"Old Latin" in 157AD? Nope. Old Latin was long gone by then. The second century was well into the era of Classical Latin, the Latin which is still standard today in education and religious usage. So what is this mystery "Italic translation" in "Old Latin"? Internet searches produce nothing at all. This is just one of the at best dubious features of this video. What the speakers calls "the" traditional text was not one fixed text but had many variants. He asserts without evidence that this is one and the same thing as the Textus Receptus (compiled and standardised by Erasmus in the the sixteenth century). "Slapdash" is the best that one can say about this presentation. In fact it's misleading.
@@makarov138 he was answering it in a witty way , he is saying , the King James is simply the current translation . This is why he is pointing you to an even earlier book , that , just because something is earlier , does not make it automatically better , the further you go along , the more access to manuscripts and resources you have , the word comes together more and more with time , King James used all those texts , it has everything God wanted in his word right now , its what makes sense to be reading . if you want to read other bibles go ahead , I just don't think God would bring you to the King James for no reason if those were entirely complete and fine .
“Extant” means “still around”, not “existing”. We T.R. people believe the oldest N.T. information in existence. The Critical & Alexandrian sorta believers think they have the oldest physical medium of the N.T. extant. I suppose you could really emphasize the present tense of “existing”, but you’re playing near the edge.
The traditional text is the original. There are at least 7 versions of the TR. I wonder why grown people become idolatrous of spiritual matters. The kjv differs 200 times from the TR. No translation is perfect, which doesn’t bother me, because Christ Himself is perfect.
Isn't the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8) absent from the Pashitta? And wasn't only the OT translated into Syriac in the 1st century and the NT not until the 4th?
No thats not accurate. 1 John 5:7-8 is quoted by the earliest christian writings we have. There is a push to claim this however because the catholic church doesnt like it.
The idea that the Peshitta is from the 4/5th century is the result of Wescott and Hort disliking that it was from the Traditional Text, so they had to move it to the 4th century in order to be after the Lucien Recension (which never happened). PS. 150 AD is 2nd century
And if you read the new testament you know they are talking about the 4 gospels as if theyre written already in the same epistles these people claim were the oldest new testament books. And we know based on acts there were hebrews of every nation or at the least many nations. Of course when the romans chased them off they went back home. History and the bible just dont back the implications of your statement.
I find it amazing people can believe these lies as if the earliest christians could possibly quote something word for word that according to modern "scholars" say didnt exist until the 4th century.
"the principal Latin version of the Bible, prepared mainly by St. Jerome in the late 4th century, and (as revised in 1592) adopted as the official text for the Roman Catholic Church."
Because secretly we’re trying to take over the world by giving lectures on Biblical text types. Or maybe Dr. Sorenson just has a particular way he gestures with his hands and your reading into it entirely too much.
Very helpful information!
Which TR is the right one?
Thank you, powerfull evidance.
Wow Wow Wow.... Excellent video information... thanks
Thank you for posting this 😊
great short video but is there a longer video?
Here you go!
th-cam.com/video/87mZTVZ7i_Y/w-d-xo.htmlsi=a-6HBLJ1N6iK6NVz
Excellent!! Thx
Full sermon?
Here you go! th-cam.com/video/87mZTVZ7i_Y/w-d-xo.htmlsi=TCEyrrsPiLzdzXjg
Thank you so much love your channel
Thank you for watching!
"Old Latin" in 157AD? Nope. Old Latin was long gone by then. The second century was well into the era of Classical Latin, the Latin which is still standard today in education and religious usage. So what is this mystery "Italic translation" in "Old Latin"? Internet searches produce nothing at all. This is just one of the at best dubious features of this video. What the speakers calls "the" traditional text was not one fixed text but had many variants. He asserts without evidence that this is one and the same thing as the Textus Receptus (compiled and standardised by Erasmus in the the sixteenth century). "Slapdash" is the best that one can say about this presentation. In fact it's misleading.
Apparently the longer reading of acts 9:5-6 in the KJV is not the traditional text as the Peshitta follows the shorter reading
So?
@@EdwinDekker71The KJV doesn’t follow either the Textus Receptus or any pre-existing translation OR the original Hebrew in a number of places…
So, since the 1560 GENEVA BIBLE came from the very same TR, and preceded the KJV by 61 years, what's wrong with it?
So, since the 1526 Tyndale Bible came from the very same TR, and preceded the Geneva Bible by 34 years, what’s wrong with it?
@@kjbrc You've answered my question with yet another question. Apparently you don't have a logical answer to my post.
@@makarov138 he was answering it in a witty way , he is saying , the King James is simply the current translation . This is why he is pointing you to an even earlier book , that , just because something is earlier , does not make it automatically better , the further you go along , the more access to manuscripts and resources you have , the word comes together more and more with time , King James used all those texts , it has everything God wanted in his word right now , its what makes sense to be reading .
if you want to read other bibles go ahead , I just don't think God would bring you to the King James for no reason if those were entirely complete and fine .
@@onlymyself7225kjv is not current, it is old and uses 800 outdated words. But I still use it, I just don’t lie about the issues it has.
This sounds like an argument for the Byzantine text, not strictly the TR.
“Extant” means “still around”, not “existing”. We T.R. people believe the oldest N.T. information in existence. The Critical & Alexandrian sorta believers think they have the oldest physical medium of the N.T. extant.
I suppose you could really emphasize the present tense of “existing”, but you’re playing near the edge.
Why do you hop
Why do you troll?
The traditional text is the original. There are at least 7 versions of the TR. I wonder why grown people become idolatrous of spiritual matters.
The kjv differs 200 times from the TR. No translation is perfect, which doesn’t bother me, because Christ Himself is perfect.
Follows the traditional text? According to who?
Isn't the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8) absent from the Pashitta? And wasn't only the OT translated into Syriac in the 1st century and the NT not until the 4th?
No thats not accurate. 1 John 5:7-8 is quoted by the earliest christian writings we have. There is a push to claim this however because the catholic church doesnt like it.
The idea that the Peshitta is from the 4/5th century is the result of Wescott and Hort disliking that it was from the Traditional Text, so they had to move it to the 4th century in order to be after the Lucien Recension (which never happened).
PS. 150 AD is 2nd century
And if you read the new testament you know they are talking about the 4 gospels as if theyre written already in the same epistles these people claim were the oldest new testament books. And we know based on acts there were hebrews of every nation or at the least many nations. Of course when the romans chased them off they went back home. History and the bible just dont back the implications of your statement.
I find it amazing people can believe these lies as if the earliest christians could possibly quote something word for word that according to modern "scholars" say didnt exist until the 4th century.
Nope
The Vulgate was the "received, traditional text" for 1,000 years before the TR. So why a new, more modern, revised text from the year 1500 onwards?
"the principal Latin version of the Bible, prepared mainly by St. Jerome in the late 4th century, and (as revised in 1592) adopted as the official text for the Roman Catholic Church."
I love the Textus Receptus and want to learn Kione Greek and study it to be close to God. So Beautiful so Powerful. God Breathed.
✝✝✝
Truth
why are you doing masonic pyramid hand gestures repeatedly?
Because secretly we’re trying to take over the world by giving lectures on Biblical text types. Or maybe Dr. Sorenson just has a particular way he gestures with his hands and your reading into it entirely too much.
I am Textus Receptus Only myself too much room for error and heresy otherwise. God judges the disobediend.
The Textus Receptus doesn’t match ANY actual Ancient Greek language text… It includes edits insisted upon by the Catholic church in the 1600’s…