHRIST that strengthens me.” Now goto google and get busy studying I’m putting you on mute now because you have a dumb deaf spirit attached to you Amen
Sorry....can't help myself...I feel like I'm in the presence of Mr know-it-all himself James White reading these comments. Only catch phrase of his I haven't seen here (yet) is "vaaaaaast majority". 😂
The man began by lying when he said that the "textus receptus" is another term for the majority text or the Byzantine type manuscripts.If you are going to be a "KJV onlyist", at least be an honest one.I know that if any KJV onlyist were to apply honesty, they would cease to be KJV onlyists because any honest and objective examination of the facts would end up destroying KJV onlyism.
That wasn't dishonesty, still less 'lying'. The Pastor was trying to make this video concise and honestly told us that there were a few minor differences between the terms 'Byzantine', 'Majority' and 'Received' Texts. I enjoyed this video, all the better for being short and to the point. YES, the Alexandrian texts ARE all over the place and contradictory. God faithfully preserved His Words for us, but then along came Griesbach, Westcott and Hort, Satan's minions, to try and make us think: "Did God really say?" Thank you very much, Pastor, for such a clear presentation of the main issue of 'which text?'
@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa since the alexandrian texts were before the TR, and we are discussing a small portion of text, is it just possible that the words were not omitted by alexanderian texts but added later? because the KJV is not the standard but what the author's wrote as moved by the Spirit. the autographs are the standard not what scribes added
@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa cleveland cannot know that. logically where are the mss that that show it was deleted? more likely words were added so as not to leave notes out that had been written in margins. we know that because that is how 1 john 5:7 got into the text
![🎤 จับฉลากร้องเพลง x P’ #XXSIVK [EP.1] (2/2) เพื่อนจับได้คำไหน..ต้องร้องคำนั้น เริ่ม! 💓🎶 #MXFRUIT](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1bJvMJXmeS4/mqdefault.jpg)
![POLYCAT - ข้อความรูปยิ้ม [Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lBhIgPGCgbI/mqdefault.jpg)
I used my NAS for years! But now after much study, I have come to realize that I bought the critical text from 'scholars' that I knew personally. I then came to another conclusion and found several of these scholars don't even believe we have Jesus' words in the gospels! I will stick with the KJV from now on and trust that we DO have God's very words.
Amen!
@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa I just received the new NAS 2020 today, and I must say they should have kept the old one!
2 different streams of Bible texts. The Byzantine Text seems to be the original text. See works by Burgon and Hills among many others. God bless!
One crucial point that I wish you would have added to your helpful presentation, is that the vast majority of differences in the Majority text (consistently assessed above the 90th percentile) are simply spelling errors.
Don't forget word order
“Yea hath God said?”
Thanks for sharing your insights into the Byzantine Textus Receptus manuscripts. I grew up on the KJV bible and have since picked up several translations based on the Alexandrian text but lean toward the TR when in doubt.
Thanks for sharing!
Thank you, have been doing a little research lately and this was helpful.
Amen!
In the Alexandrian bibles they blatantly removed scriptures which is a big no no.
th-cam.com/video/WGGmH0KzScY/w-d-xo.html
It could be argued that the Texas receptus/ majority text adds scripture
Your bias is very obvious in this. I was hoping for a good neutral standpoint based on the title in which we talk facts and not opinions. Obviously I think both majority and critical texts have value and we can learn from both.
Thanks for sharing in an honest way. It should be noted that the French Louis Second is based on the critical text though. In French, we have the Martin, Ostervald that follow the Textus Receptus.
Thank you!
Excellent Video. I personally prefer the Majority Text over the Critical Text myself. I still use the ESV knowing that it is a conservative revision of the RSV, but that's because I have the ESV Study Bible and Concordia's Lutheran Study Bible (NOT the Augsburg Fortress One - smile - ) on my bookshelf. As you may remember, the KJV is my favorite English Translation, but I do like the New King James also. I like that the textual notes tell the reader what is in the Majority Text and what is in the "NU" text (Nestle-Aland and United Bible Society Greek texts). The ESV takes out traditional readings whereas the NKJV keeps the traditional English reading in, even 1 John 5:7 which I believe is too late to have been in the original autographs. So, even though I like the way the ESV reads, I use the KJV and NKJV as my "tag team champions" (smile).
Amen!
That makes you the final AUTHORITY.
What I love about both texts, is there is no other Lord's day than the sanctified holy Sabbath.
It's as if the word, " holy", is a foreign language to the vast majority of professing Christianity. It's not rocket science. Is God not holy?
My question would be, if the Alexandrian texts are older and more reliable as the Word of God, then why don't all of these new translations include the complete texts the claim to be more reliable, which would add all the apocrypha, the "The Shepherd of Hermas", "The Epistle of Barnabas",Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Maccabbees 1&2. Or is it filled with non inspired words?
Excellent and so true. We as Bible believing Christians have to stand for the Authorized King James Bible for the English-speaking people and the traditional, Byzantine, majority text Bibles in the other languages especially during these last days for Christ!
Amen!
Good information of factual evidence
Thanks and welcome
(112) Why Do the KJV, ESV, & NIV Differ in the Second Commandment? - TH-cam
Pastor Waldron I have seen elsewhere on TH-cam this - the early church pastors and teachers, as in the 2nd-4th centuries AD (after the apostles) overwhelmingly (as in 80%+) used a byzantine text. If this is true, it would seem to me that the argument is over at that point - the byzantine was used by the early church pastors and teachers, there is no reason to consider any other text type today regardless of how old the new manuscripts may or may not be.
Seems to be true.
Amen, thank you. I am praying for your video ministry brother.
@@RoastBeefSandwich if u are going to advertise food, please send me a samwich
Just to be clear that when he says that "you have to put them in the context of real Bible understanding and inspiration", he actually means compare every manuscript to his favourite Bible version.This applies to Byzantine text type manuscripts, but especially to Alexandrian text type manuscripts.Everything else should always be compared to the KJV, and not the other way around.Some people are sadly paralyzed in their reasoning, and they proudly wear ignorance as a badge of distinction.
You have no idea what your talking about friend.
@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa do u realize that the TR was back translated in @1633 from the KJV into greek?
Satan sowing his tares, yes.
Amen!
th-cam.com/video/WGGmH0KzScY/w-d-xo.html
Good video, the codex Sinaiticus being found in the trash is actually a myth though. James White covers this in detail.
Read David Daniels. He has the most comprehensive look from history at its discovery in a succinct form.
Why would anyone want to use the Alexandrian manuscripts if they can't agree with one another? Is there more to the story or are they just blantly refusing to accept the KJV?
There's more to the story. As this gentleman points out, there's no 2 manuscripts that are exactly alike. He then, for some reason I cannot begin to understand, groups the Byzantine text and the "Western and Caesarean texts" together into the same group as all being basically the same. The Western text is very different from the Byzantine, so it's pretty misleading to say "pretty much all manuscripts say this except only the Alexandrian copies..." The differences between the two major codices are significant, no getting around that, but not every single difference is meaningful, many of them can't even be translated. And the reason scholars continue to hold those manuscripts in high esteem is because of the discovery of the papyri - fragmentary manuscripts from the 3rd-4th centuries, a few even reaching back to the 2nd, which confirm many of the readings in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, so there's a lot more significant agreement between Alexandrian witnesses than he would lead one to believe. And lastly, his thing about Erasmus refusing to use anything from the Vatican is complete horse crap. Erasmus was a CATHOLIC PRIEST. He dedicated his first edition of the text to the POPE. I can't begin to express how MORONIC it is to say Erasmus had a prejudice against Rome!! What *actually* happened, as we can tell from Erasmus's personal correspondences with Bombasius, is that he requested Bombasius consult Vaticanus on his behalf because he *wanted* to know what the text said.
I'd be weary to take anything a KJV Only person says about Alexandrian manuscripts too seriously. There's an unprecedented prejudice in the camp against anything that might prove that the KJV isn't 100% perfect in every respect.
Connor Ham thewildejournal.wordpress.com/2019/01/04/why-we-should-use-the-textus-receptus-rather-than-the-nestles-text/
Connor Ham Because of the many words confidently declared fraudulent by the modern critics and therefore left out of the new versions, it is important to consider at the outset whether the judgment of the critics is valid. Their argument is that the manuscripts nearest to the originals are more apt to be pure, just as the stream nearest to the source is apt to be most pure. When all pertinent facts are known, this proves to be untrue (if it is the Scriptures that are in view). Historical facts prove it untrue, since parties on both sides agree that some of the most vicious tampering with the biblical text occurred in the first three centuries after they were written. The proposition is also without force because (contrary to the critics' assumption), the Scriptures are not like any other book. They are Divine! Even before the NT was complete the apostles Paul and John warned that ravening wolves and antichrists would mount fierce opposition to the Word of Truth.
Dean John W. Burgon illustrates the difficulty by comparing a scrap of a manuscript containing Mark 10:17-31 found in the study of Clement of Alexandria (150 - c. 215 AD.) with the Traditional Text, and also with the Westcott/Hort Greek. Burgon demonstrated that in 15 verses of Mark, within the 297 words in Clement's scrap containing Mark 10:17-31, if compared to the Received Text, 39 words were omitted; 11 added; 22, substituted; 27, transposed; 13, varied; and a phrase altered at least 8 times. He concluded this was a 38 % error rate . When one objected to a comparison with the Received Text, Burgon then demonstrated that within these same 15 verses: Clement's text compared to the Westcott and Hort 'text was found to have omitted 44 of the words Westcott/Hort chose as virtually being the original God-breathed words, 13 words were added; 23, substituted; 34 transposed; and 16 varied - an error rate of 44%! Burgon concludes: "It is impossible to produce a fouler exhibition of St. Mark 10-17-31 than is contained in a document full two centuries older than either Codex B or Aleph." And Clement is one of the most famous of the early fathers, the personal instructor of the even more famous Origen.
So much for the idea that the extant manuscripts are purer because they were executed closer to the originals. Clement's scrap from Mark no doubt was executed no more than fifty years after the death of John, and the closing of the NT canon. In that same second century one Caius wrote an accusation against his peers for putting out manuscripts which differed considerably from the manuscripts they were supposed to be copying, saying that when confronted with the originals, they could not deny their guilt.
@@JesusIsLord-sp9tu My argument wasn't simply that "older manuscripts must be purer than younger ones." Just like we can't say "manuscripts closer to the geographic region where they were originally written are purer than manuscripts found in Egypt." Both of those would be silly things to say because it's entirely plausible that an early manuscript could be mistaken in any given place, or that a manuscript from the same region as the autograph could have an error in any given place. However, it is not irrelevant than the papyri and the oldest codices agree significantly in readings that also have higher intrinsic probability, such as shorter readings, and readings which are more difficult to explain. But regardless, I can respect someone's position if they think, like Robinson for example, that the Majority Text is superior because it's statistically more probable for the correct reading to persevere in the majority, or something like that. Fine. We can agree to disagree on the specific theories of scribal practices, the merits of church father quotations and ancient versions, the canons of textual criticism, etc. In either case, our texts are going to be very similar. I like how Dr. Ron Milton put it: “A small portion, perhaps 8%, of these two text-types actually differ and less than one percent of the Greek New Testament is significantly different. If the two major differences (John 7:53-8:11 and Mark 16:9-20) are not considered, the significant difference is very small - only about one thousandth of the total.”
(The Making and Preservation of the Bible, p. 176.)
What concerns me, and what I would think it's worthwhile to debate as Christians, is whether or not the critical editions and the translations based on them are *bad* or *evil*. Because that's a much more severe accusation than simply believing they're based on inferior manuscripts. From my perspective, the KJV is based on inferior manuscripts, but I'd never say it was bad or evil. God uses many different English translations to reveal himself and to edify his church.
Connor Ham I know, I was just mentioning a basic fact about those texts. And I absolutely agree! It’s my belief that the texts used for modern versions are inferior to the Received Text, but I still believe that Christians who read an NIV, ESV, NASB, etc. have God’s Word. That’s where I draw the line with KJV Onlyists. They claim the the new versions are satanic alterations of God’s Word (for them, the KJV). It’s honestly ridiculous
Is there a list somewhere of all the differences between the different texts? I believe what you're saying, but I want to go through them, one by one.
Moormans book
Just TH-cam Alexandrian vs textus receptus. there are tons of great content showing the differences.
Not aimed at you pastor....we disagree on a lot, but I respect you nonetheless....anyway...all one needs to do to find the finest Bible scholars on earth is to pull up TH-cam. Never have so few regurgitated "scholarly" pre-scripted phrases been uttered by so many in one venue. I wish I could be an expert like everyone else here. 😞😂
Haha!
Steve All praises to The Most High for TH-cam lol
Is the Alexandrian text also known as the Critical text?
Yes
@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa Thankyou. Your video helped simplify this subject for me as Ive been watching videos on this subject. Something that is confusing is that Textus Receptus is known as the majority text(roughly) but then Im hearing that most scholars use the critical text because they have the most manuscripts to study.
No. It (CT) is more than just Alexandrian, but sometimes they are associated together.
Good word brother
Appreciated
Would you debate James white or Corey minor smart christian channel on this subject?
No, but it’s because I have a no debate policy.
How do we know what versions are Alexandrian or Byzantine? I know KJ version is of from Textus Receptus so that would be of the Byzantine but what about the NAS, etc
Alexandrian
Most translations are the critical text which is ultra-eclectic. The TR is “ from” the majority-Byzantine family but it is a “ specific “ selection of those manuscripts. I believe God preserved HIS word within the majority-Byzantine family , not the modern CT one.
@@Kenneth-nVA Thankyou. Do you know if scholars who study textual criticism use Byzantine texts or do the just stick with the newer manuscripts of the Alexandrian type? I know it's called critical text but wasn't sure if they used all available texts or just the newer ones
The only Byzantine is KJV NKJV and WEB. All the rest are Critical Text / Alexandrian..
(112) When Bible Translations Differ, What's Going On? - TH-cam
NRSV all the way because the Catholic Church approved it
There is not much difference.
What are the “monumental “ differences?
About 60,000 words.
@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa wow I’d say that’s pretty significant. I read several translations. I feel I get a better angle on the text. I like to know what all ancient manuscripts say.
(112) Is My Work Working? - TH-cam
Kjv has no errors.
εὐαγγέλιον euangélion Ministry kjv is God’s word preserved are you calling God a liar? That he didn’t preserve his word? It’s definitely not preserved in modern translations
εὐαγγέλιον euangélion Ministry Alexandrian church father in the early third century, said:
"...the differences among the manuscripts [of the Gospels] have become great,either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they lengthen or shorten, as they please."
Irenaeus in the 2nd century, though not in Alexandria, made a similar admission on the state of corruption among New Testament manuscripts. Daniel B. Wallace says, "Revelation was copied less often than any other book of the NT, and yet Irenaeus admits that it was already corrupted-within just a few decades of the writing of the Apocalypse"
The fact that churches outside of Egypt used a non-Alexandrian text as early as in the 3rd century should caution us from equating "the earliest extant Alexandrian text" with "the earliest text of the New Testament", especially since Origen testified that Alexandrian manuscripts were already corrupt by the 3rd century.
The only conclusion that we can logically make from the evidence of Alexandrian manuscripts is that the Alexandrian church in Egypt used the Alexandrian text-type. There is not a shred of manuscript evidence that churches elsewhere used the Alexandrian text-type. The one manuscript from outside of Egypt prior to the 5th century (Codex 0212) proves the contrary. If critics wish to establish that the Byzantine text-type supplanted the Alexandrian text-type after the 5th century, the burden of proof is on these critics to prove that the Alexandrian text-type was ever considered the standard text prior to the 5th century in the regions where the Byzantine text-type was used. This has never been proven.
εὐαγγέλιον euangélion Ministry the other translations are laughable and all the information you need is on the internet but you want me to sit here and type it all... why!??!!? I don’t have time to explain to every single person I’ve already done that then you people just go silent go study for yourself
εὐαγγέλιον euangélion Ministry what happens when I answer it? Huh? You go silent not even a ty . I’ve seen it over and over again. Take yourself to google or TH-cam type in kjv vs NIV kjv vs ESV and start there I could tell you two things right now about the NIV changing verses about the number of Solomon’s horses soldiers and chariots because they couldn’t understand the kjv had it right the first time you lose horses and men in battle so they had teams of horses and men the numbers are correct but NIV changed it because they’re stupid and deceived or how about the ESV “I can do all thing through -him- that gives me strength vs
Kjv “I can do all things through CHRIST that strengthens me.”
Now goto google and get busy studying I’m putting you on mute now because you have a dumb deaf spirit attached to you
Amen
all i have to do is show 1. Exodus 25:31 is translated with masculine pronouns in KJV. the hebrew has feminine pronouns.
Sorry....can't help myself...I feel like I'm in the presence of Mr know-it-all himself James White reading these comments. Only catch phrase of his I haven't seen here (yet) is "vaaaaaast majority". 😂
Haha!
The Pastor is totally different from James White. He patiently explains his argument
th-cam.com/video/WGGmH0KzScY/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/WGGmH0KzScY/w-d-xo.html
The man began by lying when he said that the "textus receptus" is another term for the majority text or the Byzantine type manuscripts.If you are going to be a "KJV onlyist", at least be an honest one.I know that if any KJV onlyist were to apply honesty, they would cease to be KJV onlyists because any honest and objective examination of the facts would end up destroying KJV onlyism.
I explain it more in detail in other videos.
*WATCH THIS:* th-cam.com/video/-gi1c_0l3cc/w-d-xo.html
I'm a KJVer who was considering the ESV but this video snapped me out of it.
That wasn't dishonesty, still less 'lying'. The Pastor was trying to make this video concise and honestly told us that there were a few minor differences between the terms 'Byzantine', 'Majority' and 'Received' Texts. I enjoyed this video, all the better for being short and to the point. YES, the Alexandrian texts ARE all over the place and contradictory. God faithfully preserved His Words for us, but then along came Griesbach, Westcott and Hort, Satan's minions, to try and make us think: "Did God really say?" Thank you very much, Pastor, for such a clear presentation of the main issue of 'which text?'
u realize until about 800 or 900 that the alexandrian text was the majority text?
No, it was not. I’ve done several videos examining that evidence.
@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa well i have seen the charts sir.
@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa since the alexandrian texts were before the TR, and we are discussing a small portion of text, is it just possible that the words were not omitted by alexanderian texts but added later? because the KJV is not the standard but what the author's wrote as moved by the Spirit. the autographs are the standard not what scribes added
It is not. According to Arthur Cleveland coxe, Ancient scribes deleted, not added, usually.
@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa cleveland cannot know that. logically where are the mss that that show it was deleted? more likely words were added so as not to leave notes out that had been written in margins. we know that because that is how 1 john 5:7 got into the text
Exodus 6:3
kjv
th-cam.com/video/WGGmH0KzScY/w-d-xo.html
Ελληνικη ΑΩ
KJV!
stop repeating the trash can theory. it is a lie
No it’s not.
@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa yes it is. i have seen writings to the contrary
There are writings about many things. Truth is truth however.
@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa th-cam.com/video/WGGmH0KzScY/w-d-xo.html