2. The Reliability of the New Testament (Textual Corruption)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ก.ย. 2024
- Join us at: www.inspiringph...
To help support this ministry click here: / inspiringphilosophy
Is the New Testament reliable or is it based on dated copies and filled with errors. This video addresses these claims and refutes objections variants affect Christians doctrine.
Sources:
Dethroning Jesus - Darrell Bock & Dan Wallace
Fabricating Jesus - Craig Evans
A General Introduction to the Bible - Norman L. Geisler & William E. Nix
Trusting the New Testament - JP Holding
Misquoting Jesus - Bart Ehrman
The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts - Phillip Comfort & David P. Barrett
The Text of the New Testament - Bruce Metzger & Bart Ehrman
Prescription Against Heresy - Tertullian
Bart Ehrman vs. James White Debate:
• Bart Ehrman vs. James ...
• Bart Ehrman vs. James ...
Dan Wallace Lectures:
• How do you explain the...
• How do you explain the...
*If you are caught excessively commenting, being disrespectful, insulting, or derailing then your comments will be removed. If you do not like it you can watch this video:
• For the Censorship Whi...
"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."
Sir I don't know if you are just a college student making these videos or have a degree in philosophy but these videos truly have help my faith and it has help me stay in church when I honestly considered abandoning my faith after subscribing to your channel i'm glad that I didn't do what I was considering God bless you
That is great to hear, thank you for sharing!
amen!!!! videos like these are great studying tools and eye openers. God Bless you
Real blessing to me as well
🙏🏾🙏🏾🙏🏾
I believe he is working on either his masters or a phD in philosophy
as a Greek i approve the claims on this video about spelling.
hey how are u
Και συ Κρητικός όπως δείχνει η εικόνα.😉
IP. The way you put these together is what makes you worth every penny. "It is the Gospel that saves. . . not perfect copying." God bless you, and keep up the great work!
I am almost angered by how many atheists preach that the bible has been mythologized like a game of telephone. In high school my History teacher said that was the case. If only I had this knowledge then. I would have put her on the spot and made her look like an idiot.
@Karl Pagan th-cam.com/video/pwTDuNFAHng/w-d-xo.html
@Karl Pagan much later as in?
#Karl Sagan, Amazing everything that you just stated in regards to Yeshua Ben Yosef and the christian cult that appeared after him is misleading and conjecture.
@Karl Pagan You not believing that a historical person named Jesus walked the earth because of supposed errors or contradictions, etc, does not change the historical fact that for better or for worse a man named Jesus was tried, found guilty and was executed by Roman authorities in Judea and Samaria some time around 33 CE.
@Karl Pagan And Alexander the great isn't mentioned until 350 years until after his death so that means he never existed either right?. And Jews specifically his entire little possy of followers and Paul. All mention or write about Jesus, with all their writings being decades within the time of Jesus death. And let's also just forget about Josephus (a Jew) and the few other writers some of whom were roman that make references to Jesus, or anyone connected to him. It's one thing to deny that Jesus was divine or was the Messiah which I myself believe to be false as well. But it's another thing entirely to claim against all reasonable evidence, that he didn't exist and was just an extremely well made fabrication.
Our bible teacher has us watch these videos for assignments and it has really helped increase my faith in the word
Haha hey IP I have a research paper due on the 28th and I just discovered your channel. I know this is out of context but my English teacher allowed us to choose any topic that is recent from 2010 - 2015. So I chose to write about the Conflict Thesis(Myth) and other so called conflicts between Science and Religion. My teacher's reaction was pretty funny, I guess she didn't expect that topic from a high school student. I just wanted to let you know that your videos have helped a lot with my thinking, same with people like John Lennox, keith Ward, Alister Mcgrath, C.S. Lewis, etc. I also want to let know that you now have another subscriber because I had just discovered you yesterday and I've pretty much watched all of your videos. I hope more people like you and your apologist friends keep up the good works because I know how much I appreciate you guys :D.
I am extremely honored to hear that, thanks. We will do our best, God Bless! God luck with your paper, let me know if you have any questions.
People want an excuse to discredit the bible. It doesn't matter how the story is told by different authors, what matters is the overall message. Great video.
The overall message has been distorted. That's the point.
First, the gospel is recorded by Paul in 1 Cor 15:1-4...this text is early...almost to the very time of the events. The earliest Christians proclaimed the resurrection message. So, that hasn't been corrupted due to the time interval between the events and the proclamation. i.e., those who first proclaimed the message would still be around to correct any false notions or distortions of the message!
What are you referring to when you say the "overall message?"
If you watch these videos you would understand that over all texts and manuscripts, there had not been distortion in the overall message
Answer the objections to your view from the video, don't embarrass yourself with a bare assertion. LOL. Do better atheist.
@@isaaccaasi9080 literally over 99.5% is undisputed
I can use their skeptic methods and boom Every historical document would be invalid
Completely false and a conspiracy theory nonsense spouted by IP. Well, he known for fringe and crackpot views.
@@biotorex8999 Do you know what the term conspiracy theory even means?
Your videos are amazing! Greetings from Spain
Thanks!
Recemos por España, hermano. Nuestra nación lo necesita.
IP I have been learning and referring to your channel for quite some time now. I've also directed others here who have serious questions or doubts for the past couple of years. Thanks for all your hard work and great videos. God bless your continued efforts!
Thank you :)
Just came back and reviewed this one again...it's great sometimes to hear other people say what you know but in their own words. There is a small group of Muslims in my town who talk with me about these things and I refer to you, James White, and many others for good information. Take care, I hope you're well!
@@InspiringPhilosophy hey, I’ve been looking at the 99.5%, does it attribute it to Bruce metzger? Because I don’t find him making the claim.
@@tan1591asically Metzger quoted somebody else in the book The case for Christ in an interview with Lee Strobel:
"So rare that scholars Norman Geisler and William Nix conclude,
"The New Testament, then, has not only survived in more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer form than any other great book a form that is 99.5 percent pure."
So Metzger technically said this but its not his own saying 😂
He agrees though
It's really cool how you timed this video so greatly with the discovery of the first century fragment of the Gospel of Mark.
Can you provide me a link of it or something? Thanks
@@tan1591 just google it, there is a TON of articles about it
I find it interesting how NT integrity is basically the very first use of a decentralized blockchain concept to verify information
Wow, I never thought of it like that!
I have to say, the music is fire!!!
Thank you, IP, for your detailed, engaging, quality videos with points from both theologians and skeptics. I love how you always try to address all of the potential counterarguments you can think of and how you pay attention to logical fallacies. It's difficult to tackle multifaceted topics but you collected and organized information very well! Citing sources too 👏👏. You've helped me a lot in my walk with God, brother, and I'm thankful for the amazing work you do. God bless!
Wait I didn't know you were a Christian. I saw some of your Miraculous videos.
Thank you for all of your dilligent work. I have benefited greatly from every video you have produced. God bless you.
First Baptist Church Boron Thanks :) Glad to hear it.
Awesome video IP!
Thanks for this video. You do good stuff. TH-cam needs more videos like this!
+Jeff Dumont Thanks!
Exactly the preservation of the text described in the Bible is not a word by word, letter by letter, dot for dot kind of preservation that the Muslims falsely claim about their book.The kind of preservation the Bible talks about is that God and his peoples message will be preserved through out time even in the face of any difference of language or wording or spelling. That people no matter where they are or what time in the future they live in God's word will still be available. Even if it isn't a letter by letter word by word preservation, it's absolutely a miracle of God that we have more copies, verifiability, and documentation of the Old and New Testament than literally any other document of antiquity combined and even to extent any document present in ancient history combined. The Bible is the most wide spread and well preserved library of documents in all of history. Hallelujah, God is good 🙏.
@@Itrymybestislam So is it "Maliki (King) Yawmud-Deen" as given in the Warsh Quran or "Maaliki (Owner) Yawmud-Deen" as given in the Hafs Quran for Surah Al fatiha verse 4 ? How can a book claimed by apologists and brainwashed madrassa products to be preserved "dot for dot" have many so many different variations with differnet meanings ??
BTW there are 7 different versions of the Quran with different words and with different meanings. Strange for a book claimed to be "preserved 100%" by propagandists, don't you think ?
Your videos are all what I needed. They are so perfect and accurate I don't even have to go to other sources. Thank you so much for making these information easily available to the believers who are confronting the skeptics around them. I'm gonna learn a lot through this channel 👍🏻❤️
Absolutely truthful!
Very thankful for this video.
Thank you, IP. This videos are really good.
Thank You. I want you to know that you helped a brother with his faith. Dont stop on making videos, brother! God Bless!
Thank you very much for these videos. I have found them very helpful and encouraging. God bless!!
Tom Pawlik Thanks, part 3 of this series should be out tomorrow.
At 7:57 the textual variant of Mark 1:41 is mentioned. The video gives one explanation why Jesus might have been angry. Another possibility is that Jesus got angry that the leper could question His (i.e. Jesus') willingness to heal. Meaning, the leper should have been confident that Jesus was compassionate enough to do so. Not doubtful.
I really like your point around the 11:30 mark about the inerrancy of the Bible. The early Church Fathers said that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," (1 Timothy 3:16); not that all Scripture is the final end-all and say-all of God. Unlike what is taught in Islam, what was left behind by Christ when he ascended to God was not a holy book, but a Church; a living, active members of His Body. And you're absolutely right also that the purpose of the New Testament was to preserve the faith handed down from the apostles, or as Jude 1:3 puts it: "Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was ONCE FOR ALL entrusted to God’s holy people." (emphasis is my own).
Awesome, awesome work IP. You accelerate my learning and all I have to do is just check your references. Thank you.
Brother, your videos are awesome, God bless you.
Looks the Bible doesn't HAVE to be "inerrant". Thank God! Now we can stop nitpicking! :D
Inerrant free from error. These textual changes don't affect the belief, so it can still be inerrant
Wayne Ekeh That's what I meant, exactly.
Only the originals were inerrant. The Bibles we have today are not, but as IP demonstrated, they are still authoritative.
I love all your videos so far.
God bless you
Really awesome video brother! Thanks for your work in making it
Beautiful!! Love your work, praise God.
Excellent as usual sir
Gotta say, there was some great bass tone in the background music. Fortunately, it didn't distract me too much.
Some of those passages I decided to look up in my Bible, and actually saw some subtle lines around them, hinting to the fact that it is not officially known that they are part of the original text. For 99.5% accuracy over 2000 years, I wonder what people outside of religious history set their accuracy standards. I could see a document of a historical event posing 80% accuracy as being mostly accepted by the masses.
*Insert Dead Sea Scrolls here*
I rest my case.
Those are the OT, not the NT
@AnimatEdgar Right, but I don't think that's what he was implying.
thank you so much for this series! i’m watching it to strengthen my beliefs, and and am super thankful that you took the time to do this. i hope that God blesses your ministry!:)
Here's a Kierkegaard quote about it all.
If the enemy succeeds in demonstrating what they desire regarding the Scriptures with a certainty surpassing the most vehement desire of the most spiteful enemy-what then? Has the enemy thereby abolished Christianity? Not at all. Has he harmed the believer? Not in the least. Has he won the right to exempt himself from the responsibility for not being a believer? Not at all. That is, because these books are not by these authors, are not authentic, are not complete, are not inspired (this cannot be disproved, since it is an object of faith), it does not follow that these authors have not existed and, above all, that Christ has not existed. To that extent, the believer is still equally free to accept it, equally free, please note, because if he accepted it by virtue of a demonstration, he would be on the verge of abandoning the faith. If matters ever go that far, the believer will always have some guilt if he himself has invited it and started with giving victory into the hands of disbelief by himself wanting to demonstrate. For whose sake is the demonstration conducted? Faith does not need it, indeed, must even consider it its enemy.
Whether it is a word, a sentence, a book, a man, a society, whatever it is, as soon as it is supposed to be a boundary, so that the boundary itself is not dialectical, it is superstition and narrow-mindedness. In a human being there is always a desire, at once comfortable and concerned, to have something really firm and fixed that can exclude the dialectical, but this is cowardliness and fraudulence toward the divine. Even the most certain of all, a revelation, precisely thereby becomes dialectical when I am to appropriate it; even the most fixed of all, an infinite negative resolution, which is the individuality’s infinite form of God’s being within him, promptly becomes dialectical. As soon as I take away the dialectical, I am superstitious and defraud God of the moment’s strenuous acquisition of what was once acquired. It is, however, far more comfortable to be objective and superstitious, boasting about it and proclaiming thoughtlessness. 35
Soren Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments, Hong p. 30, 35 (1846)
Great stuff, i appreciate your hard work, it’s wonderful. God bless you
Hi IP.
I watch your videos for one year or so and I want to thank you and congratulate you for this work. Yet, a lot of my Brazilian friends don't understand English, so: 1. Do you have some Brazilian (or just Portuguese) translation work or associate? 2. If not, could I translate and share your videos for the Brazilian public?
God be glorified.
Yes, you have full permission to translate any of my videos. If you want, you can also give me subtitles and i'll upload them to my videos as well.
***** I just translated to Portuguese and subtitled both videos of this series, and I would love to give you the subtitles, but all I have is the translated text and the Movie Maker project files. Do you want any of these?
Alfredo Barbosa youtube says you need to give me an rtf file. Here are instructions: www.stuckinrenders.com/?p=551
You are so awesome!!! ...God bless you !!!
Your videos and explanations are good and helpful. I thank God for the grace given to you. My humble suggestion is please try not to add the background music it's some what disturbing. Thank you..
Great video as always, but I have just one gripe. In discussing the last two variants on the list (the long ones) I think you may be getting authenticity and originality confused. The events recorded in John 8 and Mark 16 could very well be authentic to Jesus' lifetime even if they weren't original to the text of their respective gospels. I honestly find it hard to believe such sizeable additions to the text would have been allowed to become part of Scripture unless it was by the Apostles' own authorities considering the autographs of the Gospels still existed at least well into the third century.
Loved the ending of this video. I tell people that all the time. In certain circles of America today, it seems like many people equate the Bible with God.
In the first twenty or so years until Paul's first letter, there was no Bible. The apostles were a witness to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and people became Christians by believing in Jesus. As John 5:39 says, it's all meant to point to Him and to be a witness to Him.
Think you for this I have an annoying brother that try’s to keep undermining me if the apocrypha saying the New Testament is fake
Thanks for the great video, IP. I am curious about books left out of the bible. Not late gnostic stuff, but like the possible 3rd letter to the Corinthians. If we did discovery it, and it didn't change doctrine, would we put it into the bible? Or what if there was a problem with the doctrine?
I doubt it. It would probably just add to our uderstanding of the people at that time. There is no evidence it would change in doctrines, but it is interesting to think about.
Excellent this mate!
so you said no theological formulations have been altered. it was brought to me by a charismatic christian that mark 16:16-18 support the Pentecostal belief that the gift of tongues is extended to anyone who accepts salvation. in 17 where it says 'they will speak in new tongues." what do you think of this use of the verse? do you think it should be rejected because of the textual variants, or should it be rejected another way? or perhaps you think their appeal here is legitimate?
No where does it say that speaking in tongues is necessary for salvation. Paul speaks of tongues as well but says it is a minor issue.
i understand it's not necessary for salvation, I am looking into it because of a relationship i'm currently in. i'm skeptical of the charismatic movement, particularly this area. i'm not sure that the bible supports tongues as a personal prayer language as they claim. they presented Mark 16:16-18 to say everyone has the ability, unlike what 1 cor 12:29-30 says about it and the other spiritual gifts being limited to whoever God selects and not everyone can speak in tongues just like not everyone can prophesy. if this passage is an interpolation, it shouldn't be used to justify doctrine such as this. they also use 1 cor 14:2 and 4 to justify that tongues are for speaking to God and personal edification. though Paul talks about this in contrast to the gift of prophesy and only in respect to when it is not interpreted. it seems to me these passages aren't saying tongues are for praying to God any more than 1 cor 14:9 is saying tongues are for speaking to the air. i'm still struggling on this matter, what do you think about the Pentecostal doctrine of speaking in tongues?
You are a gift. Thank you.
Great video defense!
You are a genius !!!
You have your column labels switched at 7:24.
Sorry that I ask off topic, but what is the name of background music?
When reading the entire texts by Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, even the disciples in the 2nd century such as Ireneaus, the reading is exactly the same.
I was astonished at seeing that the Didache contains the same information.
Excellent videos, but this music is SO distracting.
I think the pericope of the woman caught in adultery from John 7:53-8:11 is an authentic story about Jesus (and is possibly referenced by Papias) even if it wasn't originally in John's gospel. It seems to me that the early references to it suggest that it was associated with the apostle John and may have been verbally passed on from him, if not included in his written work. Then later scribes/communities, knowing the story originated with John, placed it in John's gospel in a place where it would seem to fit the most. So (in my opinion) it was still an authentic story about Jesus and still passed on through the apostle John, it just took a little time getting into his gospel. :)
@ 6:26 are the main passages you should know of N.T. variants
Loved ur channel.god bless u
Was under the impression that the Masoretic text was not available during the time of Yeshua, but older Hebrew texts were, apart from the Masoretic, which is claimed to have been originally created after the writers of the NT had passed on, which would make sense concerning the claims around the alterations in texts in the Masoretic to disannul the NT authors claims relating to the Nevi'im(Prophets), and Yeshua's priesthood/kingship.
"Textual corruption" - such as, "trinity". How does the Word of God DEFINE "trinity"? CHAPTER and VERSE please!
what do you think about the shroud of turin? Maybe a cool video idea would be to inform us about some of the relics.
There are several problems with it. It doesn't have traces of the spearwound that Jesus recieved after the romans reassured his death. The shroud also show the image of an entire man, but in the Bible Jesus had several. One wrapped around the head, and one around the body.
Just read the description in the Bible, and then look at the shroud of turin. It doesn't match up in my opinion.
@@kennyw4779 I would take exception to your contentions. IMHO
@@dougoverhoff7568 I agree. My opinions have taken a 180° turn since I made that comment.
But Holy Writ is error free - Jesus said as much; so I do not think that we should pit the inerrant text of Holy Writ against the bodily rising-again of Christ: to do so weakens the witness of the writings themselves, on which we very much depend. I agree with you on 1 John 5: 7 but Mark 16 and John 8 have widespread support in many areas and eras, as well as early patristic and translational testimony. The rejection of Mark 16 rests on 'inward witness' which in every other part of the New Testament is unreliable.
I don't know why you don't have millions of subscribers I.P. you should have
You may also want to look into something for another video in this topic of the fact The Apostles were all Jewish and the Jewish had incredibly strict rules about writing and copying anything considered to be Scripture and the "church" actually began in Synagogues and the Gospel was proclaimed to the Jew first so that meant the followers in the 1st Century were majorly Jewish and they kept to the strict laws about copying Scripture so it wasn't just that there was no central person that could change doctrine but that they submitted to the requirements of their laws to copy Scripture. And that also helps us understand God's plan of why "to the Jew first" could possibly also be a big reason that God had His Gospel spread to them first besides just that the Jewish people were "the chosen people". but that He knew this would be an issue thousands of years down the road. He is Faithful and True. Pretty awesome.
That tradition did not actually exist until the 9th century among Masoretic scholars, which is why I didn't mention it. We have no evidence it was around in the 1st century. James White has pointed this out multiple times. Copying was important for pagan and Jewish authors alike, but the strict formal laws among Jewish scribes did not come into existence until much later.
Great video, thanks. You have the verses in the wrong categories though @ around 7:20. That is, the verses you have under "The only God" should be under "the only Son" and vice versa. Also, another understanding of Mark 1:41; Jesus being angry is that Jesus was simply angry at sin and it's result manifested in the world. See Dr. Michael Brown's comments on this verse in his debate with Dr. Bart Ehrman. Blessings, keep up the good work. Glory to God.
I love your content, but I have a nagging question. You keep saying it doesn’t impact Christian doctrine as if there is a universal agreement on Christian doctrine. I’m just wondering if these textual variants might impact some of the doctrines that even orthodox Christian’s fight over. Just to give some examples Calvinism vs Arminianism, the three mainline eschatology’s, preterism, theonomy vs antinomianism, etc. the list goes on.
Kill the music. It's just noise. Why compete with it?
Great video! I do have one question, though. If you do not affirm inerrancy, then in what manner do you consider the Bible, if at all, to be the word of God? Do you affirm infallibility? Or do you minimize it's intended message to that of salvation only at the exclusion of moral teaching? Based on the ending of your video, I'm curious to know.
The originals are the inspired Word of God, and the copies have preserved that message. The Word of God is what Jesus and the Holy Spirit spoke and that message has been preserved for us, even if not the exact wording.
You had me until you mentioned Trinity. The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Father. The Spirit of Truth is the Spirit of the Son. If the Lord says He is the Way the TRUTH and the Life how could the Spirit of Truth be anything other than the Spirit of Jesus? This is why Christianity has so much division, because they are in error over who the Spirit of Truth is. The Holy Ghost or Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the way he communicates to us, if the Holy Spirit is a separate co-equal member of a triune Godhead why do the Scriptures refer to the Holy Spirit as a helper and never as a seperate member of the Godhead?
John 8:12 Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, "I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life."
John 8:13 So the Pharisees said to Him, "You are testifying about Yourself; Your testimony is not true."
John 8:14 Jesus answered and said to them, "Even if I testify about Myself, My testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from or where I am going.
John 8:15 You judge according to the flesh; I am not judging anyone.
John 8:16 But even if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone in it, but I and the Father who sent Me.
John 8:17 Even in your law it has been written that the testimony of two men is true.
John 8:18 I am He who testifies about Myself, and the Father who sent Me testifies about Me."
2 witnesses mentioned not 3,
John 17:1 Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You,
John 17:2 even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life.
John 17:3 This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
Eternal life is to know our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ whom He sent no mention of the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit is part of and is The Spirit of our Heavenly Father and think not to say to yourself but the scriptures say when Jesus was baptised the Holy Spirit descended as a dove and the Father spoke from heaven therefore Trinity, have you read the descriptions of the appearance of God? Countenance like the Sun with fiery streams issuing from the throne? God the Father has unimaginable power for nothing is impossible with God why do you all count it a strange thing that he can send forth a form of himself and project his personality while remaining in his place? We can do that with mobile phones to a limited extent but know rather than give all Glory to our Heavenly Father we have to make up another member of the Godhead to share the Glory.
Matthew 10:17 But beware of men, for they will hand you over to the courts and scourge you in their synagogues;
Matthew 10:18 and you will even be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles.
Matthew 10:19 But when they hand you over, do not worry about how or what you are to say; for it will be given you in that hour what you are to say.
Matthew 10:20 For it is not you who speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.
Mark 13:9 "But be on your guard; for they will deliver you to the courts, and you will be flogged in the synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them.
Mark 13:10 The gospel must first be preached to all the nations.
Mark 13:11 When they arrest you and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but it is the Holy Spirit.
Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and not in independent member of the Godhead.
John 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.
John 14:11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves.
John 14:12 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father.
John 14:13 Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
John 14:14 If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.
John 14:15 "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. Role of the Spirit
John 14:16 I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever;
John 14:17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.
John 14:18 "I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.
Lord Jesus after telling the Apostles he was the Truth then promised the Spirit of Truth saying I WILL NOT LEAVE YOU ORPHANS I WILL COME TO YOU.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
John 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.
Lord Jesus is the Word of God with is Truth.
John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.
John 17:18 As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.
John 17:19 For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth.
No error in translation but plenty of gross error in interpretation, and think not to say to yourself but the scriptures say the Spirit of Truth proceeds from the Father it is written,
Galatians 4:3 So also we, while we were children, were held in bondage under the elemental things of the world.
Galatians 4:4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law,
Galatians 4:5 so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
Galatians 4:6 Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"
Romans 8:9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.
Romans 8:10 If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.
Romans 8:11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
So one requires the Spirit of our Saviour and the Spirit of he who raised Jesus from the dead, two members of the Godhead both able to project their Spirits to make us on through Yeshua (Jesus) therefore
John 17:20 "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word;
John 17:21 that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. Their Future Glory
John 17:22 The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one;
John 17:23 I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. Oneness with the Father
Access to the Holy Ghost is through Jesus the Lord for it is written that he will baptise us with the Holy Spirit and Fire it is also written
Luke 10:22 All things have been handed over to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. "
If the entire Christian doesn’t understand who the Spirit of Truth is they have effectively rejected the Son and coveted the Spirit of the Father giving lip service to the Son but inventing an extra member of God to bypass the Spirit of Truth and the the Spirit of the Father, little wonder that there is so much division in the religious institutions and we know what the Lord says about divided Kingdoms.
Note; any questions are rhetorical and it is not my custom to read replies.
I have really enjoyed your videos. I have a quick question for you which relates to the ending of this video. What is your position with respect to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy? I'm just curious. Thanks for responding if you have the time to do so. God bless.
Josh Wilson I would agree with Craig Evans on that and not hold to it.
But what if someone says that "aha, to see, something has been added to the Bible that is not in the original. How do we know that the same thing did not happen with other passages?" Why were these passages added?
Most likely two seperate oral tradition and the one forgot the lines.
Would you agree that something of the original is lost or altered in translation though? Especially with a metaphorical interpretation of the bible (which would require a sense-for-sense rather than word for word translation). I'm not disagreeing with your video; just inquiring because i'm interested in the transforming effect of translation upon a text.
Yes, this is why we need scholars to look at the original Greek and help us better understand the text.
What bible translation would you recomend?
ESV or NASB
Why dont you reply to comments
Ireneaus (130-202) quotes Mark 16:19 in his Treaty against Heresies.
Ahhh, yes. The "well fed" James White clip. Well done sir
Hey IP, did matthew, mark, luke, John write the gospels? I've heard by skeptics that it was later added, but who wrote them is unknown. Do you have any teachings on this or do you know anyone with teachings on this??
Yes, see part 4: th-cam.com/video/_l0Say2wMw0/w-d-xo.html
I mean pretty sure some early church leader from the very first centuries identified them as the authors, and personally I would trust more someone closer to the source than someone 2000 years later
@@hectordanielsanchezcobo1773 Exactly and many of the early churchfather saw this as holy scripture.
1 John 5;7-8 Trinity? Mark 16:9-20?
Not in earliest koine Greek Papyrus from 125 ce ? Major points of Christian creed not in original NT
If you watch this video I point out scripture is fine without those passages.
InspiringPhilosophy No one is allowed to change add subtract to your Greek Bible or the hebrew Bible. The NIV Bible points out all the additions made to your NT not found in original. The fact that Trinity was invented and added later is a huge problem . Early Church of James and Peter did not view JC as such.
LOL, no it wasn't... The Trinity is taught throughout scripture and there is no evidence it was added later. There is no Christian doctrine threatened by textual criticism.
InspiringPhilosophy Johanna Commanuem debate 1 John 5:7-8.
Martin Luther and Erasmus both clearly stated this Trinity doctrine was not found in any original koine Greek NT. So laugh at them and all of church archives and historical document s discussing this debate within the Catholic and Protestant churches.
Don't worry never mind just keep your theology . Peace out
It is found in scripture without 1 John 5:7: th-cam.com/video/BNt5NKSse0Y/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/OaXjVU05odE/w-d-xo.html
good point, it's the gospel that saves not bible
Regarding the numerical generation of the first extant manuscripts. +/- 200a.d.
They likely would have been first or second generation. Why? Because hand copied manuscripts of the entire New Testament would have been very valuable due to the immense amount of labor involved in their production and thereby would have been preserved to the utmost.
Also, from the originals onward, these texts would have been handled with extreme care due to the conscious reverence that would have been afforded "The Word of God" by these early christians. They knew that He had risen from the dead.
In other words, each and every copy was a treasure for the community that possessed it and most copies would have lasted about, or almost, 100 years. Therefore it is most likely that our first copies are not 7th or 8th generation copies but, either direct copies or second generation.
Philippians 4:8-9
"Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things... and the God of peace will be with you."
Philippians 4:8-9
At 10:33, you say that "removing them still doesn't change any Christian Doctrine." I think that's a bit inaccurate, because the snake-handlers (as odd as they are) rely on Mark 16:18a
"they will pick up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them..." (NRSV) Since a very few Christians intentionally handle snakes and/or drink poison during worship services, I think it'd be more accurate to say "removing them still doesn't change any mainstream Christian doctrine." Would that be more accurate? (Of course, I'm NOT encouraging anyone to handle venomous snakes or to drink poison!!)
No one is saved handling a snake.
Sir, I disagree with the fact that you say that if the last part of Mark was or was not there. It does create a doctrinal problem for the Bible tells us 3 different times to not add or remove from God's word or add to it. With early copiest being really God fearing people I highly doubt that they would have removed such a text.
"With early copiest being really God fearing people I highly doubt that they would have removed such a text" The NT was originally in Aramaic, not Greek, and for Greek mss., many instances of 'Aramean' got replaced with 'Greek.' The Aramaic's 'Master YHWH' got replaced in Greek mss. with 'kurios'/ lord.
it is impressive how well the Bible was preserved. As a non-Christian, I have to ask, do you think the scholars who read the old texts that were found have been honest thus far? There's no way they copied the old stuff down wrong so that it can agree with the Bible they know and love? People Christian and non-Christian can go and read the photos of the earliest manuscripts found even right now, can't they? Was the material of the manuscripts dated, or did archaeologists decipher the date based on objects around the manuscripts they found?
If all of this is well, then the fact that the Bible has been so well preserved is very impressive.
Yes, the oldest manuscripts are on display in museums and available to see online.
There are various methods for dating, like the style of writing, where it was found, carbon-dating, etc. The introduction to this goes into a few manuscripts found.
***** Wow, impressive!
Human language is limited. If God communicates with us through human language, such tiny variants that don't affect theology are to be expected. God cares more about conveying His character through His message.
It is silly to suppose there is a human language out there that can completely encapsulate God's greatness. It is absurd how modernity has shaped our expectations of God. We expect His revelations to appear in a "purified" vacuum. Such mechanical interpretations of Scripture are extremely problematic.
I like the videos but I have to comment that the background music is very annoying. It prevents me from relaxing. The same applies with your tempo: you are talking too fast. I don't have time to reflect on what you are explaining, I have to pause the video.
Can you do one on the historical Jesus and the resurrection please
Yes, after i am finished with New Testament reliability I will do a 5 part series on the Resurrection.
***** Thank you so much this is the truth that will change the world for good.
Which part in this series do you address the synoptic problem?
4:09. The same message is confirmed all throughout these different manuscripts. Same gist, core message is not changed.
one question, how do you approach the fact that the old testament doesn't prophecy a 'virgin birth' but the mistranslated greek version which Israelites at the time of Jesus would have had access to? I have heard atheists say that this proves that some clown just took out his old testament and wrote a story of a guy who fulfilled 'all the prophecies.'
Resource to help you understand: www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/machen/virginbirth_p.pdf
Virgin Birth was implied in Genesis 3.
But what about the John 7:51 8:11?
These verses are not in Real manuscript.
He said that.
I’m gonna play devils advocate and argue: whose to say the letter of polycarp was written by polycarp? Or Justin martyr was written by Justin martyr?
I disagree with your admission of non-received manuscripts as valid objects of New Testament textual criticism. This is because according to scripture such as Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, and 1 Peter 1:23-25, it is the very words that God spoke which are "incorruptible" (1 Peter 1:23) and which shall "never pass away" (Matthew 24:35). This same statement about the immutability and trustworthiness of the WORDS of God is repeated several times and used to draw conclusions in the Old Testament such as in Proverbs 30:5-6, Isaiah 59:21 and elsewhere. You clearly have left these obvious prophecies out of your analysis.
It is clear to anyone who takes the word of God seriously from these passages and others (i.e. Psalm 119:160, Isaiah 40:8, John 10:35) that God meant for us to take the immutability of his word very seriously. This is accomplished through legitimate textual criticism, one which eschews the modern discoveries such as Codex Sinaiticus (discovered by Tischendorf) as non-received and therefore contradictory with the viewpoint that the words of God which he determined to bring into this world and spoke unto us (i.e. Hebrews 1:1-2, 2 Peter 1:20-22, 2 Timothy 3:16-17) never changes. It has been with us for every generation (as Isaiah 59:21, Psalm 12:6-7 says) and there has never been a need to "update" any part of the word of God, because of the faithfulness of God in preserving his word for us just as he did in the events of Jeremiah 36 despite any efforts of man to corrupt it.
The apostles did apply this standard. Simply read 1 Peter 1:23-25 and its statements about the incorruptibility of the word of God. Read Romans 10:17 and the insistence that faith comes by the WORD of God. Read 1 Thessalonians 2:13 where the word of God is specifically contrasted with any manmade words. Read 1 John 5:9 where the word of God is specified as being greater than the word of men. This is all backed by rock solid (and GOD-INSPIRED) scripture. Why do you choose to ignore all of this? People need the word of God specifically to be saved, faith can only come from hearing. Hearing, only by the word of God (Romans 10:17).
Therefore, because of all this, the things you suppose are "late additions" are actually not. We know this because the only received version of the New Testament contained them. Stephanus, Beza, the Authorized version translators, Elzevir and others knew this and were all able to independently derive the true source of the New Testament with their methods of textual criticism using valid (non-eclectic) sources to a very high level of accuracy, so that only a small handful of variants exist, none of which you have even mentioned here. They all agreed on the inclusion of the last twelve verses of Mark, Acts 8:37, 1 John 5:7, and also the one correct version of book of Revelation 21:24 and 22:19. There was no disagreement.
Regarding 1 John 5:7 in particular, when combined with other variants introduced by Tischendorf in the 19th century such as the removal of the Father from Colossians 2:2, the removal of Christ from Ephesians 3:9 and 3:14, the removal of the word "God" from 1 Timothy 3:16, changing "Christ" to "God" in Romans 14:10 (see Romans 14:12), the removal of Christ from 1 John 4:3 and Galatians 4:7, the removal of his claim of being Alpha and Omega in Revelation 1:11, and other removals I will gladly discuss with you, there is a clear cumulative effect of negating the doctrine of the identity of God and of who the three Persons are.
Regarding John 1:18, the word of God is supposed to say here "the only begotten Son," not merely "the only Son/God." Either of the latter is a corruption as well. And, in 2 Corinthians 2:17, we are specifically warned by Paul against those who "corrupt the word of God"! John 1:18 is also particularly corrupt in the ESV in particular, above any other versions, because it removes the Son as well. It also seriously attacks him in its changes as compared to the Authorized version in Luke 2:33, Luke 23:42, Acts 2:30, 1 Corinthians 16:22, Philippians 2:6, Hebrews 1:8, Isaiah 63:16, Micah 5:2, and 1 John 4:3, if you'd like to check those as well, in addition to everything I mentioned before. These changes, cumulatively, do amount to an attack on the eternal pre-existence and deity of Christ. These are widespread, significant, and taken cumulatively amount to cumulative and systematic, almost strategic, doctrinal shifts, but you conveniently left all of this out of the discussion in your video.
so do you support biblical inerrant in regards to the original manuscripts? the belief that the bible as it was originally written is the inerrant word of God?
yes
ok. it almost sounded like you thought inerrancy in general is a modern and false idea in the vid, but i guess you just mean it's a modern and false idea in regards to transmission of the manuscripts over time.
Great video ! BUT HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT THEY QUOTED FROM THE MASORETIC TEXTS IF THAT TEXT WASNT CREATED UNTIL at least 700CE ??? I’m confused . Do you mean the original Hebrew texts that the Masoretes eventually applied vowel pointings to, because calling those texts MT( masoretic texts ) just wouldn’t be the correct way to reference to them because Luke or Mark couldn’t of quoted from something that didn’t exist. Anyways I think I know what you mean and YOUR WORK IS AMAZING AND ENJOYABLE. Keep it up and bless you in Yeshuas Holy name
Any thoughts on Matthew 28: 19 possibly being corrupted ?
Adrian Yes: www.tektonics.org/lp/matt2819.php
***** I must admit I disagree with J. P. Holding somewhat on Matt. 28:19. Polysyndeton lists suggest absolute distinction of identity, so modalism is refuted by Matt. 28:19, when properly understood. Actually, Matt. 28:19 is a powerful text in favor of Trinitarianism.
However, his notation that our relevant textual witnesses all include Matt. 28:19 should be noted and highlighted.
For Islamic arguments to work concerning the corruption of the NT, they need passages like Matt. 28:19 to have been changed. However, since this is not the case, these arguments are shown to be weak.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would caution you, IP, concerning the claim that we have 2nd and 3rd century NT manuscripts from various regions. It should be noted that the vast majority of those very early NT mss., if not all, come from Egypt. (I would need to check the LDAB to be sure if they all do or not, and it would take a bit of time to do that, because it is a bit difficult at present to do such searches. But going by memory here...)
As it concerns the argument concerning the Latin manuscript reading in the video, I would also caution the use of arguments from absence in the Greek manuscripts. It is indeed possible that small passage portions in one language of manuscripts could preserve an original reading, while another entire language of discovered manuscripts do not.
I actually disagree with you concerning why you think Jesus got angry. However, I would likely come to the same conclusion concerning the Mark variant. Jesus had good reason to be indignant to such a patronizing or faithless leper. But you have to read the Greek rather closely, noting tenses of verbs as well, for that nuance to come out.
Also, I disagree with the figure of 99.5% preservation. It is a bit too high. A figure of 98% would be more plausible. This being said however, there's still no plausibly viable variant that disrupts key NT doctrines.
Tertullian on Apostolic Tradition - Original Latin Text with English translation
But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,-a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers:
www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/tertullian_on_apostolic_tradition.htm
Out of curiousity, and I do not consider this a challenge in any sense, but do you accept the Chicago statement of infallibility?
I don't think so, but I cannot recall it.
It is worth a look since it doesn't really follow the extreme views of inerrancy that you criticize here: www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
That's good stuff
Yup ! I got the message .
The message for the mess age .🔜✝👏⏳KZN South Africa🇿🇦💞🔥🌹🙋🇮🇱
I saw your roast of Sam Gipp - nice! (11:12-11:39)
My main problem with apologetic videos like this is that they never ever address sayings that are not found in our New Testament text today but have been re-discovered in some of the earliest biblical manuscripts. For example one of these significant textual deletions is found in Codex Bezae "D" at Luke 6:5 where it says;
"The same day, [Jesus] saw a certain man working on the sabbath and said to him: Man, if you know what you are doing, you are blessed. But, if you do not know, you are accursed, and a trespasser of the law."
A saying like this showed that Jesus expected people to keep the laws of God which included observance of the Sabbath.
Prophetes Codex Bezae contains a lot of odd saying which do not fit a 1st century Jewish environment. James White pointed this out in his debate with Bart Ehrman.
***** Are you saying this particular saying doesn't fit a first century Jewish environment because I think it does. Jesus never condemned the law as Paul supposedly did, in fact in Luke 10 when asked by an expert in the law what one must do to enter the kingdom Jesus responds and says, What is written in the Law?" When the man responds by saying to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself Jesus responds and says, "do this and you will live." The church father Clement of Alexandria in the 2nd century quotes Jesus as actually saying, "This do, and thou shalt be saved." So it shouldn't be surprising that Jesus told a man working on the Sabbath that if he knew what he was doing he was blessed but if he did not know what he was doing he was a trespasser of the law because as a Jewish rabbi he would never condemn the law in the way Paul supposedly did.
This next example is indirect evidence of New Testament textual deletion. The church father Origen in his letter to Africanus alludes to the fact that the narrative of Zacharias son of Barachias being slaughtered between the temple and the altar was removed from the Gospel's. While there is no manuscript evidence to my knowledge that this story was once contained in our Greek gospels there was an early first century Jewish branch of Christianity who were called the Ebionites and, the gospel they used was found at the base of Mount Carmel in Galilee (it is called the gospel of the holy tweleve) and in that gospel there is a story about the slaughter of John the Baptist father (Zacharias) between the temple and the altar. It is also interesting that Origen says in his letter to Africanus that some uncanonical writings preserve histories that have been edited out of our current New Testament, such as the story of Zacharias being slaughtered between the temple and the altar. While the story of Zacharias doesn't cast doubt on the reliability of the New Testament through much research I've actually found some circumstantial evidence in uncanonical writings that our New Testament has been heavily edited and it does impact major Christian doctrines and beliefs and would cast doubt on the notion that the new testament is reliable.
Prophetes Even if it does, it doesn't affect Christian doctrine in the slightest.
Paul doesn't condemn the law either (Rom. 3:31). They both point out it had a purposes and was fulfilled. Jesus didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it through him. Where does Paul condemn the law? Plus, let us remember Jesus' ministry was on the other side of atonement. Of course He kept the entire law to be the perfect sacrifice and He could fulfill it for us. Paul states that as well and says in Romans 3:31 that our faith in Christ establishes the law.
First, the gospel of the holy twelve is very late and not considered a first century document in the slightest. Second, this is same argument KJV onylists use. They take random quotes from church fathers and try to say it is evidence of alternate readings edited out. The fact remains manuscript evidence is key. Justin Martyr claimed the Jews were editing the old testament (specifically the Psalms) to try to remove prophecies of Christ, yet no textual evidence has revealed this. More importantly, where does Origen say it was edited out of the Gospels? You said Origen alluded to it? Are you sure he specifically said it was edited out? Because it appears Origen is citing an oral tradition originated from Christ, not that it was taken out of the Gospel. His words are, "Then about Zacharias the son of Barachias, who was slain between the temple and the altar, we learn from Jesus only, not knowing it otherwise from any Scripture."
Finally, even if you are right, this is in no way evidence of Christian doctrine changing.
***** You stopped just short of the quote right after the passage you quoted Origen then goes on to say: "Wherefore I think no other supposition is possible, than that they who had the reputation of wisdom, and the rulers and elders, took away from the people every passage which might bring them into discredit among the people."
Also while you may not believe the gospel of the holy twelve is a first century document (I believe otherwise) it certainly has sayings that go back to the first century. The original gospel as you may know were written in Hebrew characters. Sometimes the early patristic commentators would quote from the Hebrew gospel and these same quotes are found in the gospel of the holy twelve.
The gospel of the holy twelve also promotes Vegetarianism, no scholar whether conservative or liberal would deny that the early church was vegetarian, both orthodox and heretical sects were vegetarian so it cannot be said only one looney sect promoted such a diet, this would only make sense if Jesus made vegetarianism a priority (which he does in the gospel of the holy twelve). Seneca the Roman stoic and adviser to emperor Nero had returned to a meat eating diet after Nero suspected him of becoming a Christian for promoting vegetarianism. Being vegetarian was a sign that one was a Christian even way back in the first century. The Ebionites (who were vegetarian) have as good as a claim as any to represent the original teachings of Jesus.
As far as Paul goes I don't believe he condemned the law but most Christians think he did because they misunderstand Paul when he says the works of the law cannot save. Jesus on the other hand told the expert in the law that he could be saved by keeping the law. There is no contradiction here just a misunderstaanding but that would be getting off topic I suppose.
Prophetes I don't see how that applies, Origen is clearly just speculating, but he has not evidence he was in the original text.
You do realize scholars consider the Gospel of the holy twelve a forgery. Richard Alan Young, says, "It appears that Ouseley created The Gospel of the Holy Twelve in support of animal welfare and vegetarianism." The characters represent a later forgery, not something a first century Jew would have used. There is no evidence it existed prior to the 1800s.
"no scholar whether conservative or liberal would deny that the early church was vegetarian"
- WTF? That is so false I don't even know where to begin.... Please name on scholar who teaches this? See Luke 24:42; Acts 10:9-33, 1 Corinthians 8. Jesus and his disciples ate a passover meal together which consisted of lamb. There is no evidence of this whatsoever.
"Jesus on the other hand told the expert in the law that he could be saved by keeping the law. "
- Look at the context of the passage. It is an honor challenge.
I would like to point out that the "word of God" in the bible is not the material letters. Thats because "Gods word" is not a creation of God but rather God him self and on the other hand The letters that this word appeared to us through is a creation. so I believe even if those letters and words or even languages change that doesn't mean that Gods word has changed. Thats because Gods word is the message those letters carry and not the letters themself.