Textus Receptus, King James, & "Satan's Bible": Full Review of "Why I Preach from the Received Text"
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ส.ค. 2022
- VIDEO CORRECTIONS, NOTES, & RESOURCES
49:27 - should say "completely disagree"
Get the book here: amzn.to/3CHQxHP
(1) MY CHURCH
Gospel Fellowship PCA - / @gospelfellowshippresb...
Gospel Fellowship PCA Website - www.gospelfellowshippca.org/
Gospel Fellowship PCA Podcast - anchor.fm/gospelfellowshippca
(2) Newsletter Signup Form - share.hsforms.com/1EJQ1EYQrTd...
(3) MY BOOKS:
Holy Living: Jonathan Edwards's 70 Resolutions -
amzn.to/38fl4vX
Hold Fast the Faith: A Devotional Commentary on the Westminster Confession - amzn.to/3Bco9cI
Unknown: The Extraordinary Influence of Ordinary Christians -
amzn.to/38hiQwg
A Theology of Joy: Jonathan Edwards and Eternal Happiness in the Holy Trinity
amzn.to/3BbHnPC
The Lord and the Rings: Bible Study and Counseling Guide
amzn.to/3DkVtA8
(4) SOCIAL MEDIA
Twitter - @matt_everhard
Instagram - matthew_everhard
Telegram Channel - t.me/MatthewEverhard
Newsletter - email me at doctor + everhard (one word) at gmail dot you know
(5) APPAREL
Edwards T-shirts and Hoodie -
/ cassidycraftcorner
(6) ICTHUS PUBLICATIONS
www.ichthuspublications.com/
(7) MY STUDIO & BACKGROUND
Panasonic Basic Camcorder - amzn.to/3vR48sV
Logitech Webcam - amzn.to/3ynqRds
Studio Ring Lights - amzn.to/3jgYQjB
Edwards Resolutions Poster - www.missionalwear.com/the-res...
Hourglass - amzn.to/3BfILAY
![fellow fellow - Proud [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9uZF7BlUQPE/mqdefault.jpg)
I’m one of the 25 contributors of the book reviewed. My chapter seeks to speak from a “pew perspective” in Chapter 11. I appreciated the overall irenic approach of Matthew Everhard’s podcast here. Below are 3 comments:
1. Everhard asks a good but, in all due respect, a well-worn question; namely, “Which TR?” In “Pew terms”, this question strikes me as perhaps bloated and exaggerated, though I don’t bring into question the question. To be sure, there are editions of the TR from 1516 to 1894 spanning a whopping 378 years with 128 years on top when bringing us to 2022, totaling over 500 years - and here’s the rub - the TR editions are of such minor variations as to maintain extraordinary uniformity, and that over 500 years. This cannot be said of the Critical Text. The CT was launched in 1881, just 141 years ago; however, we see changes of a seismic nature occurring repeatedly. For example, how many editions of the ESV, a translation/version backed by the CT, has there been in the last decade? What will the Editio Critica Maior (ECM) look like in 2030 when it hits the market? Perhaps a more helpful question-set might be:
A) Does one believe the Text is corrupted and thus needs to be reconstructed to an approximation or a “hypothetical reconstruction” by man? This is the inescapable Critical Text worldview which undergird almost all modern Bible versions; Or,
B) Is the text of Scripture immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, and therefore authentic, as the Scriptures and the Confessions stand by? This is the inescapable Received Text worldview.
When the above is answered Biblically, it becomes much easier and refreshingly uncomplicated to assess which text stands squarely on the resources of man (2 Peter 1:20) and which stands squarely on the authority of God (Isaiah 40:8).
For more info on this, you may want to check out: www.jeffriddle.net/search?q=Which+TR%3F.
2. The charge of KJV Onlyism? Because one may use and value the KJV, or advocate for it on grounds of a divinely preserved text and a sound translation method, this does not make one a KJV Onlyist by definition or default.
I’m not a KJV Onlyist, yet I hold to the TR. Here’s how that works itself out: I maintain that any (pls note the word “any”) Bible version holding to the Received Text (TR) and is a Formal Equivalent translation, to be authoritative and canonical. The KJV, Geneva Bible, NKJV and the MEV are English Bible versions I’m aware of that currently qualify (and of these, arguably pros and cons exist as to which of these may be favoured). Somewhat along the same lines, while with reserve I endorse the CT for study reference to those knowing ancient Hebrew and Greek, where differences exist between the Received Text (TR) and the Critical Text, I hold alone to the TR authoritatively.
3. Everhard emphasizes that there’s a lack of technical data and Greek analysis in the book. True; and this book was never intended to be a technical manual by design. In fact, I think this is one of the refreshing aspects of the book. The technical side of text criticism, while having its healthy and necessary place, is also a monster of sorts that often takes center stage when it should still be waiting behind the curtain. Text criticism proper, in the modern sense, often obscures and derails; it, as it were, picks off the petals of the beautiful rose and then hands back a plastic picked-over stem in the name of scholarship. Text technique is subordinate and a second cause. What do I mean? When it comes to the text of Scripture, the divinely God-breathed Word of God (the θεόπνευστος or theopneustos) is divine on its own. It is its own first cause because of the great I AM. Put in a far lessened way: I don’t want scholar Bart Ehrman (an atheist, student of Critical Text reasoned eclectic Bruce Metzger, and a modern Text scholar) telling me what he thinks should be in the Bible or not. In contrast, men that tremble at God’s Word and walk and talk God’s Word by regenerate faith, are the men I want diving into the Bible and telling me about its Hebrew and Greek. The two must go hand in hand. CT scholarship often doesn’t, leaving the fear of God out of the equation by virtue that there is no light in them to begin (note: I don’t speak of all credentialled, or plausible, text critics. My point is that a godly pastor, called of God to teach and knowing the ancient languages, is a far more apt candidate for classical text criticism than an atheist who lights upon the text in a vacuum of rational scholarship).
Again, thanks to Matthew Everhard for this podcast. I think his progression toward the Majority Text is going in the right direction by a long shot but, at days end, faith trumps even “majority” when God is at the helm providentially keeping His sacred Word received far and wide over duration (though "majority" certainly is a huge, but not only, part of the TR). Faith! The immutable I AM does not change, nor does His settled Word (Psalm 119:89) and, of course, we have it.
May this subject avail to the end that we love the Lord Jesus Christ more, love His Word more, love His people more, and love the lost more!
Blessings in Christ.
"the TR editions are of such minor variations as to maintain extraordinary uniformity, and that over 500 years. This cannot be said of the Critical Text." You basically ignored the question. He asked which TR was the inerrant and inspired, not how the revisions compared to other texts. I'd also like to know which version of the TR is inerrant and inspired...
@@GregHorsky Who cares
the Critical text changes in thousands of places, and is not backed up by the earliest manuscripts in existence, nor is it backed up by the quotes from church fathers.. nor is it backed up by the massive 99% majority throughout history..
Nor is it backed up by the earliest copied Greek of the Greek Orthodox Church, which I have personally examined before.. dating back to the apostles themselves, still in Koine Greek from the 100s (and lining up with the Greek used in the 0s as well in 99.5%+ of the areas).
The earliest scriptures we have, in Aramaic, the Peshitta, also line up with the traditional text..
There are extraordinarily minor differences between TRs, which has the full backing of everything that makes sense historically.
Every apostolic church used Textus Receptus type manuscripts.. If there are a few minor differences, who cares.. The Critical Text has over 5000+ things different, and does not line up with any of the earlier accounts.. And also does not even line up with the few manuscripts which are in their own separate category either..
He did not ignore it.. He said it doesn't matter.. and the fact is, unless you expect literally perfection from a TR, it does not matter.. People who expect perfection expect it from the KJV, not the TR..
Looking forward to this one. I've seen a few people on Twitter reading it.
Thank you. I cautiously subscribe to the Majority Text. Please keep us up to date with your research into that text type. Great review!
I enjoy learning about stuff like this thanks Matthew, Also Dane loved you videos on the puritans. Would love to watch something that you both are involved in; keep up the good work.
Matt. Thank you. I enjoy your teaching and preaching very much. I would absolutely love to hear more about the majority text and what it is and the arguments for it. If you did a in depth video on that topic I would be very interested in that. God bless you and your family brother.
I hope to. I have several pages of notes prepped already!
Ha! You made me smile when you suggested the Majority text was more persuasive :)
I knew you would like that. Shout out to you in the beginning too.
Would love to see you do a deep dive on Majority Text!
I feel like the main problem with the critical text is that it's handled mainly by Catholics and non-Christians. (Yes, I know Erasmus died a Catholic.) And because it has been handled predominantly by nonbelievers and heterodox Christians, the methodology is that of outsiders looking in - and that's problematic.
exactly. That alone is reason enough for Christians to be hyped up over this whole issue. It's a big deal bc non-christians are sowing seeds of doubt in the Bible
Thanks. I appreciate your thoughts on the book.
Excellent review brother.
Excellent thoughts. thank you.
Love the spirit in which this delivered. Well put!
Well documented video! I love studying accurate history on how we got our Bibles. I thank the Lord for preserving His Word with the multiple manuscripts we have. I read from the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB), a great translation but I like other modern translations like the NASB and ESV.
Good review Rev. Everhard. Thanks for taking the time to put it together.
Looking forward to your thoughts both positive and negative to the book brother. I am especially looking forward to your unanswered questions section. Maybe I can give you my thoughts on them when I hear them, I'm sure they will be thought provoking questions!
- Dane
Dane you are welcome to come on the channel and explain if you would like! I'd be happy to set something up.
Dane K. J 🤔 So what's your response?
Thanks for this very thoughtful review of the book my friend Christian edited, and to which another friend (Brett Mahlen) contributed. I share most of your positives and negatives to the book. I would encourage you to consider Harry Sturz's position, in his volume _The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism_, which has (thankfully) just been reprinted. He offers yet another alternative between the TR and the CT position other than the Majority position.
Thanks for the recommendation! I will search for it now...
Hi Lane, please tell JC that Adam and Kathy say hi.
Superb Review! As one who prefers the Majority Text and uses the KJV and NKJV (and the Coverdale Psalter), though I also use the ESV and the NASB 77, I too am disappointed that a book that claims to defend the TR but disparages the NKJV translation.
I may still buy the book, but as one who would like to see the Majority Text as the most popular text, it may be a while?
Thank you for the very comprehensive review. I will have to do more study on the majority text concept as I am not familiar with it. I obviously don't have a problem using TR based texts as my preferred version is GNV 1599 but I think the idea that only one English translation is the preserved word of God is absurd on its face given the interwoven threads of different Greek and Latin manuscripts used in its genesis.
On top of that I have to ask why the Reformed and Presbyterian movement must base its whole case on an Anglican translation that did not even exist at the start of the Reformation. And of course one has to ask is the OT translation of any particular TR version is also the one and only inspired translation and which version.
I'm neither Calvinist nor Arminian, etc. Just a doctrinal Bible teacher.
Just a note, Calvinists are both KJV only, or Majority text, so-called, or Critical Greek New Testament.
Not just KJV only.
James White, Daniel Wallace and many other Calvinists, i.e. reformed, men are Critical Greek New Testament users and of course James White has debated Jeff R. concerning textual criticism, for example.
KJV only would be absurd even to the 1611 KJV translators/revisors of the Bishop's Bible per their letter to the reader, which KJV'S no longer contain, which can only be assumed to be deception concerning today's KJV readers.
KJV onlyists would be outraged at the 1611 KJV, which is the version they actually defend publicly as I've always observed, but they know very little about it.
Amen & Amen to your review! Informative and penetrating. Your graciousness is truly amazing. May God bless you!🙋🏼♂️📖
Hello Matt can you make a review on the new book called or something like that Calvinism of Leighton Flowers
i preach from the tr but not the king james i use the Reina valera 1960 wich would be similar to the nknjv but i use a couple of diferent versions like the niv, the esv the hcsb and the nlt so i use both for my sermon preparations i live in el salvador so i cant preach in english but i am in both camps and i urge the congregation im in to read and use both camps thank you Matt
Thanks!
Which TR? 1550 Stephanus, according to Doug Wilson. I know he wasn’t a contributor but he’s the only one I’ve heard pick a TR. I wouldn’t worry about making a shorter video. Those who care enough about the subject will not find an hour long video difficult to endure. You’re very engaging throughout the video so the hour went by rather fast. Great job on an oftentimes difficult and overwhelming subject.
Interested in that you are trending towards majority text position. I line up more with the CT view, but am open to learn.
CT = critical text
The quote from Turretin is often brought up, but what is not brought up is that he was quoting someone else. Gill then quotes Turretin so the chain of evidence is a bit sketchy. Turretin's quote is found on pg 115 of his Elenctic Theology:
"Not 1 Jn. 5:7, for although some formerly called it into question and heretics now do, yet all the Greek copies have it, as Sixtus Sinensis acknowleges: 'they have been the words of never-doubted truth, and contained in all the Greek copies from the very times of the apostles'. [et in omnibus Graecis exemplaribus ab ipsis Apostolorum temporibus lecta] (Bibliotheca sancta [1575]"
I would point out that it is simply factually wrong: not only is it easily proven that "all the Greek copies". Turretin may have accepted it as true, but that certainly doesn't mean it was.
Who is Sixtus Sinensis? A Roman Catholic scholar who was defending the Comma in the Vulgate and provides zero evidence other than the claim. I leery of accepting that claim uncritically.
I am disappointed when Turretin is brought into this as though it should carry weight. After all, he's a solid, reformed guy. You don't want to disagree with Turretin right? Only it's not really Turretin we're talking about, it's Sixtus Sinensis.
Interesting
What would you recommend, NASB2020 or NASB95 for my primary English translation. I'm not English and my primary is nkjv but would like to change to a non tr translation as my primary English translation. I've tried the esv but didn't like it that much.
Its 1 month late but i would recommend the Nasb 1995 over the NASB2020
I would recommend NASB 95.
Brother Matthew, I am a new Christian I have the KJV which is what I was told the only one to use. I also have the NASB MacArthur Study Bible any help please which would be better? Thankyou.
Hey Matthew! Please do a video on the majority text, It would be much appreciated! Thanks for all the work you do in putting out your content, It's a huge blessing to me.
Great suggestion proposed for Matthew's review of Majority Text
54:57 This is one of my main concerns. How can we be sure about any of the Textus Receptus readings based on Erasmus' work when he wasn't specifically attempting to collate a singularly good Greek text, but was focused on revising the translation of the Vulgate? I don't understand any language other than English and it bothers me to think that some of our Greek readings may not have come from any Greek manuscripts of the scriptures, but from Erasmus' understanding of the Vulgate and from the writings of the early church fathers, whom he greatly revered. Would you happen to know of any scholarship in English that could set my mind at ease on these points?
I've found a lot of non-English translations quite lacking. A lot of them feel like cross-translations from English rather than direct translations from the original languages. (I do rather like the NBLA as a Spanish translation.)
Have you ever read the ReinaValeraActualizada 2015? If so, any thoughts?
@@sphtu8 No. But all the RV variants I know of are Jehovist, and I'm not really keen on a 100% Jehovist translation (same issue I have with the ASV's Old Testament). I think it throws off the inter-testamental continuity.
In the early years of the kjv that had many minor corrections, I would guess that some geneva bible users were complaining that the kjv was getting updated too frequently and not stable.
Could you please give us an update on how the plant is going? I think it's been a while since you've mentioned it. Thank you!
Thank you sir! We are on year number two of church planting. We are doing three evangelistic Bible studies in the area now instead of one, hoping to pull them together and move towards worship in the future, especially as we look for a church planter...
@@MatthewEverhard excellent to hear. My God continue to be with you all in your efforts!
I agree with a lot of what you said. I use the KJV, and I enjoy going to most churches and everyone having the same Bible. At the same time, I wish we could all agree on one modernized KJV with updated grammar and archaic words.
Have you ever read any of David Daniel's material?
Well done! In my opinion, it all tends to go to KJO. Don't know why but it seems that most people are extremely nervous with the idea that there will always be unknowns in our Bibles. It appears that God did indeed preserve His word but left some mysteries there. As all His revelations, it is sufficient but not "complete" enough to satisfy the human questionings. It also seems that even angels desire to know more by observing His church.
I agree there is the appearance towards KJO but careful reading will show that it is KJV PREFERRED, not ONLY. And think about it... If we share the lament that there seems to be no common version, at some point in the argument a consensus will start to form and one version find itself as the center of gravity. And IF that consensus is towards the KJV then immediately Christians have to deal with all the baggage of KJVO, Ruckman, fundamentalists etc. I would argue that the KJV is by far most in the literary ether and has been for 400 years with its idioms, style and prose. This places it at the center of gravity and we have to deal with that. Are we at a historical changing of the guard towards a modern version or are we wayward and living in what a century from now will be regarded as "aberrant times"? I find it ironic that all the hell-bound woke Marxists, sodomites and child killers have hijacked the term "the wrong side of history". I imagine those who perished in Noah's flood similarly flattered themselves. But the concept is valid despite it being hijacked by present madmen. I'll refrain from saying "right side" in a moral sense but I'll still ask the question... Is the matter of lacking a consensus translation a result of deconstructionist enlightenment methodology and the tumult of our times? Would a more faithful methodology possibly lead us back to the KJV in a century as we regain our epistemological footing?
chalcedon.edu/magazine/the-received-text
@@grahamdugas8729 Thanks for the Rush article. As a young man, I feasted from his writings. And you made some excellent points. God is indeed without error and we can count on His words He has preserved. I do think in this world we will never have absolute certainty on the texts because the originals, as far as we know, have been eternally lost. What shall we do? I cannot go into KJO and I cannot believe that God left His people without His perfect word at anytime before the Reformation. I am woefully incapable of understanding it completely but I believe we can have confidence in the text we have even though there is some controversy. I may eventually move toward the MT as Brother Matt seems to be moving. But today, what I have is more than enough. May God greatly bless you and your work.
15:30 As a counterpoint: We are still learning things--whether through the discovery of new manuscripts, analysis of the relationships among the extant manuscripts, or understanding of koine Greek--that occasionally require changes in translation. The most obvious recent change in this regard is the ESV's current reading in Jude 5.
19:50 There are variations among manuscripts of the Koran as well. The difference is that we're (generally) honest about them; most Muslims pretend theirs don't exist. Even if the church were to somehow settle on a specific text (leaving aside the question of how that would happen), that doesn't make the textual variants go away.
36:00 This point needs to be carried out a bit. Turretin, as you say, was incorrect; only four Greek mss contain the comma as part of the text. So the question becomes, did de Geir know this? And, if you'll forgive the expression, he's damned if he did, and damned if he didn't. If he didn't know, he's sufficiently ignorant on the subject that he's simply not qualified to be writing to it. If he knew it, then using the quote without including a qualifier is dishonest--in which case he's disqualified, not only to write on this subject, but from the ministry at all.
49:30 Precisely. If the claim is that God has perfectly preserved a pure text, they must identify which one it is--because Erasmus' 1519 is not the same as Stephanus' 1550, nor Beza's 1598, nor Elzevier's 1633, nor Scrivener's (what a perfect name!) 1894. If they can't identify the perfectly-preserved pure text, then the claim that God has preserved such a text is meaningless--it might as well be the NA28, or the THGNT. And an equally important question: why that one?
Good points here. Thanks for taking notes along the way!
I’m a TR guy who uses both NKJV and KJV. I’m an army chaplain and I’m surprise to see the majority of my troopers that prefer KJV. Most of them are not part of a fundamentalist background or circles. Personally, I wouldn’t mind using the ESV or NASB if those translations in the NT reflect the TR readings.
@matthew have you considered the Byzantine text also? I heard you mentioned the majority text, which how I understood it, isn’t the same as the Byzantine text (granted, that’s not the same to the TR but the closes relative).
during your time in RTS Orlando, did you study under Dr. Lanier? - if so, we have that in common.
Great video. I’m not even half way done yet, but I love how pastoral and respectful you are with positions you don’t necessarily agree with. I love the fact that you approach this subject with humility and wanting to learn
Ever consider the MEV? Created by a military Chaplain to make the KJV easier to understand..
@@ussconductor5433 never had a real chance to dive deep on that translation. I wouldn’t be oppose to learn more. However, from what I read from others it is more theologically bent towards the Charismatic Movement rather than faithfully translating the text. I’m not sure how accurate that is. Plus, you don’t see many MEVs out at book stores.
@@bridgerbond definitely no charismatic leanings as a number of different backgrounds have attested (especially non charismatic backgrounds). A second edition will be coming out at the beginning of 2023. It’s smoother than the NKJV and sits around the CSB for readability.
@@ussconductor5433 I gotta check it out. I went to their site and saw it’s endorsements, way more denominations than I thought. Thank you for the reference… and I’ll wait for the 2023 edition then
@@bridgerbond I’m an Admin of the MEV Group. You are more than welcome to join us if you’d like. Made up of different denominations and backgrounds.
Seems the authors/editor’s just have to do better in defence of their convictions etc. As a user of KJV I can’t see this publication being on my to read list. Your review, pastor, is welcome as a check & balance etc thanks
A few in confessional bibliology do use modern TR translations like nkjv and mev. These might still be kjv only if their TR is dependent on the variants chosen by the kjv translators. An example of somebody who is not kjv only is Russell Stendal Jubilee bible based on various reformation era texts, based on various reformation era translations like William Tyndale, kjv, spanish translation by casiodoro de reina, etc. and can be described as Reformation Era Traditions Only. KJV Only or the texts and variants behind the KJV Only are subsets of the Reformation Era Traditions Only beliefs. Reformation Era Traditions Only beliefs, Byzantine Text Traditions Only beliefs and Majority Text Traditions Only beliefs are subsets of Traditions Only beliefs found in fundamentalists and evangelicals who reject new discoveries that contradict old beliefs.
Very well done, Matthew. You did a better job than I did at finding positives in the book. But you found some of the same key negatives.
Thank you so much sir. Appreciate you greatly.
The late Dr. R.C. Sproul used to advocate for the role of logic in biblical exegesis. I think this principle is also applicable in this debate. Be KJVO or PKJVO all you want, and I respect that, but please please be logically coherent. As for the topic of non-English-speaking believers, which I'm one of, I greatly appreciate the tremendous effort the TBS has put into translating TR into a variety of languages, even though I don't agree with their TR-only position. On the other hand, certain KJVO-ists' attitude can sadly be reduced to, "sorry folks, you are just not part of God's providential plan".
Favoring only the variants chosen by the kjv translators rather than the variants used in other reformation era translations like the german translation of martin luther, spanish translation of casiodoro de reina, etc. shows kjv only as mainly an american bias. There are those who use only the first edition 1611 kjv with all of its 1611 typos and 1611 mistranslations, those who use only the geneva bible, those who use only the William Tyndale translation, and all of these beliefs are pretty irrational.
Would LOVE to see an ESV based on the MT
The Gideons have a TR based ESV, which Crossway facilitated when Harper Collins canceled the contract allowing them to distribute the NKJV.
@@sbs8331 I have a Gideons ESV NT and Psalms that I enjoy thoroughly
Most gladly
For the riddle of which TR, some kjv only believers will say KJV is the TR, bec whatever variants chosen by the KJV translators is the TR that they believe in.
This thorough, charitable and helpful. Thankyou
Thank you so much!
Many Independent Baptist congregations have their own Bible institutes, training up their own missionaries and pastors.
For me I was staunch KJV Only. You can ask anyone who's known me. It was obnoxious and hateful. I was not in anyway reformed at that time. About the time I said ok. Maybe I'm not being fair to the newer bibles I was also become reformed. When I started listening to pastors of todays reformed pastors I realized that they were using NASBs or ESVs. I began to understand the importance interpretation philosophy even over manuscript basis.
In its early years, kjv also had pretty frequent minor corrections. Most modern translations will also stabilize if given more than 400 years. Sometimes, there are big discoveries like dead sea scroll which can introduce plenty of changes.
Thank you, Pastor Matt. 🌹🌹🌹🌹(Your non-Reformed very respectful listener). Fantastic presentation!!!.Learned a great deal: eye-opening.
Hey Matthew, great video. I have an antidotal experience with the KJV and a suggestion for a Majority Text (sort of) translation you might like!
Unlike a lot of your viewers, I was not raised on the KJV. My first bible readthrough as a teenager was on the RSV. I've used a variety of translations over the years, and have consulted it online, but beyond a little pocket NT and Psalms I received when I graduated HS (and promptly lost) I've never owned a JKV until recently. Ironically perhaps, I've read much more NJKV than KJV.
I got the Westminster from TBS and as a first-time KJV reader I find the helps and notes to be indispensable. I'm sure with the exposure it becomes easier, but it is more difficult than I had suspected. I'm no genius, but I'm a reasonably bright guy. I read a lot of books and when I was young and taking standardized tests I usually scored in the top 10% for reading comprehension. I would suspect I'm a better reader than average. If I find it difficult, I flatter myself to think that many other people, most likely the majority of people, also find it difficult to understand.
I suspect that many of the people who pride themselves on not having difficulty with the KJV may not even realize what they don't understand.
I think it does depend on the book.... Genesis is fairly straightforward in the KJV. Once you get to Paul it becomes painful. Peter has already let us know that Paul can be hard to understand, why must we make it harder?
That said, it is a beautiful translation and I really truly am enjoying reading it.
If you are intrigued by the Majority Text (I am as well) you might really like the EOB. The Patriarchal Text is very similar to the MT and the translation notes in the EOB are incredible. It is interesting to see the noted differences between the TR and the PT. I'm an Orthodox Christian, so perhaps I'm a bit biased, but I think it is a really interesting translation and has been my favorite for about a year. Stephen Hackett and R. Grant Jones have both reviewed it and had positive things to say.
@Steve- I completely agree with you! The EOB is excellent-just wish they had the old AND New Testament 😕
Honestly i think WCF 1.8 directly rules out KJV/TR-only for two reasons:
1. "all ages" implies that the text is pure before 1611. So taking "pure" to mean perfect would contradict history.
2. There are a few places where there is zero Greek evidence.
Perhaps this is late to the conversation, but on the point of desiring one unifying translation, didn’t many in the Reformed tradition stick with the Geneva Bible rather than the 1611 KJV? I don’t think it’s historically accurate to say most/all English speakers used the KJV for many generations. It wasn’t the first English translation, and I don’t know (out of ignorance) if it was the best even in the 17th century.
Watching all of the Bible scholars debate each other on manuscripts and which bible is the right one a plain old person like me can decide why read them because we don’t know which one is if any is right maybe they all need to read 2 timothy 2 and verse 14 sadly they won’t. Thanks for reading this.
Funny thing: Look at a KJV with the translators' notes, at Lk 17.36. SHOCK HORROR!
Excellent work, Matt! Much appreciated, brother.
Most of the contributors are kjv only bec they probably believe in the hebrew and greek texts (plus latin vulgate variants, plus complutensian variants) behind the kjv translation. Some are kjv only in practice and refuse to use modern TR translations like nkjv and mev. These are mainly believers in reformation era traditions and reformation era beliefs like reformation era hebrew and greek texts, reformation era translations particularly the kjv, reformation era confessions, and pretty much automatically reject new discoveries like dead sea scrolls, some automatically reject newer english TR translations like nkjv and mev. There are reformation era texts believers and reformation era translations believers who are open to new translations like people who use nkjv and mev, people who have produced new translations like Russell Stendal's Jubilee Bible (based on various TRs and is not dependent on the kjv only and is not dependent on the hebrew and greek texts variants chosen by the kjv). Fundamentalists tend to reject all modern expert consensus and science consensus that contradict old beliefs. Liberals tend to accept all modern expert consensus and science consensus that contradict old beliefs. Evangelicals are in between the fundamentalists and liberals. Liking the majority text is also mainly tradition based bec it is pretty much the byzantine text preserved by the Orthodox Church tradition.
I believe part of their issue with the NKJV is their disagreement with the NKJV use of the Septuagint over against the Masoretic Hebrew Text in some aspects of the OT.
Interesting, since some in the New Testament, including Jesus himself, quote from the LXX.
That's rich, considering the KJV follows the Septuagint for Isaiah 7:14 -- are they arguing against the use of the Septuagint completely or do they just prefer certain readings from the MT over the Septuagint?
Really appreciate this review. The strongest arguments imo against the CT are presuppositional and have to do with worldview. But to conflate that with KJV is the English translation we should all use is a stretch. Thanks for taking the time to do this!
But most presuppositionalists I know are CT, not TR. I think it would be a mistake to confuse true presuppositionalism, which rests upon the Word of God, and resting upon a particular manuscript tradition.
@@michaelmannucci8585 Great point. I wasn't referring to Presuppositionaism as an apologetic outlook, but the presuppositions themselves that undergird the CT (the church lost the original text, there was an evolution of manuscript tradition, etc.). Some of those presuppositions are hard to swallow imo, even before looking at the manuscript evidence
What is your evaluation of William Tyndale's New Testament (the modern-spelling edition of the 1534 translation, printed by Yale)??
Matthew, thanks for the thoughtful review. Two quick replies to the direct criticism of my essay:
Hyperbole - Yes, I should have written “account of” rather than “reference to” on pg. 153. At the same time, it was not a positive argument, but an autobiographical description of early doubts caused by the apparatus. The experience is neither uncommon nor exaggerated.
NKJV - My only claim on pg. 154 is that the AV is more accurate due to things like numbered personal pronouns. I have preached from the NKJV hundreds of times. I’ve also preached from the Geneva Bible and even (only once!) from a footnote in the NIV.
Grace and peace, Christian Mc.
NKJV - so cool! wish you would have said that!
@@MatthewEverhard Not sure saying that would have improved my essay, but I’m happy to be on record now.
I do like James White’s argument to Muslims that having many and varied copies shows that we haven’t had the text created by one man without scrutiny.
The Muslims have a big problem as all of their early texts were destroyed and only a portion used to create the final Quran.
practical kjv only is still kjv only. Those who only believe in the variants chosen by the kjv translators are also still kjv only.
Change the book title? Come now...
It boggles my mind that so many object to discussing text and translation at the same time. This is unavoidable.
No English translation that I know of follows any single manuscript or printed edition of the Greek NT one hundred percent of the time.
Read the introductions. The translating committees openly acknowledge their willingness to depart from their chosen base text on occasion.
The ESV is a perfect example. Though based on NA27, it deviated from that text in Jude 1:5. It was only eleven years later that NA28 “caught up” with the ESV translators.
Translators do textual criticism. That’s why we must talk about both at the same time.
Christian Mc.
Us Majority Text folks have to watch the informal fallacy of argumentum ad populum as well. That’s what makes the conversation interesting me. Both sides have their own logical fallacy they have to watch out for: argumentum ad antiquitatem and argumentum ad populum
Which common bible translation is based upon the MT? Answer... none. This is a book about preaching, not which do you study from or use in your sermon prep. There is no "false dilemma" fallacy here.
@@grahamdugas8729 You would do well to notice that I did not reference a specific modern translation of a Majority Text at all, only the MT itself. Furthermore, I was speaking to the concepts of the two camps: one of which has a majority of the manuscripts on its side, the other with older manuscripts - neither can claim absolute authority because they have their own drawbacks and strengths. Finally, your comment seemed a little more distasteful than necessary. You might consider being a little more gracious.
@@matthewhazelwood6520 Though I commented elsewhere on this video at some length, when I addressed the MT, I used extreme economy of words because I had to go. But even then, it doesn't come across as caustic. Just as someone getting through the bullet points quickly because he had to hang up the phone seconds later.
.
There over statements on why there KJVO chapter after chapter perhaps seems to be them making a case for centrist reformed KJV only separating themselves from the extreme KJV only people naming CT demonic. But hey I’m not reformed nor have I read it but will pick it up! Thanks for the video pastor.
Probly the most thorough and fair book report I've ever seen.
Here is your answer to the “Which edition of the TR?” question you posed. Hills presented an excellent overview of the history of the Received Text, including a description of the various editions of the TR which were published from Erasmus to the Elzevirs. Hills also pointed out that the King James Bible represents a unique form of the Received Text, and he believed it was this precise form which should be followed: “THE KING JAMES VERSION OUGHT TO BE REGARDED NOT MERELY AS A TRANSLATION OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS BUT ALSO AS AN INDEPENDENT VARIETY OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS. ... But what do we do in these few places in which the several editions of the Textus Receptus disagree with one another? Which text do we follow? The answer to this question is easy. We are guided by the common faith. HENCE WE FAVOR THAT FORM OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS UPON WHICH MORE THAN ANY OTHER GOD, WORKING PROVIDENTIALLY, HAS PLACED THE STAMP OF HIS APPROVAL, NAMELY, THE KING JAMES VERSION, or, more precisely, the Greek text underlying the King James Version" (Hills, The King James Version Defended, DD. 220,223).
Excellent video
Having a common bible is not really possible bec translations require interpretation and jewish christians, orthodox, catholics, protestants, differ in interpretations.
I've recently adopted a Byzantine Text only position after looking into the topic for the past 8 years. I've gone from being a hardline CT person, using the ESV and other CT versions to now using the KJV and knowing that it is the preserved Word of God in the english language. There was just so much evidence for the Byzantine text that for me to simply ignore it to ''fix in'' would be a sin against my conscience. I encourage everyone reading this to at bare minimum incorporate the King James Bible into your Christian life and eat spiritual meat. You won't regret it. God bless.
Why not NKJV?
By "and eat spiritual meat," are you implying that the KJV is spiritual meat in a way that no other translation is?
@@cmiddleton9872 Yes
@@forestantemesaris8447 I think if you have to use a modern bible translation than the NKJV is above the rest. However in my opinion the KJV is better for a number of reasons. 1. Words used/more accurate/theologically richer, 2. Style/Poetic/memorisation 3. No possible ''update'' (watch the nkjv WILL be '' updated'' one day, it's all about money) 4. I don't need permission to quote it 5. The language is the same as the great hymns of the faith. 6. If I understand the language I can read and understand older theological works, books, confessions of faith. 7. If you can understand the KJV than you can understand all bible translations and you have greatly expanded your vocabulary and can read other famous english works. These are just some reasons. The KJV is the standard in the english language, just read the preface to all modern translations. I encourage you at minimum to incorporate the King James Bible into your life. God bless you Forest.
After being in the MCT camp since 1995, I to have recently moved to a Byzantine text. I use the NKJV mostly but do like the 1599 Geneva (modern Tolle Lege version) and the KJV… blessings
TR ideology is not KJVO. However, if you tend toward toward TR ideology, the KJV is about the only place to land.
Why not NKJV?
Or MEV.
@@forestantemesaris8447 I said "about". 🙂 The NKJV is great.
@@sbs8331 With the KJV and the NKJV, I don't see where the MEV really fits in. The NKJV updates the archaic language of the KJV and reads a lot like the KJV. Both can be read simultaneously without confusion. I've only read a little bit of the MEV. I really tried to like it. But it just didn't do anything for me that would cause me to swithc from the KJV or NKJV. I do use the NASB for comparison.
@@goldenarm2118 NKJV does not just "update" the KJB but changes around thousands of words and departs from the TR some times. Nick Sayers found 500 errors in the NKJV. Check out his channel he's got good content on the whole TR/KJV and critical text debate/issues.
Some KJV Only started to hate footnotes maybe bec many current kjvs are printed with no footnotes. Some KJV Only believers believe the kjv is inspired but the kjv footnotes are not inspired. Some KJV Only believers believe footnotes cause doubts and maybe will turn believers into atheists.
Hard to find real hebrew and greek text experts like Peter Montoro (nt only) and Elijah Hixson (nt only). Mark Ward and Timothy Berg are not critical text experts.
Where's the Greek? -- to be fair to the CB position it really doesn't argue its position from the Greek (or Hebrew or Aramaic). It's a piece of dogmatics. God has spoken. He has spoken in his word, the canonical scriptures. His sheep hear his voice and recognise it as such. In his word he promises the preservation of the word. (all fairly basic reformation theology thus far). In God's providence the widely recieved (deliberately small 'r') text of scripture during the revival we call the reformation was the Erasmus through Stephanus through Beza edition in Greek and the 2nd Bomberg OT. When the reformation defined itself dogmatically in its systems and especially its confessions the common text was the text of the churches. God had spoken and worked in and through it, therefore it is the divinely attested text.
Its really not a debate to be had with Textual Scholars but rather a debate to be had with Systematic and Confessional scholars. Does this position stack up theologically and in terms of the confessions? That's up to the theology, church history and symbolics folk.
Perfect summary
Excellent
Hi greetings in CHRIST JESUS NAME,PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT I AM NOT SCHOOLED IN GODS WORD ,HOW EVER I WANT TO THE TEACHINGS OF PASTOR R,B THIEME LATE JR. HE TEACHES FROM YHE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES I THINK ,HE IS A GREAT authority in presentation of GODS WORD,I HZVD LISTENING FOR MANY YEARS ,GREAT ,CHECK BERACHAH CHURCH,HOUSTON TEXAS FREE BIBLE STUDY ,I LISTEN TO U ,GReat
The “Satan’s Bible” stuff really hurts their argument. That sort of language makes it very hard for me and many others to take the confessional text position seriously.
That's because it shouldn't. It's just a another failed attempt to make KJVO more palatable to a smarter audience. Practically every single of these "confessional text" guys simply pushes the KJV on you and reject anything else, be it another existing TR-based translation or even doing a new one from scratch.
You know, all this textual argument does my head in. The only result is a loss of confidence in scripture.
Couldn't disagree more brother.
Your complaint implies that we should be ostriches, just ignore the problem and it will go away. Perhaps you might want to revise the thinking behind your comment.
The problem is that it's out there. There are over 5000 Greek manuscripts of (at least portions of) the NT, and not a single one of them agrees perfectly with any of the others--as much as we might wish that God had created the Xerox machine in, say, 50 BC, that didn't happen. Sooner or later, one way or another, we must deal with this fact. One important part of dealing with this fact is recognizing that it doesn't change the message--if you carefully exegete the text of any of the translations (even as awful of a "translation" as the Passion or the NWT), you're going to get the same doctrine.
@@danbrown586 The solution is that we have a criteria whereby we can sift through and decide which ones to regard and which ones to dismiss. It is the position of the Critical text advocates that we can never know and hence they are epistemologically committed to uncertainty. That is why there is refuge in the Confessional doctrine of Preservation.
chalcedon.edu/magazine/the-received-text
What we need to know and believe: [ABOUT SALVATION: I Cor. 15:1-4 Moreover, brethren (fellow Christians), I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you have received, and wherein you stand: By which also you are saved, if you keep in memory what I preached to you, unless you have believed in vain (don't really care). For I delivered to you first of all that which I received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Eph. 2:8-9 For by grace (from God) are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. Rom. 10:9-13 That if you shall confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you shall be saved. For with the heart man believes to righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made to salvation. For scripture says, Whosoever believes on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between Jew and the Greek (Gentiles): for the same Lord over all is rich to all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Joh. 3:16 For God so loved the world (us), that he gave his only begotten Son (Jesus), that whosoever believes in him should not perish (in hell), but have everlasting life (with God). Joh. 14:6 Jesus said to him (us), I am the way (salvation), the truth (trustworthy), and the life (eternal): no man comes to the Father (God), but by me (God the Son). Rom. 10:17 So then faith comes by hearing (studying), and hearing by (studying) the Word of God. Rom. 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Rom. 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:]
Critical text is supported by plenty of evidence which is why it convinces most and is used by most experts and is part of the expert consensus. For example, we know the masoretic text evolved slowly and has copying errors once you compare with older versions like septuagint, samaritan pentateuch, syriac, plus the oldest texts coming from the dead sea scrolls discoveries. Basically, those who formed the masoretic text had 2 choices in many of the books: shorter version and longer version, and those who formed the masoretic text chose 1 of the available versions. Having older texts, shorter versions, longer versions, etc. all help clarify each other and correct each other bec the later masoretic text has plenty of copying errors (masoretic text is sort of the 3rd edition).
Mark Ward seems to be saying one must be CT Only.
I agree there is the appearance towards KJO but careful reading will show that it is KJV PREFERRED, not ONLY. And think about it... If we share the lament that there seems to be no common version, at some point in the argument a consensus will start to form and one version find itself as the center of gravity. And IF that consensus is towards the KJV then immediately Christians have to deal with all the baggage of KJVO, Ruckman, fundamentalists etc. I would argue that the KJV is by far most in the literary ether and has been for 400 years with its idioms, style and prose. This places it at the center of gravity and we have to deal with that. Are we at a historical changing of the guard towards a modern version or are we wayward and living in what a century from now will be regarded as "aberrant times"? I find it ironic that all the hellbound woke Marxists, sodomites and child killers have hijacked the term "the wrong side of history". I imagine those who perished in Noah's flood similarly flattered themselves. But the concept is valid despite it being hijacked by present madmen. I'll refrain from saying "right side" in a moral sense but I'll still ask the question... Is the matter of lacking a consensus translation a result of deconstructionist enlightenment methodology and the tumult of our times? Would a more faithful methodology possibly lead us back to the KJV in a century as we regain our epistemological footing?
chalcedon.edu/magazine/the-received-text
This is what fanaticism looks like, folks...
Pastor Christian McSchafferty has an MDiv Degree from Mid American Reformed Seminary. He could not Pastor in a Presbyterian Church without an MDiv. Pastor Chris Myers has an MDiv or he could not have been ordained in the RPCNA. Dr. Jeff Riddle has a PHD and is the editor of the book along with Pastor McShafferty. The others are simply contributors to the book and I am not familiar with them, but many Pastors write books on subjects of this nature without PhD's. I do appreciate your review and demeanor. Thank you.
Stablilty of the koran seems to be just some central authority enforcing it but koran can still be interpreted in thousands of ways and many disagreements among muslims similar to the thousands of protestant sects.
Might want to find some of James White's debates with Muslim apologists. He both defends the New Testament's textual variants and exposes the myth that the Koran has none.
While I find it refreshingly good news that you are leaning away from the critical text position and towards the majority text. And hopefully one day embrace the traditional text view. It might be helpful for you to be aware that according to James R. White, another type of KJVO is the majority text position. See “The King James Only Controversy” p. 24.
As a biblical translator I am convinced that Riddle et al. would not get along with the KJV translators of that day. And I'm reminded that persecution seemed to be part and parcel of every translator of old.
Brother, you sort of scoffed at the education of some of these writers, then could not pronounce “John’s comma” correctly (I can’t either; the Texas drawl would be disqualifying), nor had the skill to Google what I D.R.E. is. It stands for Doctor of Religious Education. The Southern Baptist Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth used to award that degree, though it seems (based on their current website) that they do not now use that terminology. William R. (Rick) Yount, who taught there from 1981-2012, had a DRE (and many others, of course). I also found the schools you said you couldn’t. I’m sure your education is not deficient, but you definitely need to improve your Googling skills. ;-)
You must have gone to a small high school. There are seven diplomas in the list (8, when you consider one person is listed twice). Most, though not all, are for UK contributors. I suspect that indicates they use some different terminology. A quick look suggests to me these might be roughly equivalent to Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees, though I’m not going to follow that any further.
I’m glad Peter and Andrew, James and John, did not contribute. They only had F.O.M. (fishermen who are fishers of men) and W.W.J. (walking with Jesus) degrees from the School of Jesus (which most academic institutions in our country no longer recognize).
Our mutual friend Mark Ward told me that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones, and I hope I have only lightly lobbed a few (back at yours). 🙂
Ha ha! I definitely deserve the part about mispronouncing that word! Messed that up like three times. You got me good there, sir.
Question, Question, my Question moreover I have a Question, Wow Matthew do you have anymore Questions?
I have a Question Is the King James Bible NOT the recieved text? If it is the RT why would confessional bibleologist be label KJVO, can they just be called believers of the Recieved Text in the ENGLISH the Authorized King James Bible?
What is your definition of KJVO?
KJVO is mainly used as slander, even if you aren't trying to slander a person on purpose.
Being called KJVO associate Jeff Riddle with the ALL of the teachings of Ruckman, Sam Gipp, Gail Riplinger whether that is your attentions or not.
Even if they have the same belief that the KJB is the word of God it is still NOT charitable to label someone KJVO with its well know connotation to extreme personality in the KJVO camp.
So if you are going to say KJVO please state your definition of the term because we will have no choice but see it as slander.
Some hallmarks would include any or all of the following : 1) re-inspiration theory 2) KJV corrects Greek/Hebrew 3) Denial of possibility of any English update 4) Denigration of all other English translations as Satanic 5) Salvation only possible through use of KJV 6) Denial of necessity of translation into other world languages. Of these marks, the only one I really saw in this book is my #4 above. My #'s 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 were not present in this book. However, the presence of #4 in the chapter by Myers is alarming.
Thank you Mathew for the (1-6) clarification(KJVO), this makes it easier for everybody in this discussion to understand your concerns for ONE of the (1-6) in book review and not All of the Above (1-6)
@@MatthewEverhard To the six you mention here, I'd add another (which you do mention in the video, but not here, at least specifically): denigration of any modern translation based on the TR, like the NKJV or the MEV. If you say you're TR-only but can't accept any translation from the TR except for the KJV, as Jeff Foxworthy might say, you just might be KJVO.
Your criticisms about the ‘repetitions’ were what , for me, were most convincing. These men, more than two I know and have heard preach, all wrote from different view points but are all godly men as you know. This book for me encouraged enormously. I was so touched by it. They were gentle in any critiques they made - good lesson. Listen to the preaching of a few, eg Pooyan. Godly men …their greatest qualification.
Brackets and footnotes are a real hindrance to many in our church and wider ministry. It is helpful to those who desire to look into these things. But most people just want the words of God in a readable form. They don’t want to have to make decisions on textual issues which is what brackets and footnotes cause you to do. I lost my faith for many years at Bible College when I was told we don’t know which are the words of God! So anything that causes our brother to stumble is not helpful. I want certainty not doubt in my faith. That’s great you can deal with both most can’t cope with the paradox.
Many who hold to the Majority text like myself are not KJ only. The writers of the book under review are not KJV only. When doing a review it is helpful to understand the position that is being presented.
James White is a great resource in responding to this TR stuff.
Actually James White's TR stuff is outdated and refuted.
@@stevie6621 mhm sure it is! A response does not mean it's been refuted. People will trade truth for a sense of assurance. That's what's behind TR onlyism.
@@michaelmannucci8585 In the response is the refutation using factual evidence. If you did some research you'd know. The writings of Taylor Desoto and Nick Sayers is a good place to start with the exposing errors of JW claims. They even have YT channels.
@@stevie6621 Whatever you say bud!
@@michaelmannucci8585 looks like we got a JWonlyist here.
Ps. Use a dictionary, as you would with any literature. I actually use archaic words,
fundamentalists tend to reject modern evidence that go against old beliefs such as modern scholarship and modern expert consensus so only some fundamentalists will try to become scholars in greek and hebrew.
HalleluYAH, Only One God = Yeshua/Jesus = YHVH = King of Israel = His Redeemer = the First and the Last = No other God beside Him : Yeshayah/Isaiah 44.6 : “Thus saith YHVH, the King of Israel, and His Redeemer YHVH Sabaoth : I am the First, and I am the Last, and beside Me there is no God.“
By those words El Shaddaï Yeshua/Jesus describes Himself, HalleluYAH :
Yeshua/Jesus = YHVH : John 8.58 : “Yeshua/Jesus said unto them: Verily, verily, I say unto you : Before Abraham was, EHYEH.“ = (Shemot/Exodus 3.14-15)
Yeshua/Jesus = the King of Israel : John 1.49 : “Nathanael answered and saith unto Yeshua/Jesus : Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God; Thou art the King of Israel.“
Yeshua/Jesus = The Great God and The Redeemer : Titus 2.13-14 : “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the GREAT GOD and our SAVIOUR Yeshua Mashiah/Jesus-Christ; who gave Himself for us, that He might REDEEM us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.“
Yeshua/Jesus = the First and the Last : Revelation 1.17-18 : Yeshua/Jesus : “Fear not : I am the First and the Last : I am He that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and I have the keys of Sheol and of death.“
Yeshua/Jesus = True God : 1 John 5.20 : “And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know Him that is True, and we are in Him that is True in His Son Yeshua Mashiah/Jesus-Christ : this is the True God and Eternal Life.“
HalleluYAH, One God, One Truth, El Shaddaï Yeshua/Jesus, HalleluYAH !
Would love to see you do a deep dive on Majority Text!