Ask Doug: byzantine over alexandrian text?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ก.ค. 2010
- Doug Wilson, Pastor of Christ Church, in Moscow, ID, answers some questions that were asked of him.
For more resources and information, go to www.canonwired.com.
Doug Wilson's blog can be found at www.dougwils.com
![[MPD직캠] 베이비몬스터 직캠 8K 'FOREVER' (BABYMONSTER FanCam) | @MCOUNTDOWN_2024.7.11](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ylRx8QOuGXo/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you Doug! I have just gotten a whole new respect for you !
Simple explanation. The Majority, Received, and Textus Receptus matches with the majority of copies found. The Critical Text uses the oldest found texts, which have also been shown to be the most corrupted. They also contain the most corrections, and not only disagree with the majority of copies discovered, but disagree with one another in 1000's of places. The most logical reason for their high degree of preservation, is that their corruption was so evident to early Christians, they were marked as not preferable for use in reproduction, thus they were rarely touched by human hands. Today's critical textual scholars recognize these facts, but adopt the view that due to their age they are the most reliable. Which in essence as illogical as a jury accepting the testimony of 2 witnesses in a court case, whose testimony contradict one another, but is accepted as the truth because the 2 witnesses are geriatrics. While rejecting the witness of 8 witnesses whose testimony harmonizes with one another, simply because they are younger.
Would love to hear what Doug has to say on the MEV translation!
Similar to NKJV. Better than most but still privately held rights to the translation rather church held. Also I’d think what makes it worse than NKJV is they don’t seem too committed to the translation it’s become hard to find.
Of note, basically EVERY problem raised by critical textual theory disappears if you trust the Byzantine text was authoritative.
I'm not sure I follow. Every concern raised by any Group B disappears if you just accept and trust what Group A says. 🤷🏻 That's also what Eastern Orthodoxy, Rome, Islam, Mormonism, etc. do as they seek to put tradition on a pedestal. I'm not picking a Bible here; just trying to figure out what your saying.
.........if you trust.............................
Wonderful river illustration .
Agree with Pastor Doug 100%. There is so much history here but the history will help us come to a better understanding of these manuscripts.
Such an interesting and complex subject!
The apostolic fathers cited scripture that lines up more with the Byzantine texts, besides the Alexandrian texts may have been corrupted by the Gnostics who were prevalent in Egypt at the time.
11 years later and it still has not been done, I find that odd. I know pieces of the Codex Sinaiticus are translated on the web but still no translation from my searching.
Brilliant thankyou.
Short info, need to extend, thank you for the info
Because it's the word of God which He Himself preserved as he promised.
I'd like to see a longer video showing the in depth reasoning and evidence.
There's not much depth there.
Well, there's lots to talk about here. Let's get started: th-cam.com/video/-pcR8IUF4zQ/w-d-xo.html
I followed the link provided @relationshipandtruth it was a good video on a couple of points Doug glossed over and the link provided more depth to the topic.
Heres one of my fav preachers JimBrown discussing the TR in depth: th-cam.com/video/zca7B0OR-mI/w-d-xo.html
@@RelationshipAndTruth I came here right after you vid man thanks
Sounds like some really cool dudes this video. 😎 Thank you!!!
Good point regarding texts recently surfacing.
EXCELLENT!
The only reason the Alexandrian texts appear to be older is because of the super Dry climate they were stored in.
That dosen't mean they were closer to the original copies.
Textus receptus all the way friends.
Maybe they are older texts -and they’re still in existence because they weren’t being used by the earliest Christians ? Not being recognized as the authoritative manuscripts ?
Thank you Pastor 👍
2 John 1:6 KJB
Does anyone know if the Textus Receptus accurately represents the broader Byzantine Text types? I think Erasmus only used about seven manuscripts, which are now represented as the Textus Receptus. I am curious how these compare to the broader of the Byzantine texts.
I think the older Byzantine texts do not have the Comma Johanneum (A Section in 1 John 5:7-8)
Good stuff.
Are there still "many reasons"?
It's been 10 years now, and at first I thought we stood together... now I wonder!
Isn't what he's calling for the NKJV? Or am I missing something?
Watch Bridge to Babylon on TH-cam. For me, this is a very easy issue: stick with the KJV.
Psalm 12:6-7 God promises to preserve His Word! God is not a man that he should lie!
Enjoyed his take. I think he makes great points. Would love to hear his thought today in 2019
Well, there's lots to talk about here. Let's get started: th-cam.com/video/-pcR8IUF4zQ/w-d-xo.html
The banner at the start of the video says Moscow and Idaho which is super confusing, I am wondering if he is from Russia or the US ?
Moscow is also a small town in Idaho
Im very confused about something. The longer ending of Mark is found in which manuscripts the Alexandrian or Byzantine?
I think Byzantine
@@ETHANGELIST 👍 Thanks!
Also, Acts 8:37 is Byzantine too.
@@custerranch Thankyou
It is also worth noting that the Byzantines tend to add more to the scriptures beginning in the middle ages. Instances like 1 John 5:7-8 are of note. I would treat additional scriptures that only appear in later Byzantine manuscripts with much less certainty than the Alexandrian texts.@@John14-6...
Wow! This is like 11 years old, does Doug Wilson still hold the same view?
He does
Good answer
If Early Church Father Cyprian quoted from the Textus Receptus in about 250 AD, which text is the oldest?
SpotterVideo the Textus Receptus didn’t exist until the 16th century so. . .
@@timoteom9886 Do you think Cyprian used a time machine?
@@SpotterVideo no, those don't exist. . .
@@timoteom9886 If time machines do not exist, then how did Cyprian quote from a text, if that text did not exist during his time? Forget what you have been told by men, and look at the evidence.
th-cam.com/video/zca7B0OR-mI/w-d-xo.html
@@SpotterVideo Bro!! I'm sorry, but you are delusional!! I mean that not in a bad sport way, but in a strict dictionary definition way.
Grew up KJVO, dove into this at college and sem in the 80’s, heard every angle. Doug’s main argument (would God hide his Word for centuries in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus?) is good until you follow the logic all the way and realize that old Roman Catholic Church used the same argument to protect the Vulgate (Latin Bible of St Jerome). When Luther and Erasmus made printed Bibles available, many Roman apologists used Doug’s argument to defend the Latin Bible that was preserved for over a thousand years in the Western empire (almost nobody could read Greek during the Middle Ages in the west). Nowadays even Catholic scholars acknowledge that the oldest mss are the oldest mss, and very few Catholics hold to Doug’s “Catholic” logic.
Wow, well said!
That is not entirely true. The Latin Vulgate by Jerome is still upheld in the Roman Church as the only Bible which is guaranteed to be preserved from all error (see Pius XII on the subject). It's continual usage for 1000 years in the West gives it a special status as infallible, since God would never allow His word to be filled with errors for a millennium.
Have either of the two lauded Alexandrian books ever been subjected to radiocarbon dating?
Pretty sure they have not . And why not?
@@Brandaniron, exactly. If they knew the dating would support their claims, or if they CARED about what is actually true, they'd have tested the books.
not that it effects the answer but the Textus receptus is not majority text and it's not fully byzantine. just figure I'd let you know. Peace to you
What is the statistical difference between the two?
@@biblehistoryscience3530 Part of the TR was back-translated from the Vulgate.
@@shellieperreault6262, that was originally so for a few verses at the end of Revelation. But didn't they discover more Greek texts to fill in that tiny gap?
All the respect to Doug Wilson, Pastor of Christ Church in Moscow, ID, but I think what he is saying is a bit oversimplified and can paint the wrong picture. So let me share my perspective.
First off, who am I? Like Pastor Wilson, I am not a Textual scholar, but I began studying NT Greek in late 2015 and began in 2016 to learn to speak the language as an improved way to read the NT text. I went to Jerusalem for a 2 year MA degree from Polis Institute in Ancient Philology and studied both NT Greek as a living language as well as OT Hebrew. Also, I have been studying and practicing Modern Hebrew since summer 2020 as a means to bolster my Biblical Hebrew. Having said that, I have gobbled up over the years from Textual scholars, whatever I could learn about Textual Criticism, BUILDING MY OWN PERSONAL LIBRARY of NT manuscripts, etc.
I have learned that the classifications of Alexandrian, Western, Cesarean, and Byzantine (Majority Text) are treated as all verses in one of these classifications are identical. Some textual scholars in the 1800s came up with these groups by identifying the major differences in manuscripts they found at the time. However, some verses in a particular manuscript might be shared between more than of the four families mentioned. Since then, 1000s more of NT manuscripts have been recovered. The ones identified and classed as Byzantine are primarily 9th century AD until 15th/16th century AD. Due to the printing press invention, manuscripts stopped being copied manually after that, but printed instead. There are some, Byzantine manuscripts from 6th to 9th century AD, but not a lot. The earliest manuscripts found, which are not Byzantine, start from about 150 AD continuing for the next 4 or 5 centuries primarily, but there are some even up until the 14th century, but not a lot. Some verses in the Byzantine would be shared by Alexandrian, Western and Cesarean. As for the earliest "Codex" (codices for plural) that we have, they are primarily Alexandrian. These would be complete or nearly complete bibles dating to the 300s... and a few more not so complete in the 400s AD.
When we consider what the early christian writings from the 100s to the 300s AD quote or paraphrase, it is often the Alexandrian or Western texts, sometimes the Byzantine. Again, for the most part, all three of these have the majority of passages the same, it is just for those that typically differ, those minority of verses that puts a manuscript in a particular Textual family.
Now it would make sense that since copying manuscripts on plant material (papyrus) that only lasts a few centuries would have many that disintegrated by the time 2023 arrives, does it not? Some survived in dry desert regions, like the Dead Sea Scrolls for the OT did in Qumran, Israel (I have been there, right by the Dead Sea). Or Alexandria, Egypt also dry and arid, low humidity that is great for papyrus preservation. Other regions with high humidity like Rome, or Byzantium (modern day Turkey) and modern day Europe that manuscripts there would not survive. Also, in those first few centuries after Christ, they began using animal skin as well called Parchment or Vellum to write the scriptures on. All Codices like Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaiticus or Codex Alexandrinus or Codex Ephraimi Rescriptus were written on animal skin. So of course there are only hundreds of these manuscripts compared to ones 700 years plus after these. A second century AD Alexandrian gospel manuscript has 1800 years until it meets us, and harder to survive, but a typical Byzantine manuscript has less than 900 years until it could meet us today. Which is more likely to survive? Which is more likely to be closer to the original autographs penned by the NT authors, those who show up 1000 years after the event or those who are 200 years after the event?
As for the TEXTUS RECEPTUS, there has been so many revisions and versions of this since Erasmus began the work in the early 1500s AD. He used primarily Minuscule 02 (12th century AD) and also secondarily relied on Miniscule 01 (12th century AD) to create a Greek NT that would become known by that name. He used the Latin Vulgate a bit for consultation, and maybe a few others.
Now, I just cannot seem to understand why someone would prefer a textual family (Byzantine) that has passages that don't show up until the 12th century AD, and ignore the earlier ones (Alexandrian) that are within 200 to 300 years after Jesus.
the MEV (modern English Version) is translated from the TR @dougwilson it's a new translation
What’s your opinion of it? Do you like it?
Well said
Amen
Dr michael Kruger for the opposing view 👍
Why am I surprised haha
Boom!!! Debate overrrr
The Byzantine text variations are from smoothing out a text by adding a word or phrase (interpolation) to clarify meaning Most often, the word or phrase is borrowed from another biblical verse, so it doesn't alter the meaning of the verse from the original. I've read Heb 3:16 in both the Nestle and Byzantine text and they read the same. In totality, the NT texts are very much in agreement.
Well this is surprising.
Well, there's lots to talk about here. Let's get started: th-cam.com/video/-pcR8IUF4zQ/w-d-xo.html
He forgot about the 1560 GENEVA bible.
I wonder if your opinion has changed in the 10 years since this was published, especially in light of the CBGM. (Oh, also...trying not to be offended by the association of my name with the "most foul" Message ← Eugene Petterson's horrific butchering of God's Word)
Not familiar with the Coherence Based Genealogical Method but anything that assumes: "The process of transmission of the New Testament texts resulted in a high degree of contamination" is headed for the rocks at the bottom of the cliff of evangelical liberalism.
@@CanonPress
But contamination was something that even the Bible authors had to deal with. All that one has to do is to look at Hebrews 8:9 where the author quotes from the Septuagint of Jeremiah 31:32 rather than the Hebrew, even though both of them were available to him at the time. The author had to make a decision as to which version was authoritative, and we have to do the same today. I think that as we move forward, CBGM is essentially going to do away with the categories of text types that we have imposed upon the witnesses, producing one accurate text from all of the manuscripts, but it will take time... a LOT of time...
I would love to see someone do a dynamic equivalent translation of Textus Receptus!
pls no
Pls yes
@@AllforOne_OneforAll1689 👍
unfortunately here in Brazil the famous theory of Westcort and Hot prevailed. 90% of the Bibles in Portuguese comes from the Eclectic Text, now that we have a Greek text marjoritário. Could someone send me a New Testament from Maurice A. Robinson to Brazil? I am Professor Dr. Jean Carlos, linguist and translator.
Have you found Dr. Pickering’s work to be compelling?
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Estou convencido que o trabalho que ele fez merece destaque.
Gostei da argumentação.
Can you translate that into English?
Erasmus, who created 5 editions of the Greek New Testament used in making the King James Bible, used Textual Criticism. The King James translators used Textual Criticism. To say the TR is a single text passed down faithfully through time is laughably inconsistent. Modern Bibles, just like the KJV, were produced using TC, but we now have many more and older texts. So why not use all the data available and not just the smaller data available 500 years ago?
Because of the discrepancies, I'd rather go with 5556 texts that agree with each other than 3 other texts and other scraps that have thousands of corrections and discrepancies. For instance the codex sinaiticus was found in a bin next to a fireplace with over 20000 corrections , obviously even the people who wrote it out didn't hold it in high regard and the codex vaticanus, well what can I say other than I would never trust anything that comes out of the basement at the Vatican (aka the mother of all forgeries) considering their approach to hermeneutics and verses that challenge their doctrine are suspiciously missing. In my opinion this one area to go with consensus and therefore the version that was copied, distributed and used by the early church and not a few "older" texts that were not copied distributed or widely used.
@@pdenn1s
And what if those "5556 texts that agree with each other" all came from the same stream, are based on later copies, and had a much higher chance of including passages that were not original? The Comma Johanneum doesn't exist anywhere prior to the 6th century, yet the TR folks will fight tooth and nail to try to say it was an original text.
I care about what Paul, Peter, James, etc., wrote, not what a copyist added later.
@@daric_ They do all come from the same stream, it's called the inspired word of God, would you still prefer those earlier documents if they were forgeries contrived by the Catholic church?. Personally I don't believe that when God said he would preserve his word for us that he meant he would keep it in the basement of the Vatican or in a waste paper basket next to a fire pit in a monastery that isn't even on the real Mt Sinai. I can assure you that it was not one copyist that copied the many thousands of texts that support the received text and there are older, partial texts that support them over the Alexandrian.
If you have time watch this documentary series on the early church and the origins of the Bible, it's a bit slow and long but you can watch it in parts and you might find it rather eye opening. 1. "A lamp in the dark" th-cam.com/video/RmXBj2N9fhY/w-d-xo.html 2. "Tares among the wheat" (a little more relevent to what we are talking about) 3. "Bridge to babylon" th-cam.com/video/ukRCVDmiAts/w-d-xo.html
Have no doubt that the word of God is under attack and some will do anything to sow doubt as to it's authority especially those that believe the pope has authority over it. Don't you think it's a little odd that scriptures that challenge catholic doctrine (ie infant babtism) such as (Acts 8:37) were missing from these so called older texts? or that Westcott and Hort who created the critical text didn't even believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ? Personally I wouldn't touch the Latin Vulgate but now they claim that it is even more accurate than the original Greek and Hebrew somehow and you guessed it, conveniently there is again nothing in there that the pope doesn't like.
Even if the Alexandrian texts were not forgeries there is enough suspicion over them that I prefer to avoid anything derived from them and the only reason that we don't have older copies older copies of the Byzantine texts is that they were being regularly used and therefore only last a few hundred years before needing replacement.
Daric thewildejournal.wordpress.com/2019/01/04/why-we-should-use-the-textus-receptus-rather-than-the-nestles-text/
@Unashamed Workman
That isn't a direct quote.
Isaiah 34:16 KJV
Seek ye out of the book of the Lord, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.
The Roman catholic Church had the codex Vaticanus for awhile and even *they* didn't use it. They kept it locked away in their library. My understanding is the same thing regarding Sinaiticus. It was kept separate from the manuscripts the monks were using.
I believe that alone is a strong enough reason to hold them at least suspect.
@ElJibaroBravo It's because the Roman-Catholics preferred the Latin Vulgate over the Greek.
Today they prefer the Novum Testamentum Graece, a Catholic is always part of the committee.
Bill Cooper wrote a well researched book about the Codex Sinaiticus being a forgery.
TR effectively changed the 6th commandment in Matt 5, verse 22. I’ve never heard a single person discuss this change. They focus on superficial differences like commas and vocabulary. Satan is laughing at these fools who believe TR isn’t corrupted.
Wait, I thought you were a TR guy. The Byzantine readings don't support the TR.
Where in the world did you get that idea?
The TR is a subset of the Byzantine text.
@@shellieperreault6262, correct.
the older manuscripts been modified.
God can use any translation to draw you to Him.
He's used an Ass but you don't see us farming donkeys.
@@CanonPress I just mean if God wants you he will draw you. God will give U a desire 2 read His word to pray to Him to cultivate a relationship with Him. The kjv is my favorite but ive learned alot by reading from all the translations.
@@hawk1548 KJV is unique in that it has an 'unction' (I John 2:20), and an anointing you won't get in other versions.
@@hawk1548 r u calvinist.
@@CanonPress @Canon Press Some people do.
The purpose of translations and studying manuscripts is to get as close to the original inspired, inerrant texts as possible. So if some "text types" are older, they are -- generally -- better. Later manuscripts have been copied more and have had more opportunities for errors in copying or even purposeful additions being added.
You don’t know that. If it’s not the original, then it’s not the original. 300 years after the original leaves a lot of room for corruption.
To show how you can be logically wrong in a linear system of copying:
1-Cat=>2-Cat=>3gnat=>4gnat=>5gnat
In this linear system, you can see that there was a typo in century 3, therefore when modern texts recover the typo in number 4 and thereafter, the typo remains.
Byzantine Text is the real text. From a statistical viewpoint it makes sense. The real text is always in a majority text.
By this logic the NIV is the best translation as it’s the most widespread English one, however that is certainly not the case.
Burrito burp at 2:20.
Beautiful 😂
Saw the comment first. Had to fast forward to it. Lol.
JIM Brown and the church fathers.
Peshitta lines up with the T.R.
The variation comes from the rendering of the Greek, and not the Greek text itself.
The difference in the two words "rebellion" and "provocation" derivesd from the Grk "parapikrasmos". This difference is also in verse 15. Either word is acceptable. The more contemporary would be rebellion.
The correct reference is "ms of the textus receptus kind" not Byzantine
Yeah, the TR is its own thing altogether. It's basically 6-12 manuscripts from the byzantine "family" that in no way represents the majority of the byzantine readings. Not to mention, the TR doesn't even contain all of the inspired canon of scripture. The last part of Revelation was made up based on a Latin commentary rather than the original Greek manuscripts. There isn't a single Greek manuscript in the world that is known today that supports the TR's reading of Revelation.
@@kiyasuihito my understanding is that the TR and Majority text agree 98% of the time.
@Troy Horton that’s my understanding as well
James White speaks about this topic some at the following link: th-cam.com/video/izLoGyJM_hQ/w-d-xo.html
Amen
KJV 2016...?
You know what is great? I can find the real Gospel in all of the translations. I do prefer the Majority Text (KJV, and to a lesser extent, NKJV) over the critical text, but I can lead someone to Christ with ANY of the translations, even the New World Translation (Jehovah Witness translation). God DOES indeed preserve His word and it does NOT return void. Praise His holy name, amen. :-)
Jehovah Witnesses is a cult...false.
JesusismyKing777: Indeed it is, however even with their corrupted translation, I can show someone (a Jehovah's Witness) the Gospel and lead them to Christ. When witnessing to Jehovah's Witnesses, it seems advantageous (as in getting them to listen to you and ultimately put their trust in the finished work of Jesus and be saved) to play "on their field," so to speak...as in using their translation, something that they trust.
"I can find the real Gospel in all of the translations." - that's correct. Nothing is lost in spite of the frailty of men. God has left us a witness.
True, though I found I preferred the KJV more as I matured as a christian for much the same reasons as the pastor in the video also when deciding to choose a bible for memorizing scripture it didn't seem to make any sense but to choose the KJV as it does not change and the language style is much like poetry to me.
The problem is the KJV have unique readings that are not in the Majority Text. 1 John 5:7 is not in the Majority Text, just one example. I also feel the Majority Text is better. Another problem is even if you feel the TR is the best text, the KJV does not read acording to the TR. In my native language my Bible is also based on the TR and there are readings that differ from the KJV. And I have checked my Afrikaans Bible and it is in line with the TR. If you look at the academic facts the KJV is a not so good translation. If you are saying it is God presevered Word, that is another argument.
I used to laugh at KJV onlyists because on the face it seems ridiculous. However, in an attempt to disprove them, I sort of became convinced myself. I’m going to give just 3 main reasons why. 1st: the KJV was written at a time when the English language had reached its peak of beauty. It was written about 6 years before the death of William Shakespeare for example. So the language is absolutely majestic and rich which is why it survived the centuries even as “old English” faded from our daily lexicon. It is the most printed book of all time for a reason. 2nd- the KJV is truly the bedrock of western civilization. This is the book that forged the west. Think of the countless wars to advance Christianity in England. They fought for centuries to unite one England under one God. That spread throughout the western world, including the United States. So this language and message built the west. We ought to be careful to just walk away from it. 3rd - the newer translations are changing the scriptures based on new manuscript finds. I was all for this originally. However, it’s now been discovered that many of these are forgeries. All the Dead Sea scroll fragments for example in the museum in Washington DC have been found to be totally fake. So the idea of updating the Bible with new discoveries is not necessarily a good thing. And the manuscript tradition found in the KJV built and sustained our civilization for many centuries.
So only anglos represent the western world or civilization? You must live in bubble. KJV is for Anglos only, there's literally over a dozen other languages spoken in western civilization, no way KJV is the berock of the western world, more like anglophones, but never for French, Spanish, Dutch, Germans, Portuguese, Swiss, Italians, and the rest of the western civilization. All those people groups should go back to the Byzantine/TR line, which is where the KJV comes from yes, but you shouldn't use KJV as your authority for other language translations, we still have the Greek text around you know.
What? I agree KJV is the preserved Bible in English. But I’m also pretty sure the Dead sea scrolls are legit and actually fall inline with the Byzantine manuscripts.
@@CanadianStreetPreachers they’re all good I think. But KJV has stood the test of time
It's a TRANSLATION>>> why is it being upheld like it's perfect? KJV preface is the key; Read it. If we don't have the new discovered manuscript, then text criticism is not needed. But how can you just ignore this manuscripts, whether it's a minority text or not.
@@PhilChristStudio its quite simple actually, majority of manuscripts say the same thing… the kjv uses those manuscripts that by majority also agree with eachother, and early church leaders like Polycarp etc quoted them within the first century AD, then you have some awful manuscripts some of which were found in a monastery’s garbage bin called the alexandrian manuscripts, people seem to like them because they decievingly look about 50 yrs older. These copies are satanic, some say Jesus isnt God and overall all disagree with eachother largely *sinaticus, alexandrian, vaticanus manuscripts.
It's all really a temptest in a teapot. All texts are essentially the same with the exception of the pericope adulterae, Mark's ending, and 1John trinity reference. The rest is splitting hairs.
I prefer the NKJV text because it's the standard by which everyone will either attack or defend, and it reads closer to the Greek audience (primarily Asian Minor) for which it was written.
There are three families of manuscripts: The Critical Text, the Received Text and the Majority Text. The Received Text and the Majority Text are Byzantine Texts but they are not the same. There are 1800 differences between the Majority Text and the Received Text (Textus Receptus). The Critical Text is over 1000 years older not 100 years older than the Received Text manuscripts.
The earliest critical text manuscript is not 1000 years older than the oldest majority text manuscripts.
@@levibaer18 the Textus Receptus (Received Text) is not a Majority Text manuscript. The Critical Text is 1000 years older than the Received Text. The Majority Text is a different text than the Received Text.
@@rodneyjackson6181
An error on my understanding.
Thanks
0:43... only if your higher Critics are even close! Did the apostles wait decades to write down WHAT was burning in their souls?
I doubt that they waited over 10 years, or 5 years... why would they? Did God make them wait 27-57 years? That makes no sense! There is no reasonable proof for any one to believe their subterfuge!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is really very simple. The Byzantine texts have been copied who knows how many times from earlier Greek manuscripts which are no earlier than roughly 1000AD. And I love them for what they are! I love my TR based bibles! But those very early Alexandrian texts have not been copied nearly as much. That's high school math folks. Those scribe side notes that crept into the tests are not in the early scripts. They just aren't. But does that mean that those notes are doctrinally in error. Can't find any that are. The woman caught in adultery comes to mind. Its not in the early texts of the Gospel of John. But is there anything doctrinally in error there? No! Simply move it to an earlier place where it doesn't interrupt the scriptural flow. The point I'm making is that the various English translations from both paths of manuscripts are doctrinally relevant. Get them and use them BOTH in your walk with God.
Great video, here in Brazil we have a false bkj ' biblia king james ATUALIAZADA' I prefer ACF trinitarian that is a translation from kjv from 1611 in portuguese. God has preserverd his word in all this years. Amem
I notice a lot of people from Brazil are drawn to the work of Wilbur Pickering. I wonder what you make of it.
60,000 words is definitely not the figure for the NT alone. I don't know if your figure includes the Septuagint. Most modern "English" translations are minority text, except the NKJV. This is not the case with the three oldest Christian Churches: Byzantine Catholic, Orthodox and Coptic churches that still use the majority text from the Greek and Aramaic(Peshitta). Both rebellion & provocation lack the full connotation of the Grk "parapikrasmos", both are right just incomplete.
This is one of the best explanations about why the Textus Receptus is superior I have ever heard. Great Job!
I can tel you one thing for sure, LOTS of Pastors I know use the NASB when preparing and studying God's word.....If you stop and think about it, The Alexandrian text much more reliable. If you go to 75% of Biblical Colleges, Seminary I can guarantee almost all of them have a NASB, Theirs a reason why everyone says the NASB is the most literal word for word translation of God's word, KJV is a very good version. When it comes to accuracy nothing even comes close to the NASB.
Faith Florida,
True. It's called groupthink.
Faith I personally favor the Byzantine although the NASB is a pretty decent translation but it does mistranslate in certain spots like Collosians 1:16 for example. Here it is from the NASB: "For *by* Him all things were created, both *in* the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things have been created through Him and for Him."
Notice the two words I bolded ("by" and "in"). Both of these words are actually translated from the same Greek word "ἐν" (transliterated as "en") and it always mean "in" and never "by." So the verse should say: "For *in* him were all things created..."
Faith More reliable? but how can that be? The sinaiticus and vaticanus (two main texts of Alexandrian type) have many and major discrepancies between each other.
@@JamesSnapp yes I wonder how many have thought deeply on this subject.
This video isn't about translation quality, it was about deciding which was the best text to translate.
Not the author of confusion? Sounds a whole lot like ole Sam Gipp there, buddy. Which is certainly not a good thing.
th-cam.com/video/kPz90TEleFQ/w-d-xo.html
dagl086 informal fallacy alert.
Person A and Person B both maintain position X. Person A is someone everyone knows is “not reputable, trustworthy, intelligent, thoughtful...” therefore position X is untenable. (several fallacies here. Appeal to masses, ad hominem first come to mind.)
Since position X is deemed untenable (for fallacious reasons), person B is necessarily in error for holding it too and is to be scorned for agreeing with person A (reductio ad Hitlerium).
Argue against the argument that “God is not the author of confusion, therefore...” don’t appeal to the majority to denigrate Wilson as de facto guilty by association to Gipp; an association created only by their jointly holding to some position (ad Hitlerium.)
You’re obviously a Christian, which means you know full well God gave you a brain. How about you use it? I know I know, I should show all meekness to all men, especially those of the faith. But a wiser man than even Paul said, “answer a fool according to his folly lest he be wise in his own conceit.” Your comment, sir, was pure numbskullery. I hold fast to my faith in Christ but am about to lose it altogether for humanity. You’re not helping.
Sounds like 1 Corinthians 14:33 to me
The best translation is the one you actually read.
jimmme5880 1000% agree!
Yeah because who cares what it actually says right?.....
Well, not including The Message...
False
@@TheCableStrain Are saying it's better not to read any bible rather than one that is flawed in some way?
Yes, the first church named "Christian" was in Antioch. The Antiochian church follows the Byzantine rite. The KJV is simply "Old English". The KJV is based upon the Textus Receptus from the 1600's, but the NKJV follows other Byzantine texts, except for the Johanian comma.
Isn’t the NKJV a translation of the Textus Receptus?
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews The NKJV is based on the Majority text. The KJV is from the TR.
@@protochris thanks! I’m not a big NKJV guy, so maybe I read something wrong back when I had looked at that.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I've gone ahead and subscribed to your channel. Keep up the good work!
@@protochris thank you! I look forward to your feedback and comments!
I disagree
I see the Alexandrian text-type and the western tradition as superior.
KJV for the win!
Why does Wilson not believe God kept the original text of the Bible "hidden" only to be rediscovered in the 19th century by critical scholars, but does believe that God kept the original text of the Bible "hidden" only to be rediscovered in the 16th century by uncritical scholars (Erasmus' Textus Receptus)? The Vulgate was full of Western text-type errors, so that's not 'preservation of the correct text' by the Catholic Church. If you want to appeal to the Byzantine text-type, you're simply appealing to the Eastern Orthodox Church instead, who was not present in Western Europe throughout the Middle Ages. Erasmus came up with a text nobody in Western Europe was familiar with, so there is no such thing as "continuity within the church community", as Wilson claims.
Besides, if you're a Protestant, why would you appeal to Catholic or Orthodox traditions in the first place? Aren't you all about sola scriptura? Aren't you all about Reformation of bad traditions within the Church? If you reject dogma, then why stick with the Textus Receptus? It's clearly not the oldest text, it's not the closest to the autographs, and it suffers from all the corruptions due to early Catholic/Orthodox dogma e.g. about the virginity of Mary, which Protestants don't care about and vehemently reject. Why go with this inferior text? It's against all Protestant principles.
The Byzantine Text was kept alive by basically everyone outside of the Roman church. When Vigilantius went into Northern Italy to preach after a falling out with Jerome, he brought the Itala with him, which is based on the Byzantine Text. This became the Bible of the so-called "Waldensians", as well as many other proto-Protestant groups, such as the Celtic church.
Of note, the Greek Orthodox never stopped using the Byzantine Text. The Alexandrian Text, and the Critical Text, are largely Roman inventions.
EDIT: Helvidius criticized Jerome for using corrupted manuscripts to write the Vulgate. He couldn't have known that unless textual criticism was done in the first church, and they knew which manuscripts we're correct.
....is this guy serious???
.....yes....
@@kylec8950 I guess he is trying his best
Are you serious?
@@michaelblue6150 Well its pretty strong argument. Byzantine (stronghold of early Christians) > Alexandrian (known for heresies)
@@johndisalvo6283 it's hard to convince some
I've studied this issue for awhile, and I have yet to see ANY real evidence that ANY of the texts/manuscripts are corrupted. None are corrupted. I have seen some readings that have little historical basis, but it does not mean they are corrupted. The New Testament is the best preserved historical document, regardless of the text line you prefer.
Actually Byzantine text is far older than Alexandrian text. There is evidence that early Church Fathers quoted verses that ONLY exist in Byzantine manuscript.
What evidence? Why is all this "evidence" so elusive?
True, old doesn't mean uncorrupted. (As for the LXX one would have to measure it's "corruption" by getting as close to it's original, in the usual text-critical way.)
But when a manuscript has been copied over and over, it is more vulnerable to errors accidently slipping in and even additions intentionally being inserted. Our goal should be to get as close to the original as possible which means a bias for older texts.
I've read a lot of 16th-17th century English and so know you're wrong.
This is the stupidest argument I've ever heard. There have been so many more manuscripts found that are much older. when you compare them to the textus receptus, which by the way, was not accurately translated from the Greek manuscripts used, and had to rely on the Latin Vulgate for the fill ins, is preferred, ONLY because they biasly promote doctrines that those who support them will refer to. But many manuscripts that have been found since the Textus receptus was produced, don't support those doctrines in any way. Notice his own words, "Which I prefer". This indicates a desire to conform the word of God to beliefs rather than conforming beliefs to the word of God.
Wycliffe translated from the Vulgate and so his translation, while better than nothing, was a translation of a translation. And you're just wrong about English.
Byzantine is just a goofy made up word ... Majority text is the correct way to describe the text ...
lol
Yes even that is debated. Hodges and Farstad preferred “majority text”. Maurice Robinson preferred “Byzantine text”
No, guess you should study history. We call it the Byzantine texts because when Constantinople fell the migration from the Byzantine empire brought all the texts with them just in time to meet the new invention of the printing press. God preserved his word.
@@LanceJRoberts I’m happy with either designation myself. I just don’t like it when the word “ Textus Receptus “ is conflated with the other two terms without distinction.
Your comment about the Vulgate is irrelevant.
Your snide comment about English is just that: snide.
If you're seriously suggesting that the average English reader today could easily read "English" from 450 AD, you're being absurd. Most would have a hard time with Shakespeare even if set in modern fonts.
The TR was compiled by Erasmus, at least the first published form. It's not based on the best or oldest sources.
Actually, the "Majority text" was copied repeatedly and so more vulnerable to having errors and additions being added, i.e. more likely to be "corrupt."
Simply not true. Chain of custody is the most important evidence of it being reliable. Your arguments are based on lies and deception. Repent.
@@davidchupp4460 :
It is true that the "Majority text" was copied repeatedly over centuries, with no reliable "chain of custody" and so was more vulnerable to having errors and additions being added. Hence, it is more likely to be "corrupt."
You can't show one lie I've told or anything deceptive about what I've posted. Your accusations are false and you've broken the 9th commandment by bearing false witness. You must repent. If you don't, you need to know that all liars go to hell. So if you refuse to repent of your lies, you need to examine yourself as to whether you're really "in the faith" (2 Cor. 13:5). Consider whether you're a true believer at all, or just a religious hypocrite who will be told "Away from Me, I never knew you, you worker of lawlessness" (Mt. 7:21).
@@yeoberry chain of custody means it’s been in continuous use. What part of that don’t you understand. If something is found like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus which were obviously not used and discarded then those are highly suspect. You have no idea where they came from. Whether they were corrupted or forged. Sinaiticus is a modern day forgery. True believers who copied the Bible were very careful to be as accurate as possible. The majority text agrees with multiple early translations to other languages which verifies the authenticity of the text. Those are facts not falsehoods. All it takes is one bad scribe to change the truth to corrupt a manuscript. It doesn’t take multiple efforts.
@@davidchupp4460 :
You’re lying. Everything you wrote is false. Sinaiticus, etc, were in continual custody and use since their writing and were not copied over and over again like the sources for the early 17th century Anglican translation.
Further, you didn’t express any repentance for your earlier breaking of the 9th commandment by bearing false witness. Since you’re an unrepentant liar, you need to examine yourself “as to whether you’re really in the faith” (2 Cor 13:5). Consider that you may be a religious hypocrite who spews lies because you don’t care about the truth.
@@yeoberry you just showed me again the type of Christian you are. I’m a redeemed believer and God has declared me Righteous. Sinaiticus is so full of mistakes and rewritten over mistakes multiple times it’s not a trustworthy manuscript. Wow. I’ve never seen so many deceived people on my life. When you start correcting lies they dig even deeper into deception.
B.S.....😒
Amen. Great video. The Alexandrian text is corrupt. Long live the Majority text.
The Alexandrian text is not corrupt. Now, we solved that.
please dofathers wrath must be considered before even considering muttering a single word on the matter not speak idley on such a tempermental critical subject, not only will idle words be accounted for in the day of judgement but there maybe blood on your hands even many years after your flesh has passed..holding the integrity of the most annointed inspired text is so paramount the very life blood of the faith is at jeopardy, and the adversary knows this fully and is lying in wait to pounce at every chance that is given, it is our duty to keep our fathers word accoring to his word not any single mans agenda doctrine philosphy etc, i could continue you on for pages and pages, but bearing false witness is an abomination, much fear of the father in heavens power to destroy not only body but spirit for now and forever must be held in the greatest esteem before even daring to mutter a word on this highly critical matter, god sees all, and ignorance is no excuse , any man that corrupts another souls chance of receiving the greatest tool to obtaining salvation and fulfilling gods will on earth, has blood on his hands...18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.Proverbs Chapter 30
5 Every word of God [is] pure: he [is] a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
( The marvelous light of the gospel is not persuaded by worldly wit or eloquent reasoning, but by the spirit of god.those that he chose have the word written in their and sealed in their hearts).
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. We already have unpure malicious hearts set aginst god doing there best to destroy, and pervert, i want to continue on and on, it is so important..every subtle variance leads to massive damages after years and years of subtle hits..anyway god bless, m not attacing you i love u in christ..it is just all of our duties to perserve gods word.
Covenant Caswell Alexandrian church father in the early third century, said:
"...the differences among the manuscripts [of the Gospels] have become great,either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they lengthen or shorten, as they please."
Irenaeus in the 2nd century, though not in Alexandria, made a similar admission on the state of corruption among New Testament manuscripts. Daniel B. Wallace says, "Revelation was copied less often than any other book of the NT, and yet Irenaeus admits that it was already corrupted-within just a few decades of the writing of the Apocalypse"
The fact that churches outside of Egypt used a non-Alexandrian text as early as in the 3rd century should caution us from equating "the earliest extant Alexandrian text" with "the earliest text of the New Testament", especially since Origen testified that Alexandrian manuscripts were already corrupt by the 3rd century.
The only conclusion that we can logically make from the evidence of Alexandrian manuscripts is that the Alexandrian church in Egypt used the Alexandrian text-type. There is not a shred of manuscript evidence that churches elsewhere used the Alexandrian text-type. The one manuscript from outside of Egypt prior to the 5th century (Codex 0212) proves the contrary. If critics wish to establish that the Byzantine text-type supplanted the Alexandrian text-type after the 5th century, the burden of proof is on these critics to prove that the Alexandrian text-type was ever considered the standard text prior to the 5th century in the regions where the Byzantine text-type was used. This has never been proven.
I implore multiple version onlyists to stop encouraging the deluge of modern versions hitting the market every year. God is not the author of confusion and Satan must love what is going on with 'uncertainty' over God's Holy Word. Please settle on a final authority and submit yourself and your family to it once and for all. God bless you.
The final authority is the Word of God which is in Hebrew and Greek.
Covenant Caswell and Aramaic.
and all the languages the Holy Spirit divinely translated it into on the day of Pentecost. Acts 2.
and did he ever do the same on other days? That’s for you to think about. Does God preserve His word _through_ translation, or is he bound by language?
If God’s word is only “in letter” of Greek and Hebrew and not preserved “in Spirit”, then do only they who are conversationally fluent in Hebrew & Greek (truly FLUENT, which 99% of seminary professors are not); do only they have the word of God who are mother-tongue fluent in Greek and Hebrew?
“well but..”
No. I implore you. Stop for three seconds and consider the implications of your earlier comment. Don’t let your seminary professor do this thinking for you. The word of God was once hidden in the Latin away from the laity. “There’s nothing new under the sun:” today, the word is likewise hidden; supposedly only accessible by way of greek and Hebrew for scholars in such fields. Is a faithful English or Spanish or Dutch translation not also the words of our loving Savior? Or is he not the God of all language?
Don’t take this up with your seminary professor. Christ rebuked Doctors of the law in His day. Go to His Holy Word (in the language you speak which is English and not paleo-Hebrew even if you had two maybe 3 semesters at bible college); anyway, go to His Holy Word with the Holy Spirit as your “guide to all truth” and ask Him to answer these questions for you. Honor God and bind him not to your man made confessions and traditions. Jesus of Nazareth had things to say about those in Mark 7, btw.