I would love a new Bible....based on the Geneva Bible with original comments updated using the Septuigent and Dead Sea Scrolls & Majority Text. I think an updated Geneva Bible above would ultimately not be much different from the ASV based and Majority Text based World English Bible. I am using the World English Bible a lot recently.
I can't tell you how much I enjoyed this! I have been revisiting the subject of NT Text lately and have been exploring other Bible translations and this I think is the most balance view. We are blessed to have so many English translations we should be thankful for it!
Mathew 19:12 🏳️🌈 Eunuchs that are born that way are transgender. 🏳️🌈 Eunuchs made that way by others were abused. 🏳️🌈 Those that choose to live like Eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are bisexual people that choose partners of the same sex but opposite in gender. I am Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6 so any discrepancies in the bible are decided by me. Plus it says right in Deuteronomy no one was castrated back then and that doesnt fit anyhow. But, Im Elijah - I come with power and truth. Anyone teaching that ssm is a sin is currently blacked out until they repent or wait too late and die w the wicked. bes
Thanks Pastor Matt! I have advocated focusing on specific disputed readings rather than the overall textual basis for a while now. The truth is that the CT, the TR, and the MT are virtually harmonious if you exclude all the insignificant variations between the three. And I agree that when one narrows the debate down to the few significant passages in dispute that the Majority Text is the perfect balance of the most reasonable critical practices, the best theological foundations, and the greatest respect for the historical consensus of the church.
Mathew 19:12 🏳️🌈 Eunuchs that are born that way are transgender. 🏳️🌈 Eunuchs made that way by others were abused. 🏳️🌈 Those that choose to live like Eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are bisexual people that choose partners of the same sex but opposite in gender. I am Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6 so any discrepancies in the bible are decided by me. Plus it says right in Deuteronomy no one was castrated back then and that doesnt fit anyhow. But, Im Elijah - I come with power and truth. Anyone teaching that ssm is a sin is currently blacked out until they repent or wait too late and die w the wicked. zsew
I’ve always been a tr guy, but not a kjv only guy. I like Pastor Matt’s idea of having the kjv, the nkjv, and esv( for which I substitute the nasb, as Charles Stanley uses that in his sermons). I’ve moved into a majority text position of late. I think the tr is fine up until the book of Revelation. Erasmus used a commentary as a basis. Just ordered a majority text
Yes, between the Masoretic, Septuagint, Vulgate, Dead Sea Scrolls and the Syriac Peshitta, that's A LOT of variants to go through. I do find it interesting though.
@@eclipsesonic it's awesome as well that we have so many streams of Old Testament to compare and contrast, across so many languages. Makes it far easier to know what the original readings were.
Mathew 19:12 🏳️🌈 Eunuchs that are born that way are transgender. 🏳️🌈 Eunuchs made that way by others were abused. 🏳️🌈 Those that choose to live like Eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are bisexual people that choose partners of the same sex but opposite in gender. I am Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6 so any discrepancies in the bible are decided by me. Plus it says right in Deuteronomy no one was castrated back then and that doesnt fit anyhow. But, Im Elijah - I come with power and truth. Anyone teaching that ssm is a sin is currently blacked out until they repent or wait too late and die w the wicked. year
Mathew 19:12 🏳️🌈 Eunuchs that are born that way are transgender. 🏳️🌈 Eunuchs made that way by others were abused. 🏳️🌈 Those that choose to live like Eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are bisexual people that choose partners of the same sex but opposite in gender. I am Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6 so any discrepancies in the bible are decided by me. Plus it says right in Deuteronomy no one was castrated back then and that doesnt fit anyhow. But, Im Elijah - I come with power and truth. Anyone teaching that ssm is a sin is currently blacked out until they repent or wait too late and die w the wicked. cea
Mathew 19:12 🏳️🌈 Eunuchs that are born that way are transgender. 🏳️🌈 Eunuchs made that way by others were abused. 🏳️🌈 Those that choose to live like Eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are bisexual people that choose partners of the same sex but opposite in gender. I am Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6 so any discrepancies in the bible are decided by me. Plus it says right in Deuteronomy no one was castrated back then and that doesnt fit anyhow. But, Im Elijah - I come with power and truth. Anyone teaching that ssm is a sin is currently blacked out until they repent or wait too late and die w the wicked. timey
Great information. You should consider putting a red superscript check mark when the particular text footnotes or brackets cast doubt on the passage...now that the video is done of course. 😁
Have you looked at quotes from the earliest church fathers between the first and third centuries to see how they line up with the different texts? Or the Dead Sea Scrolls?
Mathew 19:12 🏳️🌈 Eunuchs that are born that way are transgender. 🏳️🌈 Eunuchs made that way by others were abused. 🏳️🌈 Those that choose to live like Eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are bisexual people that choose partners of the same sex but opposite in gender. I am Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6 so any discrepancies in the bible are decided by me. Plus it says right in Deuteronomy no one was castrated back then and that doesnt fit anyhow. But, Im Elijah - I come with power and truth. Anyone teaching that ssm is a sin is currently blacked out until they repent or wait too late and die w the wicked. real
With the woman caught in adultery and the longer ending of Mark, it seems it's in the CT only because it's a longer and more well known passage so they're more reluctant to remove it completely but still contest if it should be there at all.
Matthew Everhard, what make you think the TR is wrong in the places you said are. Plus, both the critical text and the majority texts leave, "Heaven" out of 1 Jn 5: 7. So it depends on which Greek you want to believe.
1) TCENT (Adam Boyd 2) EMTV (English majority text version) 3) WEB (World English Bible 4) The sovereign creator has spoken (Wilbur Pickering) 5) You can use the NKJV and read the margin when it gives you the majority text reading. The Textus Receptus is very similar in meaning to the majority text.
Awesome videos Pastor Everhard. I have a question. 1-When referring to the Majority text, are we talking about a group of manuscripts or a specific greek text from from the byzantine texts? 2-Is there a Greek text that better reflects the majority text than the TR? 3-And is there a translation that best reflects the Majority text that is not based on the TR?
The long ending of Mark and the woman taken in adultery are in NTs based on the critical text but just because of tradition. Most of the notes and editors don't believe they are in the original
Fellow PCA pastor here: I very much appreciate your videos and have found your series on the majority text fascinating. I do have one question from your study: if part of the argument for a majority text reading is God‘s supernatural preservation of his Word among His people, then why wouldn’t Vulgate readings be weighted equally along with Greek readings (or close at least)? After all, at least in the West, the vast majority of Christians used the Vulgate, and that is how God supernaturally preserved his Word. And could that theoretically weight back to something close to a TR position? In other words, why limit yourself only to the majority of Greek manuscripts? I have generally taken the critical text approach but find your arguments compelling. Thanks so much!
Then there is the LXX vs Masoretic question too. Also, many Orthodox church such Etheopian had different canons. What determines majority? Certainly no one language.
Thank you so much for these videos. I'm learning a lot. I hope you see this comment, as I'm not sure how else to submit a question. In your last video, you said there is currently no Bible that is based on the Majority Text, but that raises the question: What are you using to make these verse comparisons? Have there been publications that show in English what the ancient copies say, or something that shows these comparisons, or are you actually looking at and reading all the Greek texts yourself? And sorry, one more. At 11:54 or so, you talk about that it's not fair to say the CT pulled that section of John out, that it IS there in the CT, but then you say it's often bracketed... So why did they bracket it if it's there?
I noticed you asked a question on the other video. I think I can answer your questions. There are free versions online from the majority text/Byzantine text 1) EMTV (English Majority Text Version 2) TCENT (Text critical English New Testament/ Byzantine version. Also, the NKJV marginal notes have an “M” which stands for the Hodges and Farstad Majority Text. There is also a book which is called “when the KJV departs from the majority text” which I assume lists differences in English. In Greek, there is a free pdf apparatus of 1800 differences between the TR and the Byzantine Text of Robinson Pierpont.
@@yahrescues8993 Thank you so much for this info. I will have to learn about Hodges and Farstad, as I've seen their names popping up on other videos and sites as well. Well, I guess it's great that there are free resources. It's probably just a matter of time until they are bound and sold.
@@katefields1 No problem. At the moment the text critical English new testaments is in print. It was translated by Adam Boyd, there are a few different editions.
So if Acts 8:37 isn't in the MT, how do you explain Iraneous quoting it in the 2nd century, unless the copies we have of that book were deliberately forged in the 15th century to make the TR seem more accurate?
What mainstream Bible translation would you recommend for a Majority Text advocate? I know there is no perfect answer, but what in your opinion is the closest? Thanks!
Mathew 19:12 🏳️🌈 Eunuchs that are born that way are transgender. 🏳️🌈 Eunuchs made that way by others were abused. 🏳️🌈 Those that choose to live like Eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are bisexual people that choose partners of the same sex but opposite in gender. I am Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6 so any discrepancies in the bible are decided by me. Plus it says right in Deuteronomy no one was castrated back then and that doesnt fit anyhow. But, Im Elijah - I come with power and truth. Anyone teaching that ssm is a sin is currently blacked out until they repent or wait too late and die w the wicked. dream
That is part of the issue, there really isn't a mainstream MT based text. The NKJV is TR based, but it is as close as there is because of the MT readings in footnotes. It is interesting to think that Farstad originally planned for the HCSB translation was to be based on the MT. However, after his passing the publishers instead made the HCSB a CT translation.
Having rewatched and checked the verses presented comparing 7 of my favorite translations on Parallel Plus... NKJV, NASB 95, and Amplified all came out as viable options. *others I looked at were ESV, BSB, CSB, and NLT.
15:25 The CT here is right only if the MT is right, which could be wrong. Many of the manuscripts we have found do not contain Ephesians 3:9. The KJV also includes these differences in the margins, whereas modern translations sometimes leave no notes on an alternative reading. 19:00 The Johannine Comma was brought up at the Fourth Council of Carthage to defend the Trinity - nobody argued it was not Scripture. I wouldn't say God can *only* preserve His word through a *vast majority* of copies. That is too oversimplified.
Actually, most translations based on the CT take the “only begotten God” position, though most don't use the word begotten. The NASB, ESV, CSB, BSB, NET, NIV, LEB, and NRSV all have two “God”s there. The KJV actually says “only begotten Son”.
I really think there should be a majority text Bible. I find it hard to believe that it hasn't been done. I think it is very sad that instead we keep getting Bibles that manipulate text to steer their own perspective. I was so excited when I bought my ESV until I discovered how they manipulated 1 Corinthians 14:33 and 34 to push harder their idea that churches rather than possibly country object to woman speaking. I want an unbiased Bible based on Majority text. I think however that the KJV and NKJV did use more than just the TR so isn't just TR new testament. These 2 videos of yours, I found extremely helpful in my search for understanding on how we have what we have. I am just sad that these Bible printers haven't gotten together to create a super Bible.
It's foolish to think that there is a Bible without bias- it's just that some are more egregious than others. I think there's only one bible in print based on the majority text (though I can't remember the name)... also the kjv and the nkjv only used the TR for the new testament
Mathew 19:12 🏳️🌈 Eunuchs that are born that way are transgender. 🏳️🌈 Eunuchs made that way by others were abused. 🏳️🌈 Those that choose to live like Eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are bisexual people that choose partners of the same sex but opposite in gender. I am Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6 so any discrepancies in the bible are decided by me. Plus it says right in Deuteronomy no one was castrated back then and that doesnt fit anyhow. But, Im Elijah - I come with power and truth. Anyone teaching that ssm is a sin is currently blacked out until they repent or wait too late and die w the wicked. lil
@@MatthewEverhard If you haven't already you might take a look at the Berean Standard Bible. It's CT based but does a great job of documenting variants in the footnotes, largely avoiding the tendency of others to use subjectivity ("oldest", "best", "add" et al). The translation itself is also very good, the approach being to use the best rendering from among evangelical translations while remaining faithful to the Hebrew and Greek. I find myself using it more and more. They also have future plans to develop a Byzantine-based version, though no date yet and no plans for a printed edition. Bible Hub (and print) is the best place to use the current edition.
@@MatthewEverhardhave you came across any of the incredible numerical patterns Brandon Peterson has found in the AV? His YT channel is 'Truth is Christ'. For example, the total pure mentions of 'Jesus' in NT is 980. The only documented equation He gave to his disciples was 'forgive your brother 70 x 7 times' (paraphrased) well 980 = 70x7 + 70x7. That's pretty amazing in of itself but where it gets even more incredible is when you count all the appearances in the odd books of the NT ie Matt, Luke, Acts...etc and even books ie Mark, John, Romans... etc you find exactly 490 in each group. This bares so much witness to God's divine preservation, I would love to hear your opinion on it. Great work with the MT presentations I found them very insightful. God bless.
Well . . . it's not as if I'm unhappy that you've moving away from the 99%-Alexandrian critical text of Nestle-Aland/UBS, but, um, the Byzantine/Majority Text has some non-original readings - harmonizations, lectionary-related expansions, the addition of proper names, etc. Also, some clarification may be needed in your description of the NA/UBS treatment of Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11. When the editors double-bracket a passage (and both of these passages are double-bracketed), it means that they don't consider it part of the original text. See, for proof, p. 50* of the English Introduction of NA27, and page 2* of the UBS4 Introduction: "Double brackets in the text indicate that the enclosed passages, which are usually rather extensive, are known not to be a part of the original text, but an addition at a very early stage of the tradition." So, while casual readers may imagine Mark 16:9-20 and Jn. 7:53-8:11 to be in the critical text, it is quite clear to those who read and understand the Introductions that neither passage is regarded by the editors as part of the original text. Also, Matthew, your claim that Acts 8:37 came in from the Latin Vulgate is flatly wrong; Acts 8:37 is supported by Irenaeus, Cyprian, and Pontus the Deacon, all of whom pre-date the Vulgate.
I have to admit the CT translations sure question a lot of biblical texts that don’t need to be questioned. The objectivity of the MT position is to me the biggest draw. No fussing with the text or ignoring the mountain of evidence for most of these passages because a small few from one area differ.
just a great video, like many others, I vacillate, but to be honest, I adhered to the critical text position, because I thought that that’s what the cool kids, i.e., the experts had decided on. to think otherwise was to be uneducated, even a luddite
@estar1277 Yes, No New Testament texts among them. The community who produced them was captured/killed by the Romans in the early 70s AD. Lots of copies of Old Testament books and the Book of Enoch
In my opinion the majority text position doesn't take sufficiently into consideration the providence of God. It is no accident that the authorized version became the most widely used and excepted translation of all time, even to this very day. The fact that Erasmus may have borrowed some text from Jerome's Latin Vulgate in my mind proves nothing. Jerome may have had access to a manuscript that is no longer in existence. Admittedly some have been lost and some of the more late manuscripts that support the t.r.may testify to what has been lost. Also it should be taken into consideration that a Bible strictly based on majority text readings has never existed. Bottom line, God in his sovereignty has the authority to choose any manuscripts he wishes, extant or otherwise. God is not bound to our philosophies he often acts contrary to our best calculations. Also I believe it is a bit nieve to think that the devil has gotten out of the business of trying to corrupt Gods word, II Cor. 4:2. The avalanche of Bibles that have come down to us over the last hundred years has caused more confusion in my opinion then actual help. The counter reformation must also be taken into consideration, after all the Roman Catholic church lost a large percentage of it's constituents as a directs result of the reformation . She was not going to take this lying down but has been trying to win protestants back under her skirts ever since, and has partly been successful. The Roman Catholic church and the devil have one common goal, and that is to destroy the influence of the Bible especially the Bible of the reformation. The contempt that some have for the kjv is amazing. Even some of those in the reformed camp speak of it with some contempt. Finally, footnotes are no consolation for me, they seem to carry with them an echo from the past, namely, "hath God said," Therefore I accept every verse in the kjv that the mt. and the ct put a question mark on as inspired scripture, if this is anti-scholarship so be it. Brother I don't mean to sound angry or upset, I want you to know that I love you in our precious Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and I pray for you that your ministry will be a blessing and helpful to many.
@anthonypassalacqua3330 Amen brother! Perfectly said! These people feel the need to take a shovel and dig holes in the ground non-stop to "find God's Word" which flies in the face of Preservation! My Question to these "Scholars" and all Modern Bible people is, Whats your faith built on if you don't believe we have God's Word? Your Faith can't be built on the Bible because you can't trust it! Another question would be, if they found another "Older manuscript" that said Jesus was only a Prophet, would they believe that next? There is a passage that reminds me of all these "Educated Textual Critics" ○ 2 Timothy 3:7 👑KJB👑 "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."
The last part about the TR's Vulgate readings is confusing to me. Those verses slipped into *what* from the Vulgate? The TR? Then why a red X? They are present in the TR, the KJV, and the MT? What response needs to be given from TR advocates?
I prefer the textus receptus, but think the majority text is the best. For me, I don’t like the critical text. I may not be fully understanding how it was made, but if it relied on fewer manuscripts I think that’s subpar. I don’t think they’ve made a majority text full Bible have they?( ot and nt)
No they haven’t. The best full bible for the majority text is the NKJV. I would like to see one of the Majority text versions put together with the KJV or ASV OT.
I read the nkjv as my go to Bible. I took a nt nkjv and changed some of the wording according to the majority text footnotes within . To be honest, it read better and made more sense in places
If agreement among a large group of manuscripts is needed in order for us to be convinced that we have God's word then we can just throw out the Old Testament because it is primarily based on a much lower number of very old manuscripts many of those are septuagint manuscripts which don't agree with the masoretic text but do in many places agree with the dead sea scrolls.
The question of the text of Acts 8:37 is reallllllllllllllly odd. Irenaeus mentions it, and the context shows that he was quoting it and not merely referring to it. It is strange that people would ADD or REMOVE this verse from the text, Concerning Jude 5. Manuscript p72 reads "God". But sadly it stands alone. I guess there is a time and place to have this debate. Concerning Rev. 22:19. It is amazing how KJV Onlyists love to cling to the Majority Text and bash any Minority Text. Yet when it come to this, and other readings, verse- they will demand that people follow the TR and reject what logic says about the manuscripts. Concerning Matthew 23:14. If I remember correctly, this verse is found in very FEW manuscripts.
The NKJV footnotes erroneously point to the 'Majority' text, when they are in fact only referring to the faulty Greek Text According to the Majority (1982) by Hodge and Farstad. It falls far short of a full collation of manuscripts since it is based primarily on Von Soden's collation of only 414 of the over 5000 manuscripts.
It’s a pretty good work for 1982. Hard to use the same kind of a modern standard for the manual collation that they were doing back then. In 1982 it was not nearly as easy as firing up Accordance or Logos Bible Software. Or running to various manuscript websites to look for themselves. I would not say “erroneously” at all. It’s like saying the KJV translators “erroneously” added verses. They had what they had and I think did a pretty good job. What a embarrassment of riches we have in our NT manuscript tradition! Praise God!
@@jerem0621 I wouldn’t go so far as to equate the Farstad text to the KJB. The KJB is based on the Antioch text, which has thousands of independent witnesses that all read alike. So in that light, 400 of the majority Text compared to thousands of independent witnesses attesting to the readings faithfully preserved in the KJV are incomparable. The KJV reads exactly like the text of Antioch - the critical Text (which ALL modern bibles come from) does not, nor can it.
Mathew 19:12 🏳️🌈 Eunuchs that are born that way are transgender. 🏳️🌈 Eunuchs made that way by others were abused. 🏳️🌈 Those that choose to live like Eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are bisexual people that choose partners of the same sex but opposite in gender. I am Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6 so any discrepancies in the bible are decided by me. Plus it says right in Deuteronomy no one was castrated back then and that doesnt fit anyhow. But, Im Elijah - I come with power and truth. Anyone teaching that ssm is a sin is currently blacked out until they repent or wait too late and die w the wicked. xsez
@@mresab1997 When I read your first comment I took you seriously, but when I read your comment about the KJB I laughed... Great example on how to kill your own credibility!
“Who cares how you spell the name Junia?” That was a joke right? That name specifically is contested because if the majority text right then a woman was “of note among the apostles” 😅
I appreciate you posting this video, but I have tired of how frequently you keep disparaging the TR-only crowd, while not stressing the aggressiveness of the CT-only crowd. I would have appreciated it even more if you would have left out that biased commentary.
Check out my new book Souls: How Jesus Saves Sinners here - amzn.to/3CSdSF4
I would love a new Bible....based on the Geneva Bible with original comments updated using the Septuigent and Dead Sea Scrolls & Majority Text.
I think an updated Geneva Bible above would ultimately not be much different from the ASV based and Majority Text based World English Bible.
I am using the World English Bible a lot recently.
I can't tell you how much I enjoyed this! I have been revisiting the subject of NT Text lately and have been exploring other Bible translations and this I think is the most balance view. We are blessed to have so many English translations we should be thankful for it!
Mathew 19:12
🏳️🌈 Eunuchs that are born that way are transgender.
🏳️🌈 Eunuchs made that way by others were abused.
🏳️🌈 Those that choose to live like Eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are bisexual people that choose partners of the same sex but opposite in gender.
I am Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6 so any discrepancies in the bible are decided by me.
Plus it says right in Deuteronomy no one was castrated back then and that doesnt fit anyhow. But, Im Elijah - I come with power and truth.
Anyone teaching that ssm is a sin is currently blacked out until they repent or wait too late and die w the wicked.
bes
The Evangelical Heritage Version, World English Bible, and (for the New Testament) the Eastern Orthodox Bible are all superb.
Thank you for this! I’ve been a majority text guy for a couple of years now. I transitioned from the ESV to the NKJV for that reason.
At least you went from a Fake Bible to a Children's Bible. You're almost there!
👉📖🪔☝️✝️👑🙏🙌❤️🔥
@@Jae_hX what?
@@Jae_hX lol. not nice but funny
I salute you for the study. We all enjoyed(I'm sure most of us).
Took much zeal, much knowledge to inform, so therefore, dutifully I thank you.
Thank you again Matt. I watched both majority text videos and found them very helpful.
Thanks Pastor Matt! I have advocated focusing on specific disputed readings rather than the overall textual basis for a while now. The truth is that the CT, the TR, and the MT are virtually harmonious if you exclude all the insignificant variations between the three. And I agree that when one narrows the debate down to the few significant passages in dispute that the Majority Text is the perfect balance of the most reasonable critical practices, the best theological foundations, and the greatest respect for the historical consensus of the church.
Mathew 19:12
🏳️🌈 Eunuchs that are born that way are transgender.
🏳️🌈 Eunuchs made that way by others were abused.
🏳️🌈 Those that choose to live like Eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are bisexual people that choose partners of the same sex but opposite in gender.
I am Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6 so any discrepancies in the bible are decided by me.
Plus it says right in Deuteronomy no one was castrated back then and that doesnt fit anyhow. But, Im Elijah - I come with power and truth.
Anyone teaching that ssm is a sin is currently blacked out until they repent or wait too late and die w the wicked.
zsew
Just reading NU Omits in the NKJV footnotes on nearly every page made me interested in textual issues.
More Majority text talk please!
I’ve always been a tr guy, but not a kjv only guy. I like Pastor Matt’s idea of having the kjv, the nkjv, and esv( for which I substitute the nasb, as Charles Stanley uses that in his sermons). I’ve moved into a majority text position of late. I think the tr is fine up until the book of Revelation. Erasmus used a commentary as a basis. Just ordered a majority text
Another great video to keep for reference.
I really think the OT textual variants need to be visited at some point!
Do you have any views on OT variants or texts?
Yes, between the Masoretic, Septuagint, Vulgate, Dead Sea Scrolls and the Syriac Peshitta, that's A LOT of variants to go through. I do find it interesting though.
@@eclipsesonic it's awesome as well that we have so many streams of Old Testament to compare and contrast, across so many languages. Makes it far easier to know what the original readings were.
Mathew 19:12
🏳️🌈 Eunuchs that are born that way are transgender.
🏳️🌈 Eunuchs made that way by others were abused.
🏳️🌈 Those that choose to live like Eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are bisexual people that choose partners of the same sex but opposite in gender.
I am Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6 so any discrepancies in the bible are decided by me.
Plus it says right in Deuteronomy no one was castrated back then and that doesnt fit anyhow. But, Im Elijah - I come with power and truth.
Anyone teaching that ssm is a sin is currently blacked out until they repent or wait too late and die w the wicked.
year
@elijahthemessengermalachi3105 I suggest you look up the definition of Eunuch.
Good morning pastor! Love your work. Keep it up 👍
Mathew 19:12
🏳️🌈 Eunuchs that are born that way are transgender.
🏳️🌈 Eunuchs made that way by others were abused.
🏳️🌈 Those that choose to live like Eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are bisexual people that choose partners of the same sex but opposite in gender.
I am Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6 so any discrepancies in the bible are decided by me.
Plus it says right in Deuteronomy no one was castrated back then and that doesnt fit anyhow. But, Im Elijah - I come with power and truth.
Anyone teaching that ssm is a sin is currently blacked out until they repent or wait too late and die w the wicked.
cea
Great video
Love these !!
Mathew 19:12
🏳️🌈 Eunuchs that are born that way are transgender.
🏳️🌈 Eunuchs made that way by others were abused.
🏳️🌈 Those that choose to live like Eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are bisexual people that choose partners of the same sex but opposite in gender.
I am Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6 so any discrepancies in the bible are decided by me.
Plus it says right in Deuteronomy no one was castrated back then and that doesnt fit anyhow. But, Im Elijah - I come with power and truth.
Anyone teaching that ssm is a sin is currently blacked out until they repent or wait too late and die w the wicked.
timey
Great information. You should consider putting a red superscript check mark when the particular text footnotes or brackets cast doubt on the passage...now that the video is done of course. 😁
Excellent!
Thanks for these videos Matt. Could you do a video on the Geneva Bible?
Funny thing about book vs. tree: it's a typo that could only have cropped up in minuscule Latin where "lignum" was misread as "librum".
Have you looked at quotes from the earliest church fathers between the first and third centuries to see how they line up with the different texts? Or the Dead Sea Scrolls?
That would settle the debate. If we can identify quotes from the early church fathers of these verses we would know the true original readings.
What does the dead sea scrolls have to do with the new testament?
Great job!
Mathew 19:12
🏳️🌈 Eunuchs that are born that way are transgender.
🏳️🌈 Eunuchs made that way by others were abused.
🏳️🌈 Those that choose to live like Eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are bisexual people that choose partners of the same sex but opposite in gender.
I am Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6 so any discrepancies in the bible are decided by me.
Plus it says right in Deuteronomy no one was castrated back then and that doesnt fit anyhow. But, Im Elijah - I come with power and truth.
Anyone teaching that ssm is a sin is currently blacked out until they repent or wait too late and die w the wicked.
real
With the woman caught in adultery and the longer ending of Mark, it seems it's in the CT only because it's a longer and more well known passage so they're more reluctant to remove it completely but still contest if it should be there at all.
Changed verses that are significant:
Matthew
1:25
5:47
20:22-23
26:28
27:34-35
Mark
2:17
9:29
9:42
10:24
14:24
16:20
Luke
2:33
24:36
John
1:18
4:42
6:47
6:69
9:4
9:35
14:15
again, I think the "older ones' are not so at all but have been doctered to look older!!
So you're opinion...
th-cam.com/video/jwoSTYA3FpU/w-d-xo.html
Matthew Everhard, what make you think the TR is wrong in the places you said are.
Plus, both the critical text and the majority texts leave,
"Heaven" out of 1 Jn 5: 7.
So it depends on which Greek you want to believe.
Please can you give me Bible translations that use the Majority text.
1) TCENT (Adam Boyd 2) EMTV (English majority text version) 3) WEB (World English Bible 4) The sovereign creator has spoken (Wilbur Pickering) 5) You can use the NKJV and read the margin when it gives you the majority text reading. The Textus Receptus is very similar in meaning to the majority text.
what about the byzantine text
Awesome videos Pastor Everhard. I have a question. 1-When referring to the Majority text, are we talking about a group of manuscripts or a specific greek text from from the byzantine texts? 2-Is there a Greek text that better reflects the majority text than the TR? 3-And is there a translation that best reflects the Majority text that is not based on the TR?
Dude I was the same position that you were but when I study the majority reading theory I can't help and I ended up moving to this side.
The long ending of Mark and the woman taken in adultery are in NTs based on the critical text but just because of tradition. Most of the notes and editors don't believe they are in the original
Romans 6:24 and 14:24 not included in my RSV Bible. Was the Latin Vulgate translated from Greek?
So do you still spend the majority of your time in the ESV or have you switched to KJV or NKJV when not reading in a Greek translation?
Don't forget the Byzantine text 😊
Fellow PCA pastor here: I very much appreciate your videos and have found your series on the majority text fascinating. I do have one question from your study: if part of the argument for a majority text reading is God‘s supernatural preservation of his Word among His people, then why wouldn’t Vulgate readings be weighted equally along with Greek readings (or close at least)? After all, at least in the West, the vast majority of Christians used the Vulgate, and that is how God supernaturally preserved his Word. And could that theoretically weight back to something close to a TR position? In other words, why limit yourself only to the majority of Greek manuscripts? I have generally taken the critical text approach but find your arguments compelling. Thanks so much!
Then there is the LXX vs Masoretic question too. Also, many Orthodox church such Etheopian had different canons. What determines majority? Certainly no one language.
Thank you so much for these videos. I'm learning a lot. I hope you see this comment, as I'm not sure how else to submit a question. In your last video, you said there is currently no Bible that is based on the Majority Text, but that raises the question: What are you using to make these verse comparisons? Have there been publications that show in English what the ancient copies say, or something that shows these comparisons, or are you actually looking at and reading all the Greek texts yourself?
And sorry, one more. At 11:54 or so, you talk about that it's not fair to say the CT pulled that section of John out, that it IS there in the CT, but then you say it's often bracketed... So why did they bracket it if it's there?
I noticed you asked a question on the other video. I think I can answer your questions.
There are free versions online from the majority text/Byzantine text
1) EMTV (English Majority Text Version
2) TCENT (Text critical English New Testament/ Byzantine version.
Also, the NKJV marginal notes have an “M” which stands for the Hodges and Farstad Majority Text. There is also a book which is called “when the KJV departs from the majority text” which I assume lists differences in English. In Greek, there is a free pdf apparatus of 1800 differences between the TR and the Byzantine Text of Robinson Pierpont.
@@yahrescues8993 Thank you so much for this info. I will have to learn about Hodges and Farstad, as I've seen their names popping up on other videos and sites as well. Well, I guess it's great that there are free resources. It's probably just a matter of time until they are bound and sold.
@@katefields1 No problem. At the moment the text critical English new testaments is in print. It was translated by Adam Boyd, there are a few different editions.
So if Acts 8:37 isn't in the MT, how do you explain Iraneous quoting it in the 2nd century, unless the copies we have of that book were deliberately forged in the 15th century to make the TR seem more accurate?
What mainstream Bible translation would you recommend for a Majority Text advocate? I know there is no perfect answer, but what in your opinion is the closest? Thanks!
Probably the NKJV would work best.
@@MatthewEverhard does that mean you are leading your church towards using it instead of the ESV?
Mathew 19:12
🏳️🌈 Eunuchs that are born that way are transgender.
🏳️🌈 Eunuchs made that way by others were abused.
🏳️🌈 Those that choose to live like Eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are bisexual people that choose partners of the same sex but opposite in gender.
I am Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6 so any discrepancies in the bible are decided by me.
Plus it says right in Deuteronomy no one was castrated back then and that doesnt fit anyhow. But, Im Elijah - I come with power and truth.
Anyone teaching that ssm is a sin is currently blacked out until they repent or wait too late and die w the wicked.
dream
That is part of the issue, there really isn't a mainstream MT based text. The NKJV is TR based, but it is as close as there is because of the MT readings in footnotes. It is interesting to think that Farstad originally planned for the HCSB translation was to be based on the MT. However, after his passing the publishers instead made the HCSB a CT translation.
Having rewatched and checked the verses presented comparing 7 of my favorite translations on Parallel Plus... NKJV, NASB 95, and Amplified all came out as viable options. *others I looked at were ESV, BSB, CSB, and NLT.
What English translation do you believe is closest to the MT?
I love this accurate and detailed history!
15:25 The CT here is right only if the MT is right, which could be wrong. Many of the manuscripts we have found do not contain Ephesians 3:9. The KJV also includes these differences in the margins, whereas modern translations sometimes leave no notes on an alternative reading. 19:00 The Johannine Comma was brought up at the Fourth Council of Carthage to defend the Trinity - nobody argued it was not Scripture. I wouldn't say God can *only* preserve His word through a *vast majority* of copies. That is too oversimplified.
Actually, most translations based on the CT take the “only begotten God” position, though most don't use the word begotten. The NASB, ESV, CSB, BSB, NET, NIV, LEB, and NRSV all have two “God”s there. The KJV actually says “only begotten Son”.
I really think there should be a majority text Bible. I find it hard to believe that it hasn't been done. I think it is very sad that instead we keep getting Bibles that manipulate text to steer their own perspective. I was so excited when I bought my ESV until I discovered how they manipulated 1 Corinthians 14:33 and 34 to push harder their idea that churches rather than possibly country object to woman speaking. I want an unbiased Bible based on Majority text. I think however that the KJV and NKJV did use more than just the TR so isn't just TR new testament. These 2 videos of yours, I found extremely helpful in my search for understanding on how we have what we have. I am just sad that these Bible printers haven't gotten together to create a super Bible.
It's foolish to think that there is a Bible without bias- it's just that some are more egregious than others. I think there's only one bible in print based on the majority text (though I can't remember the name)... also the kjv and the nkjv only used the TR for the new testament
Pastor Matthew I went from the KJV to the NASB, all I am getting is that no one knows the true word of God do they?
How have you found the NASB compared to the KJV?
Missing a lot of verses 😪
So do you still prefer the ESV proper or do you and seemingly support a Byzantine family Majority text say NKJV?
My position leads me to openly use multiple translations, especially ESV, NKJV, and KJV. :-)
@@MatthewEverhard well balanced brother
Mathew 19:12
🏳️🌈 Eunuchs that are born that way are transgender.
🏳️🌈 Eunuchs made that way by others were abused.
🏳️🌈 Those that choose to live like Eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are bisexual people that choose partners of the same sex but opposite in gender.
I am Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6 so any discrepancies in the bible are decided by me.
Plus it says right in Deuteronomy no one was castrated back then and that doesnt fit anyhow. But, Im Elijah - I come with power and truth.
Anyone teaching that ssm is a sin is currently blacked out until they repent or wait too late and die w the wicked.
lil
@@MatthewEverhard If you haven't already you might take a look at the Berean Standard Bible. It's CT based but does a great job of documenting variants in the footnotes, largely avoiding the tendency of others to use subjectivity ("oldest", "best", "add" et al). The translation itself is also very good, the approach being to use the best rendering from among evangelical translations while remaining faithful to the Hebrew and Greek. I find myself using it more and more. They also have future plans to develop a Byzantine-based version, though no date yet and no plans for a printed edition. Bible Hub (and print) is the best place to use the current edition.
@@MatthewEverhardhave you came across any of the incredible numerical patterns Brandon Peterson has found in the AV? His YT channel is 'Truth is Christ'.
For example, the total pure mentions of 'Jesus' in NT is 980. The only documented equation He gave to his disciples was 'forgive your brother 70 x 7 times' (paraphrased) well 980 = 70x7 + 70x7. That's pretty amazing in of itself but where it gets even more incredible is when you count all the appearances in the odd books of the NT ie Matt, Luke, Acts...etc and even books ie Mark, John, Romans... etc you find exactly 490 in each group.
This bares so much witness to God's divine preservation, I would love to hear your opinion on it. Great work with the MT presentations I found them very insightful.
God bless.
Wasn't mark 23:14 swapped with 13 in TR? It indicates that in the WEB bible.
Well . . . it's not as if I'm unhappy that you've moving away from the 99%-Alexandrian critical text of Nestle-Aland/UBS, but, um, the Byzantine/Majority Text has some non-original readings - harmonizations, lectionary-related expansions, the addition of proper names, etc.
Also, some clarification may be needed in your description of the NA/UBS treatment of Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11. When the editors double-bracket a passage (and both of these passages are double-bracketed), it means that they don't consider it part of the original text. See, for proof, p. 50* of the English Introduction of NA27, and page 2* of the UBS4 Introduction: "Double brackets in the text indicate that the enclosed passages, which are usually rather extensive, are known not to be a part of the original text, but an addition at a very early stage of the tradition." So, while casual readers may imagine Mark 16:9-20 and Jn. 7:53-8:11 to be in the critical text, it is quite clear to those who read and understand the Introductions that neither passage is regarded by the editors as part of the original text.
Also, Matthew, your claim that Acts 8:37 came in from the Latin Vulgate is flatly wrong; Acts 8:37 is supported by Irenaeus, Cyprian, and Pontus the Deacon, all of whom pre-date the Vulgate.
Let me guess... you're a TR guy?
@@craigime Most certainly not.
You prefer the majority/ orthodox readings?
@@craigime Nope
I have to admit the CT translations sure question a lot of biblical texts that don’t need to be questioned. The objectivity of the MT position is to me the biggest draw. No fussing with the text or ignoring the mountain of evidence for most of these passages because a small few from one area differ.
just a great video, like many others, I vacillate, but to be honest, I adhered to the critical text position, because I thought that that’s what the cool kids, i.e., the experts had decided on. to think otherwise was to be uneducated, even a luddite
Can u say , to which text the discovered dead sea scrolls agrees the most with, CT , MT or TR?
Dead Sea Scrolls are only relevant for the Old Testament.
@@bobdylan1677 Really? I didn know that.
@estar1277 Yes, No New Testament texts among them. The community who produced them was captured/killed by the Romans in the early 70s AD. Lots of copies of Old Testament books and the Book of Enoch
In my opinion the majority text position doesn't take sufficiently into consideration the providence of God. It is no accident that the authorized version became the most widely used and excepted translation of all time, even to this very day. The fact that Erasmus may have borrowed some text from Jerome's Latin Vulgate in my mind proves nothing. Jerome may have had access to a manuscript that is no longer in existence. Admittedly some have been lost and some of the more late manuscripts that support the t.r.may testify to what has been lost. Also it should be taken into consideration that a Bible strictly based on majority text readings has never existed. Bottom line, God in his sovereignty has the authority to choose any manuscripts he wishes, extant or otherwise. God is not bound to our philosophies he often acts contrary to our best calculations. Also I believe it is a bit nieve to think that the devil has gotten out of the business of trying to corrupt Gods word, II Cor. 4:2. The avalanche of Bibles that have come down to us over the last hundred years has caused more confusion in my opinion then actual help. The counter reformation must also be taken into consideration, after all the Roman Catholic church lost a large percentage of it's constituents as a directs result of the reformation . She was not going to take this lying down but has been trying to win protestants back under her skirts ever since, and has partly been successful. The Roman Catholic church and the devil have one common goal, and that is to destroy the influence of the Bible especially the Bible of the reformation. The contempt that some have for the kjv is amazing. Even some of those in the reformed camp speak of it with some contempt. Finally, footnotes are no consolation for me, they seem to carry with them an echo from the past, namely, "hath God said," Therefore I accept every verse in the kjv that the mt. and the ct put a question mark on as inspired scripture, if this is anti-scholarship so be it. Brother I don't mean to sound angry or upset, I want you to know that I love you in our precious Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and I pray for you that your ministry will be a blessing and helpful to many.
The Latin Vulgate was the primary translation far longer than the KJV.
sorry I should of qualified my statement to say from the sixteen hundreds to the present.@@PastorJ-qb2ts
Brandon Peterson's videos will blow you away on this topic, his channel is 'Truth is Christ'. Well worth a watch.
@anthonypassalacqua3330 Amen brother! Perfectly said! These people feel the need to take a shovel and dig holes in the ground non-stop to "find God's Word" which flies in the face of Preservation! My Question to these "Scholars" and all Modern Bible people is, Whats your faith built on if you don't believe we have God's Word? Your Faith can't be built on the Bible because you can't trust it! Another question would be, if they found another "Older manuscript" that said Jesus was only a Prophet, would they believe that next?
There is a passage that reminds me of all these "Educated Textual Critics"
○ 2 Timothy 3:7 👑KJB👑
"Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."
How can anyone compare the differences in these texts and not discuss Matt 5, verse 22? It’s biblical malpractice
The last part about the TR's Vulgate readings is confusing to me. Those verses slipped into *what* from the Vulgate? The TR? Then why a red X? They are present in the TR, the KJV, and the MT? What response needs to be given from TR advocates?
It is to assume the MT is correct and the reading in agreement gets and tick, disagreement gets a cross
I prefer the textus receptus, but think the majority text is the best. For me, I don’t like the critical text. I may not be fully understanding how it was made, but if it relied on fewer manuscripts I think that’s subpar. I don’t think they’ve made a majority text full Bible have they?( ot and nt)
No they haven’t. The best full bible for the majority text is the NKJV. I would like to see one of the Majority text versions put together with the KJV or ASV OT.
I read the nkjv as my go to Bible. I took a nt nkjv and changed some of the wording according to the majority text footnotes within . To be honest, it read better and made more sense in places
@@marvinthemartian6788 Do you have any examples?
Major pet peeve: It is NOT three "6"s; it is six hundred and sixty-six.
If agreement among a large group of manuscripts is needed in order for us to be convinced that we have God's word then we can just throw out the Old Testament because it is primarily based on a much lower number of very old manuscripts many of those are septuagint manuscripts which don't agree with the masoretic text but do in many places agree with the dead sea scrolls.
The question of the text of Acts 8:37 is reallllllllllllllly odd.
Irenaeus mentions it, and the context shows that he was quoting it and not merely referring to it.
It is strange that people would ADD or REMOVE this verse from the text,
Concerning Jude 5.
Manuscript p72 reads "God". But sadly it stands alone.
I guess there is a time and place to have this debate.
Concerning Rev. 22:19.
It is amazing how KJV Onlyists love to cling to the Majority Text and bash any Minority Text. Yet when it come to this, and other readings, verse- they will demand that people follow the TR and reject what logic says about the manuscripts.
Concerning Matthew 23:14.
If I remember correctly, this verse is found in very FEW manuscripts.
The NKJV footnotes erroneously point to the 'Majority' text, when they are in fact only referring to the faulty Greek Text According to the Majority (1982) by Hodge and Farstad. It falls far short of a full collation of manuscripts since it is based primarily on Von Soden's collation of only 414 of the over 5000 manuscripts.
It’s a pretty good work for 1982. Hard to use the same kind of a modern standard for the manual collation that they were doing back then. In 1982 it was not nearly as easy as firing up Accordance or Logos Bible Software. Or running to various manuscript websites to look for themselves. I would not say “erroneously” at all. It’s like saying the KJV translators “erroneously” added verses. They had what they had and I think did a pretty good job. What a embarrassment of riches we have in our NT manuscript tradition! Praise God!
@@jerem0621 I wouldn’t go so far as to equate the Farstad text to the KJB. The KJB is based on the Antioch text, which has thousands of independent witnesses that all read alike. So in that light, 400 of the majority Text compared to thousands of independent witnesses attesting to the readings faithfully preserved in the KJV are incomparable. The KJV reads exactly like the text of Antioch - the critical Text (which ALL modern bibles come from) does not, nor can it.
Mathew 19:12
🏳️🌈 Eunuchs that are born that way are transgender.
🏳️🌈 Eunuchs made that way by others were abused.
🏳️🌈 Those that choose to live like Eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are bisexual people that choose partners of the same sex but opposite in gender.
I am Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6 so any discrepancies in the bible are decided by me.
Plus it says right in Deuteronomy no one was castrated back then and that doesnt fit anyhow. But, Im Elijah - I come with power and truth.
Anyone teaching that ssm is a sin is currently blacked out until they repent or wait too late and die w the wicked.
xsez
@@mresab1997 are there any readings in the KJV where there are not thousands of independent readings attesting to the KJV reading?
@@mresab1997 When I read your first comment I took you seriously, but when I read your comment about the KJB I laughed... Great example on how to kill your own credibility!
“Who cares how you spell the name Junia?” That was a joke right? That name specifically is contested because if the majority text right then a woman was “of note among the apostles” 😅
I appreciate you posting this video, but I have tired of how frequently you keep disparaging the TR-only crowd, while not stressing the aggressiveness of the CT-only crowd. I would have appreciated it even more if you would have left out that biased commentary.