Ill be making a video discussing (in depth) my thoughts on the Tyndale House Greek NT. I tried to answer an interesting question about it, since both It and the Hodges and Farstad text prefered the genological method. To try and answer this question in the comments section would be too hard, so ill make a video about it instead 😊
I'm not Majority Text, but at the same time I don't think it's something Christians should fight over and tear each other down about. I think we can respectfully disagree with one another on the best textual basis or bases for the New Testament, engage in reasonable debate, and so forth. Ultimately it should hopefully produce more light than heat. All that said, I'd be more than glad to use a Majority Text or Textus Receptus translation like the NKJV and no Critical Text translation for the rest of my life if it meant more people reading, studying, and living the Bible. 😊
Great video! I haven't really committed fully but lean toward Majority Text. Can't wait to hear more videos like this one. You have no shortage of potential video material to choose from. Better get busy! (And I apologize in advance for some commenters who are going to wear you out when it comes to KJVO stuff).
@@bhsher thank you so much! I definitely plan on making a lot more videos about it, you're right the potential is bottomless 😂. Yeah the kjvo guys come out of the woodworks lol
#1 rule in theology - DO NOT TRY TO BE HOLIER THAN JESUS. When they brought Jesus the scroll of Isaiah at the synagogue in Galilee it wasn't the autographa (Luke 4:17). It was a copy. More than likely it was at least a copy of a copy. When the apostles wrote the New Testament they had no problem quoting not only Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Old Testament) but also the Targum (a paraphrase of the Hebrew Bible) such as in Mark 1:11, 4:11, 11:2 and many more passages. I don't stick to one "family" of Greek texts because the differences are very minor and they both have their advantages.
There's a form of "textual criticism" (or really, textual acceptance) that says that the KJB is the right text, that it is the final form of the received text. This moves the entire conversation out of looking at the original languages and places focus on English. It also disregards any need for continuing textual work in that it argues that the text has now been recovered and settled.
@@bibleprotector interesting, the only question I would have for someone who held that view is how do you know that that transition from one language to another has officially taken place? In other words how do you now know that an English translation is inspired.
@@JohnMiles117 This once again proves you don't know about this topic. Most KJBOs do not say that the KJB was made by inspiration. The translators weren't inspired. Inspiration took place when Moses wrote in Hebrew, and Paul in Greek. Also, we know the KJB is a translation because it says so on the front page. But why are you asking about translation when the discussion is about version/readings/text?
@bibleprotector because you said that you believe that the King James Bible is the final version of the TR, which led me to believe you were referring to the translation itself and not the Textus receptus.
@@JohnMiles117 The KJB is a text itself. There are in fact many, at least 30, different TR editions. The KJB is also one of them, but the final form of the TR. The KJB IS therefore the definitive representative of the received text.
Hi, John! I’m curious about your comment that the NKJV, through its EXCELLENT translator notes (and I agree about that), is the closest thing there is to a Majority Text translation today. Even though the NKJV translator notes are the least biased I’m aware of (although I’m told the BSB translator notes are also great), and do allow the reader, if desired, to reconstruct M-text and Critical readings, the NKJV translation itself is still based on the TR. Both the World English Bible (WEB) and New Jerusalem Version (NJV) state that their NT translation basis is actually the Majority Text. What do these M-text translations lack that the (ultimately TR based) NKJV has? Thank you!
@@BonyT2768 excellent question! You are right about the BSB by the way, it does have excellent foot notes, especially regarding the M-Text. As far as the WEB is concerned I hear that it's very good, in truth I don't really have anything against it and I actually forgot that it existed when I made this video. I was under the impression that the WEB was a one-man translation however unless I'm mistaken I think there was a group of people working on it, however I don't think that the group was as prestigious as that which worked on the NKJV. Really that would be my only hold back from using the WEB. As far as the NJV, unless I'm mistaken I looked in the preface of my edition and it says that it uses the critical text, also I haven't seen it using a lot of footnotes in the New Testament to show where it varies from the M- text but its possible that I'm either not seeing them or I have a unique edition. Also I don't know anybody that uses it personally, whether online or in real life. I've used it some, but always found myself returning to other translations instead. I guess at the end of the day regarding both the WEB and the NJV here comes down to how much experience I have with them, and at this current time it's not that much. In order for me to trust a translation I need to spend a lot of time with it and I just don't see myself doing that with these two translations, although I would like to look into the WEB more in the future.
@ Thank you, John! I’m kind of a TH-cam nobody 😜, a casual, so I’m not used to many responses, especially ones this engaged-I really appreciate it!! I didn’t realize that the WEB was kind of a one-man show-thank you for that information! That gives me some pause about it. I have it on Olive Tree or Logos, but I haven’t used it enough to meaningfully assess it. (I do recall that I like its translation of John 20:23 though 😂, although I’m in the minority on that verse, and the UBS Handbook tells me I’m likely wrong 😜). I think you may be thinking of something else other than the New Jerusalem Version (NJV) actually; I know it’s sometimes confused with the New Jerusalem BIBLE (NJB), which I believe is considered a Critical Text translation; but the NJB is a Catholic translation, so that may not be the one you’re thinking of. Anyway, the NJV is a small translation; there’s actually only one edition that can be had, directly from the publishers, Hineni Publishers. (It is bound and printed by Royal Jongbloed, so it’s really a fine quality book.) I would call it a “Messianic” Bible (though as far as I can recall they never use that term) in that it comes from our brothers and sisters in Christ who are “completed Jews” (as they sometimes refer to themselves). Like other Messianic translations I’m familiar with, it has the express goal of bringing back to the fore for the reader the Jewish roots of the Christian faith (but NOT to be confused with the “Hebrew roots” phenomenon); so it uses a number of simply transliterated (rather than actually translated) Hebrew terms, like “chesed,” and one really interesting thing is that, in the OT (the books of which are in the traditional Jewish order), it simply presents the Tetragrammaton in the unpointed Hebrew, the four consonants “Yod” “Hey” “Vav” “Hey”; this of course makes it an actual sefer, and the publishers recommend (though they do not demand) some special handling. Anyway, the Preface does state that it’s a Majority Text translation: “The ‘Brit Chadashah’ (New Covenant) is mainly based on the Byzantine Majority Text (M-text).” If they use the Critical Text at all, they don’t acknowledge it in the Preface. There is one other translation that occurred to me, btw, that states it’s use of the Majority Text and TR co-equally, the Literal Standard Version (LSV); from their Preface: “The goal of any good translation is to produce a readable text that preserves the original autographic meaning and comes as close as possible to translating, word-for-word, manuscripts that accurately represent the original writings. It’s with this goal in mind that the Literal Standard Version (LSV) was written-a modern, yet literal English translation based upon the most prolific texts: the Masoretic Text (MT) for the Old Testament and the Textus Receptus (TR) and Majority Text (M) for the New. However, in certain, specific instances other manuscript versions and text-types are used where the evidence seems incontrovertible (e.g., the LXX and DSS in the Hebrew and Aramaic; the Alexandrian in the Greek).” From my limited (and boy, it’s admittedly limited) dealings with the original languages, I have to say that the LSV seems staggeringly accurate in the Formal Equivalent translation philosophy, even to keeping the highly idiomatic verb tenses from the original languages in their English translation, and even word order wherever intelligible. This means it’s not much for reading, but highly useful for study. Just one example where this makes, I think, a real difference is Acts 15:11, normally rendered like this: (LSB) 11 But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.” However, if you look at the Greek, this translation doesn’t really follow word order; the LSV does meticulously follow the Greek word order, and to my mind it makes a real difference in this case: (LSV) 11 But through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, WE BELIEVE TO BE SAVED, even as also they.” (The capitalization is mine for emphasis on what seems to me the significant difference.)
@BonyT2768 wow! That was THE MOST comprehensive response I've ever had lol 😂 btw, I'm considered something of a nobody myself. 😉 I think I was referring to the Catholic Bible, I'll definitely have to check out the one you were referring to. Very interesting, I'm glad it's not Hebrew roots, I have many friends that are Messianic yet Orthodox, nothing but love for them! I as well love the LSV it's a fantastic translation. Good job on your homework! You were spot on! Keep it up. Btw I love comments like this, I love engaging with you guys
@@JohnMiles117 thanks, John! The LSV is one of only two translations that I can honestly say were so successful in the goal of the Formal Equivalence translation philosophy that they gave me the feeling I was actually reading the original languages; the other is the LSB (which, btw, I was initially leery of because of the obvious Reformed background-and, I feared, translation bias-of the whole alarmingly small 6-man translation team 😂), which has, I think, the finest statement of the ideal of the formal equivalence philosophy I’ve ever read in its Forward: “While the interpreter, teacher, and pastor have the goal of understanding what the text means, the translator is to provide them with what the text says. Consistently, the goal of this translation is to be a window into the original text. Within that goal, this revision has focused upon accuracy and consistency.” The LSB won over my hesitations, finally, with (of course) much reading, and with those words. And their commitment to that consistency of translation I’ve found to help make connections in Scripture more apparent than I’ve seen before. I have a feeling you may like the NJV. There’s a small list of verses I go to when I first look at any translation, and tbh I can’t say the NJV’s version of any of those was my favorite. 🤣 I know that doesn’t exactly sound like a ringing endorsement 😜, but it’s really an elegant, beautiful translation, and it gives me the sense of…how can I describe this? …okay, maybe this is as close as I can get to expressing what I mean: Once, in studying Job, I made use of a copy of the book of Job put out by the Jewish Publication Society; it had commentary by (if memory serves) Moshe Greenberg; and in his commentary, I felt the same thing I often feel on the rare occasions where I get to engage Jewish commentary-the sense of literally CENTURIES of grappling with the text, like Jacob grappling with God. It contained wise “wrestlings” that had never occurred to me before, and I still end up referencing things from that commentary. Reading the NJV gave me the same feeling; it just felt like a translation that resulted from committed real engagement over much time with the Word in Hebrew and Greek.
Have you ever read the Tyndale House Greek New Testament? Their position is in the middle between the Majority and the CT. They consider only the MSS from before the VI century and decide based on the majority reading among those. I find this a good compromise since (at least in my mind) it's hard to attribute the same weight to an XIV-century MSS as an IV-century papyrus.
@@adamfoerster9098 I have looked into it. I'll admit it does cause an interesting question. I'll address that in my next video. I tried typing it out however it was WAY to long lol 😂
@@JohnMiles117personally, the only text I call into extreme question is the Johanan Coma (?) on the Trinity since it only has like 5 late mss attestation, 3 of which are marginal notes.
@richiejourney1840 I would agree with that. At this point in time that is the only passage in the Bible, that I would call into question. The evidence is overwhelmingly against it.
@@AndreaSutherland good question. The textus Receptus is very close to the Byzantine text, and is primarily based upon the majority of NT manuscripts, however it deviates in a few places away from the majority of Greek manuscripts and follows the Latin texts, most notably the Vulgate.
@@Ldgreggbell yes! I have looked into it, I am cautious of one man translations, so intend to stick with the main ones. However, I have heard good things about it b
@JohnMiles117 to say one person has translated it is not quite true, there have been a lot volunteers that have helped revise it. I personally find it to be fine, but I'm not a fan of the contractions.
@@JohnMiles117 I used it for about 4 months. I do like the British edition as I write in British English. It is essentially a revision of the ASV, so it's quite literal, but fairly easy to follow and understand.
Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism. I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin, but not the Greek so out it goes. Good will towards men Doxology in Matthew Without cause God manifest in the flesh Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin, so out they go The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek and Latin so out they go. Even the “not yet” found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8 some throw out. If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem, what would you see as a problem?
@@jamessheffield4173 I sympathize with a lot of what you're saying, but each of those variants really have to be taken by themselves. You can't really lump all of them into one camp. I would pretty much agree with keeping all of those with the exception of 1st John 5:7, I think that one is spurious, however I do appreciate the caution and not throwing things out immediately.
@jamessheffield4173 I agree, I do want to be careful though and not to try to think that they are maliciously taking these out. I think they are just as concerned about inserting something into the text that is not original, as we are concerned about something original being taken out
Ill be making a video discussing (in depth) my thoughts on the Tyndale House Greek NT. I tried to answer an interesting question about it, since both It and the Hodges and Farstad text prefered the genological method. To try and answer this question in the comments section would be too hard, so ill make a video about it instead 😊
Nice to see another Majority Text advocate on TH-cam. Keep up the good work, brother.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews thanks Stephen 👍
while i am not a majority text guy, it is refreshing to see someone who likes the byzantine manuscripts isn’t a TR only or KJV only person.
@@fruitsnacks155 thank you!
I think we are going through a Byzantine renaissance!
@@DanielSteel1999 I would definitely agree
I'm pleased as punch! Great stuff John!
@@Dwayne_Green Thanks Dwayne! 😂
Great info. Still deciding. I'm just glad that I am learning to read the GNT.
@@alexandersmith9385 Amen!
I would like more videos of this
👍
I'm not Majority Text, but at the same time I don't think it's something Christians should fight over and tear each other down about. I think we can respectfully disagree with one another on the best textual basis or bases for the New Testament, engage in reasonable debate, and so forth. Ultimately it should hopefully produce more light than heat.
All that said, I'd be more than glad to use a Majority Text or Textus Receptus translation like the NKJV and no Critical Text translation for the rest of my life if it meant more people reading, studying, and living the Bible. 😊
@@philtheo well said! Amen!
Great video! I haven't really committed fully but lean toward Majority Text. Can't wait to hear more videos like this one. You have no shortage of potential video material to choose from. Better get busy!
(And I apologize in advance for some commenters who are going to wear you out when it comes to KJVO stuff).
@@bhsher thank you so much! I definitely plan on making a lot more videos about it, you're right the potential is bottomless 😂. Yeah the kjvo guys come out of the woodworks lol
#1 rule in theology - DO NOT TRY TO BE HOLIER THAN JESUS. When they brought Jesus the scroll of Isaiah at the synagogue in Galilee it wasn't the autographa (Luke 4:17). It was a copy. More than likely it was at least a copy of a copy. When the apostles wrote the New Testament they had no problem quoting not only Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Old Testament) but also the Targum (a paraphrase of the Hebrew Bible) such as in Mark 1:11, 4:11, 11:2 and many more passages. I don't stick to one "family" of Greek texts because the differences are very minor and they both have their advantages.
@@KildaltonTheologicalStudies well said!
Majority text here also.
@@ScottManser-eu2pg good to have another brother in the house! 😂
Now for the Old Testament - BHS/BHQ (Masoretic Text - Leningrad, Aleppo), LXX, DSS, Targums, etc.? 😊
@@philtheo 😂😂 one testament at a time (masoreric=leningrad/DSS)
There's a form of "textual criticism" (or really, textual acceptance) that says that the KJB is the right text, that it is the final form of the received text. This moves the entire conversation out of looking at the original languages and places focus on English. It also disregards any need for continuing textual work in that it argues that the text has now been recovered and settled.
@@bibleprotector interesting, the only question I would have for someone who held that view is how do you know that that transition from one language to another has officially taken place? In other words how do you now know that an English translation is inspired.
@@JohnMiles117 This once again proves you don't know about this topic. Most KJBOs do not say that the KJB was made by inspiration. The translators weren't inspired. Inspiration took place when Moses wrote in Hebrew, and Paul in Greek.
Also, we know the KJB is a translation because it says so on the front page.
But why are you asking about translation when the discussion is about version/readings/text?
@bibleprotector because you said that you believe that the King James Bible is the final version of the TR, which led me to believe you were referring to the translation itself and not the Textus receptus.
@@JohnMiles117 The KJB is a text itself. There are in fact many, at least 30, different TR editions. The KJB is also one of them, but the final form of the TR. The KJB IS therefore the definitive representative of the received text.
@bibleprotector it's actually not true, the King James Bible has gone through several revisions and updates. Ergo there are several versions of it.
Have you checked out the eastern orthodox New Testament published by New Rome Press? I’d like to know your thoughts on it..
Hi, John!
I’m curious about your comment that the NKJV, through its EXCELLENT translator notes (and I agree about that), is the closest thing there is to a Majority Text translation today. Even though the NKJV translator notes are the least biased I’m aware of (although I’m told the BSB translator notes are also great), and do allow the reader, if desired, to reconstruct M-text and Critical readings, the NKJV translation itself is still based on the TR. Both the World English Bible (WEB) and New Jerusalem Version (NJV) state that their NT translation basis is actually the Majority Text. What do these M-text translations lack that the (ultimately TR based) NKJV has?
Thank you!
@@BonyT2768 excellent question! You are right about the BSB by the way, it does have excellent foot notes, especially regarding the M-Text. As far as the WEB is concerned I hear that it's very good, in truth I don't really have anything against it and I actually forgot that it existed when I made this video. I was under the impression that the WEB was a one-man translation however unless I'm mistaken I think there was a group of people working on it, however I don't think that the group was as prestigious as that which worked on the NKJV. Really that would be my only hold back from using the WEB. As far as the NJV, unless I'm mistaken I looked in the preface of my edition and it says that it uses the critical text, also I haven't seen it using a lot of footnotes in the New Testament to show where it varies from the M- text but its possible that I'm either not seeing them or I have a unique edition. Also I don't know anybody that uses it personally, whether online or in real life. I've used it some, but always found myself returning to other translations instead. I guess at the end of the day regarding both the WEB and the NJV here comes down to how much experience I have with them, and at this current time it's not that much. In order for me to trust a translation I need to spend a lot of time with it and I just don't see myself doing that with these two translations, although I would like to look into the WEB more in the future.
@ Thank you, John! I’m kind of a TH-cam nobody 😜, a casual, so I’m not used to many responses, especially ones this engaged-I really appreciate it!!
I didn’t realize that the WEB was kind of a one-man show-thank you for that information! That gives me some pause about it. I have it on Olive Tree or Logos, but I haven’t used it enough to meaningfully assess it. (I do recall that I like its translation of John 20:23 though 😂, although I’m in the minority on that verse, and the UBS Handbook tells me I’m likely wrong 😜).
I think you may be thinking of something else other than the New Jerusalem Version (NJV) actually; I know it’s sometimes confused with the New Jerusalem BIBLE (NJB), which I believe is considered a Critical Text translation; but the NJB is a Catholic translation, so that may not be the one you’re thinking of. Anyway, the NJV is a small translation; there’s actually only one edition that can be had, directly from the publishers, Hineni Publishers. (It is bound and printed by Royal Jongbloed, so it’s really a fine quality book.) I would call it a “Messianic” Bible (though as far as I can recall they never use that term) in that it comes from our brothers and sisters in Christ who are “completed Jews” (as they sometimes refer to themselves). Like other Messianic translations I’m familiar with, it has the express goal of bringing back to the fore for the reader the Jewish roots of the Christian faith (but NOT to be confused with the “Hebrew roots” phenomenon); so it uses a number of simply transliterated (rather than actually translated) Hebrew terms, like “chesed,” and one really interesting thing is that, in the OT (the books of which are in the traditional Jewish order), it simply presents the Tetragrammaton in the unpointed Hebrew, the four consonants “Yod” “Hey” “Vav” “Hey”; this of course makes it an actual sefer, and the publishers recommend (though they do not demand) some special handling.
Anyway, the Preface does state that it’s a Majority Text translation:
“The ‘Brit Chadashah’ (New Covenant) is mainly based on the Byzantine Majority Text (M-text).”
If they use the Critical Text at all, they don’t acknowledge it in the Preface.
There is one other translation that occurred to me, btw, that states it’s use of the Majority Text and TR co-equally, the Literal Standard Version (LSV); from their Preface:
“The goal of any good translation is to produce a readable text that
preserves the original autographic meaning and comes as close as possible to translating, word-for-word, manuscripts that accurately represent the original writings. It’s with this goal in mind that the Literal Standard Version (LSV) was written-a modern, yet literal English translation based upon the most prolific texts: the Masoretic Text (MT) for the Old Testament and the Textus Receptus (TR) and Majority Text (M) for the New. However, in certain, specific instances other manuscript versions and text-types are used where the evidence seems incontrovertible (e.g., the LXX and DSS in the Hebrew and Aramaic; the Alexandrian in the Greek).”
From my limited (and boy, it’s admittedly limited) dealings with the original languages, I have to say that the LSV seems staggeringly accurate in the Formal Equivalent translation philosophy, even to keeping the highly idiomatic verb tenses from the original languages in their English translation, and even word order wherever intelligible. This means it’s not much for reading, but highly useful for study. Just one example where this makes, I think, a real difference is Acts 15:11, normally rendered like this:
(LSB)
11 But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”
However, if you look at the Greek, this translation doesn’t really follow word order; the LSV does meticulously follow the Greek word order, and to my mind it makes a real difference in this case:
(LSV)
11 But through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, WE BELIEVE TO BE SAVED, even as also they.” (The capitalization is mine for emphasis on what seems to me the significant difference.)
@BonyT2768 wow! That was THE MOST comprehensive response I've ever had lol 😂 btw, I'm considered something of a nobody myself. 😉
I think I was referring to the Catholic Bible, I'll definitely have to check out the one you were referring to. Very interesting, I'm glad it's not Hebrew roots, I have many friends that are Messianic yet Orthodox, nothing but love for them! I as well love the LSV it's a fantastic translation. Good job on your homework! You were spot on! Keep it up. Btw I love comments like this, I love engaging with you guys
@@JohnMiles117 thanks, John!
The LSV is one of only two translations that I can honestly say were so successful in the goal of the Formal Equivalence translation philosophy that they gave me the feeling I was actually reading the original languages; the other is the LSB (which, btw, I was initially leery of because of the obvious Reformed background-and, I feared, translation bias-of the whole alarmingly small 6-man translation team 😂), which has, I think, the finest statement of the ideal of the formal equivalence philosophy I’ve ever read in its Forward:
“While the interpreter, teacher, and pastor have the goal of understanding what the text means, the translator is to provide them with what the text says. Consistently, the goal of this translation is to be a window into the original text. Within that goal, this revision has focused upon accuracy and consistency.”
The LSB won over my hesitations, finally, with (of course) much reading, and with those words. And their commitment to that consistency of translation I’ve found to help make connections in Scripture more apparent than I’ve seen before.
I have a feeling you may like the NJV. There’s a small list of verses I go to when I first look at any translation, and tbh I can’t say the NJV’s version of any of those was my favorite. 🤣 I know that doesn’t exactly sound like a ringing endorsement 😜, but it’s really an elegant, beautiful translation, and it gives me the sense of…how can I describe this?
…okay, maybe this is as close as I can get to expressing what I mean: Once, in studying Job, I made use of a copy of the book of Job put out by the Jewish Publication Society; it had commentary by (if memory serves) Moshe Greenberg; and in his commentary, I felt the same thing I often feel on the rare occasions where I get to engage Jewish commentary-the sense of literally CENTURIES of grappling with the text, like Jacob grappling with God. It contained wise “wrestlings” that had never occurred to me before, and I still end up referencing things from that commentary. Reading the NJV gave me the same feeling; it just felt like a translation that resulted from committed real engagement over much time with the Word in Hebrew and Greek.
@BonyT2768 very cool! I like that idea of grappling with the text in search of a richer understanding!
Have you ever read the Tyndale House Greek New Testament? Their position is in the middle between the Majority and the CT. They consider only the MSS from before the VI century and decide based on the majority reading among those. I find this a good compromise since (at least in my mind) it's hard to attribute the same weight to an XIV-century MSS as an IV-century papyrus.
@@adamfoerster9098 I have looked into it. I'll admit it does cause an interesting question. I'll address that in my next video. I tried typing it out however it was WAY to long lol 😂
@@JohnMiles117that’s the standard TC’s argument…the oldest and fewest are correct even though they also vary among each other isn’t it?
@richiejourney1840 in a nutshell yes. They would believe that simply because those manuscripts are older they are therefore inherently more accurate.
@@JohnMiles117personally, the only text I call into extreme question is the Johanan Coma (?) on the Trinity since it only has like 5 late mss attestation, 3 of which are marginal notes.
@richiejourney1840 I would agree with that. At this point in time that is the only passage in the Bible, that I would call into question. The evidence is overwhelmingly against it.
What about the Textus Receptus, particularly, the Stephanus 1550 Greek New Testament which almost 100% matches the King James Bible (KJV)?
@@AndreaSutherland good question. The textus Receptus is very close to the Byzantine text, and is primarily based upon the majority of NT manuscripts, however it deviates in a few places away from the majority of Greek manuscripts and follows the Latin texts, most notably the Vulgate.
Majority Text is the best position. Have you considered using the WEB translation?
@@Ldgreggbell yes! I have looked into it, I am cautious of one man translations, so intend to stick with the main ones. However, I have heard good things about it b
@JohnMiles117 to say one person has translated it is not quite true, there have been a lot volunteers that have helped revise it. I personally find it to be fine, but I'm not a fan of the contractions.
@Ldgreggbell I didn't know that! Thank you for telling me, have you used it much? I'll admit it does intrigue me
@@JohnMiles117 I used it for about 4 months. I do like the British edition as I write in British English. It is essentially a revision of the ASV, so it's quite literal, but fairly easy to follow and understand.
@Ldgreggbell that's super good to know, I'm definitely going to have to go take another look at it.
Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism.
I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin,
but not the Greek so out it goes.
Good will towards men
Doxology in Matthew
Without cause
God manifest in the flesh
Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin,
so out they go
The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek
and Latin so out they go.
Even the “not yet” found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8
some throw out.
If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem,
what would you see as a problem?
@@jamessheffield4173 I sympathize with a lot of what you're saying, but each of those variants really have to be taken by themselves. You can't really lump all of them into one camp. I would pretty much agree with keeping all of those with the exception of 1st John 5:7, I think that one is spurious, however I do appreciate the caution and not throwing things out immediately.
@@JohnMiles117 While each must be weighed individually, they do show a pattern or a statistical trendline. Blessings.
@jamessheffield4173 I agree, I do want to be careful though and not to try to think that they are maliciously taking these out. I think they are just as concerned about inserting something into the text that is not original, as we are concerned about something original being taken out
@@JohnMiles117 I have met some CT people and found them to be real Christians. We just have different presuppositions. The truth will out. God bless.
@jamessheffield4173 I agree!
Jesus nerds are the worst