Hey everyone! If you like my content here on TH-cam, please consider ordering my new book called "Souls: How Jesus Saves Sinners." It contains my best stuff on the simple, pure, glorious Gospel. God saves us through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ! Get it here: amzn.to/3yI0y4P
Good stuff, brother. Do more of it. I personally know ROPC in AZ to be a faithful congregation, and Brett to have been instrumental in pushing me to TR. A fine interview done with brotherly love!
I again learned some new thing because of your critique of this book on the Received Text. I think I need to show my appreciation by buying that book, and your commentary on the WCF. The point about the Westminster Standards and supporting documents being inspired by the KJV is resonating with me.
The passages with brackets etc. are not "disputed passages within scholarship" but are actual variations in the manuscripts. As many people pointed out regarding John Mill's edition of the TR in 1707 - Mill (i.e. "scholarship") didn't create the variant readings, he catalogues them.
Really appreciated this discussion. Seemed a little unfair to ask a couple of questions regarding positions these two didn't seem to hold in their own essays, but I was also interested in their answers so 🤷♀️
Excellent and enlightening discussion. However, I wish pastors and scholars would cease from referring to "jots and tittles" regarding inerrancy and preservation as was done throughout this discussion. Context, gentlemen. In Matt 5:18, Jesus said that not one jot or title would pass "from the LAW" (not from all of Scripture) "till all be fulfilled." The implication is that the law would indeed pass away when it's fulfilled. Lo and behold, in the previous verse Jesus declares regarding the law "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil". So the law (e.g. the old covenant) did indeed pass away as having to do with man's relationship with God when Jesus "finished" his mission (Jn 19:30; Heb 1:3; 10:12) and fulfilled the law as the perfect sacrifice, ushering in the new covenant. Hence Paul's declaration that "we are not under the law, but under grace." (Rom 6:15, cf. John 1:17). The subject(s) raised in this video and the book to which it refers are worthy of discussion, but this analogy doesn't fit.
When Matthew ask can you put a perfect TR in my hand I don't feel like they adequately answered that question. I think the short answer is simply no. There are variants in all the text but those variations don't effect doctrine. I think the critical approach is simply necessary.
Thanks for your contribution. We were seeking to show that the "Which TR?" question is not the "gotcha" that so many think it is. The 16th and 17th century Confession framers believed in the body of printed texts as the word of God, not one specific text, see Turretin, first volume, second topic, questions 10-12. Yes, a critical text is necessary, that is why it is good to have Stephanus' critical text, and Scrivener's critical text. The answer is not "no." The answer is what the Reformation answered. I am sorry you weren't satisfied with the historical protestant answer. We are not textual absolutists or KJVO, as much as people wish we were, so they could just dismiss us. The Protestant answer to these questions is not as easily dismissed as the anabaptist KJV fundamentalist answer. Disappointment is a function of expectation; you seem like you were expecting us to fit into an easily dismissible category, and I just don't think we can be dismissed that easily.
@@brettmahlen722 First of all thank you both for your willingness to have this discussion! I think the most important issue is that we endeavor to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. So many discussions on this topic degenerate into heated debate. I believe whether we use a translation based on the critical text or the textus receptus it's God's word and is capable of ministering salvation and life to the hearers. God bless you guys may the Lord give you fruitful ministry.
Very good interchange and dialogue. Well thought out questions. I primarily use the NKJV, but compare certain verses with the KJV when they seem to ‘disagree’. That leads me to ask WHY? Which is MORE accurate and precise? When it comes to differences between the TR and the Majority, I ask ‘Why did the translators choose a minor reading here? I also find that the footnotes in the NKJV are very helpful and non-judgmental - just informative. And in a group Bible study where I encounter various versions, it is apparent if ‘differences’ are due to textual variants or to translational decisions. As far as how ‘literal’ it is compared with other versions, I agree with the conclusion of Michael Marlow at bible-researcher: At times it exceeds the NASB, and at times it does not. Also, view the findings on TH-cam by Grant Jones. I would be interested in seeing a video on various views of Matthew 5:18 on the ‘jots and tittles’. I am not sure that the meaning can be applied to what we should expect to find in the transmission of the text of God’s Word. But that is a different discussion.
This is one of the most frustrating topics. As a lay person who studies theology and textual criticism daily, I can see both sides of the TR and CT positions, but I’ve never heard a TR advocate win a debate. They have theories and nostalgia on their side - and that’s not nothing - but it won’t win debates on facts. I love the KJ and NKJ but I cringe when hearing some of the answers in this video and certainly in TH-cam comment sections everywhere. There is no perfect underlying text - but the stories, drama, passion truth and message is not lost in any of them.
TR only believers and majority text only believers probably lost the debate in the 1800s and the dead sea scrolls are just more nails in their coffins.
@@DaneKristjan A couple from memory were both answers discussing the question about which TR is the true TR. If you took the answers and applied them to the TR vs CT debate you’d have a great description to the question, “which one is the real Bible?” The other that stands out is trying to explain how the KJV is vulgar language. I believe you’re fitting a story to your belief system because it doesn’t ring true. I appreciate your openness to other translations for certain situations. Brett came across more hardline - and that’s fine but you have to realize these arguments are just not convincing, and worse, the arguments from KJVO people in general don’t ring true and that turns people off. CT-only people sound the same way. It’s unfortunate this is even a discussion. We have God’s word/message. We should be thankful anytime we find ancient documents that provide additional clarity while realizing that either source text is correct. Being ‘more correct’ is an argument that loses people.
I heard a joke the other day by a rabbi whose views I don’t agree with but nevertheless said something hilarious. He joked: “Why did God create Mormons? …So “Christians” would know how Jews feel.” This joke does not make me laugh when I think about Christians who keep it simple and show compassion towards their fellow Christians, the homeless, etc. The joke, however, makes me laugh when I think about the sorta Christian who makes videos with the intention of arrogantly displaying their “superior” views over other Christians. It’s like, dude, your overthinking might be making things worse. Isn’t Christianity supposed to unite us and not divide us?
@@matthewmurphyrose4793 Well in the original post as crafted in my head the word "nonsense" appeared, but you know me - I do *try* to be as fair as I can.
@@hefinjones9051 have you ever read Letis' article where he omits that section [...] when quoting Turretin at length-only to have to mention that, "Turretin seems to be labouring under some misinformation in regards to the data on the Johannine Comma" in a footnote? I laugh every time I read it!
Great video presentation. I only wish I were educated well enough to make an informed decision on my own. Issues on biblical translation and textual transmission require a lifetime of study to grasp.
I’m surprised not as many people don’t find it more concerning how the critical text came to popularity with people that weren’t imo born again fundamental Bible believers. Wescot and Hort were part of the German rationalist movement and questioned biblical inerrancy. Also Egypt isn’t on Gods favored areas list biblically speaking.. where these critical texts were found there were large gnostic schools. I have a variety of translations and am not TR only at all but I don’t like the group and the spirit to which the CT was championed. CT was popularized and embraced buy people questioning inerrancy and the TR was used and embraced by martyrs and great men of faith of the reformation. I think the topic is interesting and I’m not TR only but something in me just doesn’t sit well with the CT in where it came from and who popularized them.
yes, My then 9 year old came to me asking why the bible says that some manuscripts do not include this scripture. I said “What?”. When I started looking into it, I’m shocked at what has been done to modern bibles. Absolutely sloppy thinking based on subjective speculation and assumptions. The reason there are 600 versions now is because the liberal opinions of the people schooled in german rationalism can not nail down anything. all of it is sinking sand
If you are concerned about the source of your Bible's text theologically agreeing with you I would start with the people who copied the manuscripts. They almost certainly had very different theological views than most people watching this channel.
Bro Matthew, You say that you believe the long ending of Mark and the story of the woman taken in adultery are both canonical. Would you mind telling us a little more about why you are convinced these passages are canonical? Thanks very much.
38:00 What readings can not be found in any Greek manuscript that is found in the TR? I know ones which have low support. But what examples can be provided that have literally none?
Brett M is 100% correct that the ESV "silently" omits 1 John 5.7b-8a - as do some other translations. In that I regard I think both the NKJV and NIV 2011 footnotes to that text do better than the ESV in that particular case.
@@DaneKristjan I'm an old IFB (with a twist) and happy where the Lord has taken me on my journey with Jesus. However I am interested in what changed your mind about Baptism specifically. I encourage you to make a TH-cam video exploring that very topic. I am always keen to learn new things. Also thank God you have moved away from Steven Anderson and the uncharitable KJVO cult before it damaged your reputation. God bless.
Very glad Dane distanced himself from "Satan's Bible" comment - Dane is more confessional and true to Reformed Orthodoxy than the author of that essay.
Hello Pastor Matt, just wanted to add that the three witnesses in between 1 John 5:7-8, are not in brackets nor is there a footnote in my Cambridge ESV. Thanks for continuing this discussion on the text 👍
That is correct sir. That is because there is nothing to footnote in that case... the Greek mss evidence just isn't there. There is perhaps one mss that is 15th century, but *may* be even contemporary with the printed editions of the TR. There are some patristic quotations that sound kind of like it, but most of them are only so close to the wording. The Vulgate has it, but the ESV only uses the Vulgate as a comparative when existing variant readings are present, but not to introduce readings not found in the Greek.
@Matthew Everhard "There are three than bear record in heaven. The whole of this verse has been by some omitted. Jerome thinks that this has happened through design rather than through mistake, and that indeed only on the part of the Latins. But as even the Greek copies do not agree, I dare not assert any thing on the subject. Since, however, the passage flows better when this clause is added, and as I see that it is found in the best and most approved copies, I am inclined to receive it as the true reading." This is from John Calvin's Commentary. While he does not assert one way or the other he does lean to his own oppion. But we can see this wasn't a "modern tactic to make one question their King James Bible." As I was taught this growing up so I(and others) wouldn't use anything but than the KJV
Always good to have dialog and healthy discussions. ESV did not do this quietly but under good information. Of all the pieces of manuscript copies we have only 8 have the full text and of those 8, 4 have the full text in the margin notes. I actually thought this had been settled some time ago. It is pretty darn clear the fuller/longer text of 1 John 5:7-8 was added in the 1500's or so.
Wish this could be longer, and more detailed. Dane has really strong arguments in the Reformed biblology channel. Many of those brought me back from the CT to the TR. Loved how charitable the conversation was though while still asking the tough questions.
@@johnhull8438 You don't have to be able to read the Greek text to be competent in this discussion. Many men who do know these things have made then accessible to us plebs in the vulgar tongue, to which I praise God for. Besides that I am currently studying Greek and hope to read the new testament soon.
@Bible Fanatics If you really did "return" do the TR, then you didn't know crap about the CT at all... The TR position is for people who don't know crap
@@G.D.9 Alright, I may not know anything. However many men way better than myself have held this position. I do not know how you can look at the CT and believe it is the word of God. Do you know the people on the commitiess of these Greek texts? The UBS and Nestlé Aland. Most of them are not believers, some jews, some atheists. These are the people at the head of your Greek text. I have nothing against the translators of the esv or nasb I do believe they are good godly people. But the people on the Greek text commitess are not. So to say we don't know crap is fine but at least we don't have unbelievers putting our text together under the guise of they know what manuscripts are best.
@@BibleFanatics I have the upmost respect for evidence based positions based on scholarly research that utilize scientific methodology to obtain results, only the CT (majority) and MT (minority) positions do this, first they look at all the evidence to then come up with a conclusion, contrary to the so called "TR or confessional bibliology" position which is purely theological since it first starts with a conclusion (jot and tittle, perfect text) and then scrounges up any type of evidence or even fabricates or falsifies it to back it up, it is undefensable in theory, in evidence and the text itself that is a mixture of a handful of byzantine greek manuscripts, Vulgate readings and other weird stuff, not to mention dozens of editions! I simply cannot understand how people in good faith say a text that has had multiple editions all different with one another are jot and tittle perfect, it is an offense to rational thinking! So it is only logical to conclude that this so called "TR or confessional bibliology" position is simply a rebranding of KJVOnlyism, a false theory that only illudes either the uneducated or fanatics.
To avoid misunderstanding idioms, for prison ministry, probably better to use thought for thought translations like ncv, erv, new life version, gnt, cev.
Why those translations are garbage... the NKJV is perfectly sufficient. I just started doing this type of ministry and they understand it fine. Even KJV would be fine.
@@trevorskopczynski5791 If teachers are around to explain idioms or if readers are also reading commentaries, using literal translations should be fine.
Good solid questions, M. Everhard. Unfortunately, it seemed like the most important questions weren't answered very clearly: kinda like the questions were *bulls* and Dane and Brett were *matadors. Please asked Riddle and McShaffrey if/when/where they actually believe that a KJV/Scrivener 1881 reading is wrong.*
The KJV certainly has some outright errors in translation. Hebrews 10:23 rendering "faith" for ἐλπίς and the famous "Easter" for Πάσχα passage in acts. The Scrivener is missing the "Amen" at the end of Ephesians. I'm sure there are others.
@@DaneKristjan thanks for that. I noticed recently on Puritan Board that you still "receive" Rev. 16:5 & Eph. 3:9 even though you recognize the weak extant evidence supporting each reading. Are you just being careful? Or do you need more time to think things through? (I'm asking because I don't want to press you if you're in a slight state of flux, if that makes sense.) I would recommend looking at I Tim. 1:4, Rev. 8:7 & Rev. 13:7 (if I may be so bold). If you're trying to distance yourself from KJVO-those are clear cut cases from an evidence perspective and there's not much baggage involved viz. they're not hot button issues like I Jo. 5:7-8. (I can give specifics on each variant if you're interested.) FWIW, I hope you and Taylor are still friends, and both doing well.
@@matthewmurphyrose4793 I agree with Dane on his examples, though I don't mind Easter in Acts 12:4 because there really is no Passover after Christ's death because the Old Covenant was finished after His death. The last Supper gave way to the last Passover. The Jews call something Passover, but it is a Passover falsely so called. Jewish people call something Passover, but it is simply a form of Passover, but they deny it's power (2 Timothy 3:5) because Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us (1 Corinthians 5:7). I believe the KJV translators were making a statement, one that modern Bible makers aren't willing to make, that the Jewish Passover is not really Passover; I also think they were giving a nod to Tyndale, who invented the word Passover.
@@matthewmurphyrose4793 I would also add that I wish the KJV and NKJV were stronger on Acts 16:34. The Greek is clear that the jailer believed, the whole household was baptized, and the jailer and the family rejoiced. The KJV and NKJV are less explicit, but the ESV is much more clear on it. This has implications for covenantal household baptism because the whole household is baptized upon the belief of the patriarch. There is no explicit statement that the household believed, but they were baptized anyway, and the ESV makes clearer what the Greek says.
@@brettmahlen722 thanks Brett. I've always believed that "Easter" in Acts 12:4 was retained as an "Ecclesiastical" term, and only in said location due to it being the only post resurrection mention of Πάσχα in a historical setting. And I personally would have to disagree with both the current Jewish celebration of Passover and the "traditional" Christian celebration of "Easter," being a quartodeciman (which I consider to be Apostolic). That all said...these minute details are not going to put much (if any) distance between "Confessional Bibliology" and KJVO, unless (of course) there's many instances in which you gentleman actually believe that the A.V. translators chose the wrong *Greek* reading. Because the text is really the issue here. Even if one moves towards a TRO position, many will consider it KJVO (or essentially KJVO) if the A.V.'s underlying Greek text and/or Scrivener 1881 is never (or almost never) departed from.
TBS says they believe in all the reformation era TRs which were probably the TRs used by martin luther, casiodoro de reina, william tyndale, kjv, etc. In practice, many just use scrivener TR which is dependent on the variants chosen by the kjv translators so it is kjvo.
The basic perspective is this: The TR has verses that originated from scribal notes that over centuries got brought into the text, as texts. The Alexandrian Texts do not have this problem since they are from an earlier period.
@A Reformed Fundamentalist We did not get an every jot and tittle text . And absolutely no good answers were given as to the reason why we shop accept the various editions of the TR over the CT , tyndale , of Byzantine, when the same types of variants that exist between the TR editions are also the same as those in the other Critical editions.
@@michealferrell1677 What you got was the Confessional Text view (see Stephanus' marginal notes, see original KJV marginal notes, see Turretin Volume 1, Second Topic, questions X, XI, XII, and XIII). What you didn't get was the 20th Century Anabaptist KJV Perversion (see Ecclesiastical Text by Theodore Letis, Chapter 8). So, "Which TR?" is not the "mic drop" or the "gotcha" that you think it is and the persistent use of that argument is a strawman fallacy.
@@michealferrell1677 Thanks, just keep parroting refuted arguments. Passive aggression is not an argument, and it is not a response to what I wrote. I think moving onto other things is a good idea.
I love the KJV! And have been using it as long as I have been a professing Christian (late 1980's)...... But I am not a KJV Onlyist....... It has some errors made by man in some passages. The Church I will be going back to uses the ESV, and I cannot be too upset with that because they used to use the NIV in the which I had HUGE problems with.
While one can entertain the commercial argument about English tranlations I don't think anyone can seriously entertain that the existance of the various greek critical texts is a commercial venture.
I think a serious argument against the TR position is it is not a good apologetic regarding the preservation of the text to non-Christians. The TR position is basically a theological argument. Where as the critical text argues that from the multitude of manuscripts we can get to what the original texts said. The critical text position is more scientific in a sense. That said I don’t personally have a strong view against the TR, but I don’t think the arguments in its favour are very convincing.
This Iranian pastor in the UK who interacts regularly with Muslims in a street preaching ministry says the opposite about his apologetic success with the KJV vs CT versions: th-cam.com/video/mC0gNMfUR7A/w-d-xo.html
The problem is that scientific method still has not produced an original text. No scholar in this field is even trying to pursue the original text they are just trying to get close to it. On top of that check out all the Muslim apologist who quote James White as a proof text on why the Bible isn't perfect. Personally I think the Theological argument is strong than the scientific method that still hasn't got us to an original text.
@@BibleFanatics well I think one could say we have enough support to know the original text from the multiplicity of documents, to a very high confidence level. The questionable variants are so minor that there is no serious concern over whether we are missing anything significant. We have so many copies of the NT that it is nothing more than a rhetorical trick to attack the Bible by claiming we don’t have the original text or that it has been corrupted. Muslim apologists don’t really have a leg to stand on in that area. Do you think a theological for the TR would be as convincing to a Muslim apologist or an atheist though? I am likewise not convinced by muslim theological claims abut the perfect preservation of the Quran (which is also disproven by historical fact)
@@eliasarches2575 You bring up some good points, on Jeff Riddles Channel I believe he interviews a brother who was Muslim and convert to Christianity and he uses the TR when he talks to Muslims and defends the Bible very well.
""You can have any TR and that is the jots and tittles" "Kept pure in all ages" But it is not a problem that there are still variants!" The significance or insignificance of the difference is not the issue, the fact that there are differences is the issue. Because the critique raised aggressively against the non-TR position is that there are differences and the TR is pure! It simply comes across as insincere if not worse.
Good discussion. Unfortunately I felt like Mahlen was a bit uninformed in certain areas. E.g., I don't think "the other views" don't account for manuscript destruction. They consider translations into other languages and the testimony of the church fathers. When we come to 1 John 5:7 however, the evidence is overwhelming that it came from the Latin. He brings up Turretin as saying they had copies, but Turretin was not offering first-hand evidence, he was quoting Roman Catholic scholar Sixtus Senensis, who himself made the bare statement that it was "in all the copies", without evidence, and which is obviously untrue in a literal sense. Another piece of evidence is often pointed to, that Stephanus had 9 copies that contained the Comma. This is also untrue, if you do a little digging. Stephanus went to the Royal Library at Paris and examined the manuscripts there. In his critical apparatus, he did not mark this passage as missing, leading some to assume the Comma was contained in them. But as early as 1580, Fransiscus Lucas Brugensis examined those manuscripts and it was not contained in one. Thus, this "evidence" for the Comma, is essentially a typo on Stephanus' part. Rather than say that "the other views don't account for manuscript destruction", I would say that the other views work with the evidence they have, rather than make conjectures which are unsubstantiated by anything other than theories.
Thanks for your comment. I am definitely uninformed in certain areas, in fact, in most areas. If you have CT sources that account for manuscript destruction and say, "We don't have any extant manuscripts that say X, but people in the past said they had manuscripts that say X, so we believe X," I would be all ears, but I have not found any, even when I was a CT proponent. The reformation protestants did not believe 1 John 5:7 came from the Latin, but they knew that the Latin overwhelmingly supported it and they claimed they had Greek manuscripts that had it. If you read an ESV in the Old Testament it will tell you in many instances that the reading in the body is not a Hebrew reading, but another reading is inserted. I'll grab my ESV off the shelf and show you... Okay, so I am now looking at 2 Kings 11:2, which I selected at random, and the LXX, Syriac, and Vulgate have "they" and the Hebrew has, "she." So why is it okay to insert "Latin" (and Syriac and LXX) readings into the Old Testament, when there is no Hebrew support for "they," yet it is wrong to believe 1 John 5:7 is extant in the Latin? Shouldn't what is good for the goose (OT) also be good for the gander (NT)? Do you only allow Latin insertions in the OT and not the NT?
In my experience, it is the CT advocates who make conjectures, see the current conjectural emendation in 2 Peter 3:10. I don't advocate for conjectural emendation. Your last paragraph is contradictory, brother. You say, CT advocates do account for manuscript destruction (I've never seen it), but then you say they work with what they have; which is it? The only thing I have seen CT advocates do is assess claims of previous centuries based upon present extant evidence, rather than the evidence they had centuries ago.
@@brettmahlen722 Brett, first, thanks for the response. I hope I wasn't offensive as I never intend to be. Second, I am not a CT advocate (I have an appreciation for the TR and lean strongest toward the methodology of the Byzantine Priority). I'm no fan of conjectural emendation either. The issue I've seen though is that many people present evidence that exclusively supports their side: i.e., "Gill says that 1 John 5:7 was in 9 of Stephanus' copies", which if you look at the copies he looked at, is untrue. It game from a typo. Then others will point to Turretin saying "it's in all the Greek copies" and we don't know what manuscripts they had. But if you actually read the passage from Turretin, he is merely translating what Sixtus Senensis said, that it was in "all the Greek copies since the time of the Apostles". But someone hearing "Oh, Turretin said it existed, therefore they must have had a bunch of copies of it back then" is making a conclusion that is unwarranted. So now our authority is Senensis. His statement cannot be strictly true (it's not in all the copies, and how would he have known that anyway? He couldn't look at them all). So did he mean most? Did he mean some? Did he mean "all of the two copies I looked at", or was it a statement of pious argument, like the Roman Catholics were prone to make, without any evidence but assumed? And yes, it is a problem if it comes from the Latin. The confessional bibliology position holds to the Westminster Statement "kept pure" but the Confession doesn't stop there. It says the Hebrew and Greek. The confessional bibliology position claims to be the historical position, but if they accept it came from the Latin, that's something none of the Reformers or Puritans would have accepted. Anyone of that time period accepting the Comma, did so because they believed it was in the Greek (even if they'd not seen any evidence). Their methodology was firmly to look at Greek sources. As for Brugensis and Stephanus, the following is a quick read: books.google.com/books?id=RXVAAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA274#v=onepage&q&f=false I'm happy to hear arguments for the Comma, but it's unfortunate that so many are just repetitions of something which is only half-true. As it stands, we have only 10 manuscripts that contain it in some form. Of those, all but three are certainly or almost certainly later additions (post-Erasmus, post-Reformation). Of the three that remain, none contain the Comma in the exact form we find it in the TR. evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-greek-manuscripts-of-comma.html On the other hand, we have hundreds of manuscripts that do NOT contain it. www.thetextofthegospels.com/2020/01/first-john-57-and-greek-manuscripts.html If the TR advocate holds to it despite all this, then they might as well not discuss evidence at all, because it's really a presuppositional position at that point (i.e., what ended up in the KJV is the providentially preserved text). Evidence is essentially meaningless, because it will never change the conclusion one way or the other. And that's fine to hold that, but it's certainly not the position of the Reformers or Puritans or Divines.
@@west Thank you for the resources. I'll plan to check them out. Thanks for your lengthy response; there is a lot I would like to say but I want to check out your resources first. I really don't take offense when people don't believe 1 John 5:7 because I get why people don't believe it. It is interesting how people lose their minds (not you) when people believe 1 John 5:7. Have you read Charles Forster? Blessings!
Why you deleting my posts, buddy?? New versions are Vatican versions that are based on the non-ecclesiastical Vaticanus manuscript! What’s the matter??
@@sbs8331 that’s funny, William Dean Burgon (the man at the forefront of the debacle in the late 1800’s) said that the mischief that he traced back was to Drs. Wescott and Hort, was “what appeared to be in the language of lawyers conspiracy.” Seems to me you don’t know what you’re talking about. And fyi, both advocates and opponents of the critical text EXTENSIVELY agree that the CT is based over 90% on the Vaticanus (and reluctantly goes to Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus for the portions that are lacking in the Vatican). Who said anything about a “conspiracy” again?
Brothers, thank you for a great interview! I especially appreciated Brett and Dane clearly stating that they are not claiming to have absolute certainty about every jot and tittle of the text, rather they are arguing for maximal certainty. I am happy to agree that the variants between TR editions are very minor and that any edition of the TR is the word of God. I hope all CB advocates will adopt this position and be consistent with it in their rhetoric. The question that I think we must all answer is, at what point can an edition or translation of the Bible no longer be considered the word of God? I don't believe I have a clear answer to that question yet myself, though I obviously would not affirm everything that claims to be the word of God as such.
Why did the translators translate απο in revelation 13:8 to (πρό) before? No other translation does this as its wrong. But this does fit a Calvinist leaning. Here for example is how the NASB translated that verse. Revelation 13:8 [8]All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.
Personally I wanted to give the NKJV a solid chance but when I read the editors (Art Farstead) book about the translation philosophy of of the NKJV he ruled it out for me
The horrible brackets in the ESV is what started me on my journey. My then 9 year old came to me a asked why does the bible say some more reliable manuscripts do not have this? I was completely shocked at what was being done to modern bibles. I had been reading the ESV for two years and noticed that it read like a car manual, but never really read the footnotes and brackets. It’s very crazy for these bibles to pretend we don’t know what is in the bible. It’s all just criticism. I can’t not understand how we are being instructed by people who’s life’s work is criticizing the bible? It’s insane we sheep are being lead astray by these liberal scholars. It should be very clear by anyone looking into this is terrible
I suggest that if you look into it, Christians for almost two-thousand years have had uncertainties about these passages marked in the ESV. That doesn't mean that the Bible is uncertain at all. Also, the job of textual critics is not to "criticize the Bible". Most textual critics in history have been Christians. Solid Christians.
@@west yes uncertainty is a hallmark of christian for sure. Martin Luther Tindale,Hess, Whitcliff, Erasmus, the puritans, the baptist all completely unsure of what was in the bible to the point now thousands of years later we are going to have the authority, knowledge and understanding to correct it all and clear it all up with the brilliant ESV. It’s all just bringing in huge doubt and trying to bring in the scholar-priest back from the mid evil church and saying the common people can not understand and know but trust liberal scholars. But when plowboys like me read the ESV and it says David’s mighty man killed Goliath and a quote from Malachi is it attributed to Isaiah and 1000’s of other blunders as such, I quickly realize that the scholar isn’t finally making things clear nor correct, but wreaking the Word and the church is quickly following behind it.
@@treybarnes5549 Uncertainty about a few readings (really only a tiny fraction) is not close to the same as uncertainty about what the Bible teaches. There is no confusion over doctrine, but when you come across one manuscript that says "Jesus Christ" and another that just says "Jesus", which one is correct? We can absolutely be certain about what the Bible teaches, but we cannot always be certain about certain readings, and certainly some of those men you mentioned also were uncertain about some readings (Erasmus, Luther, the Puritans in particular). For example, Luther's German Bible did not have 1 John 5:7 because the Greek text he had access to did not contain it. Was he uncertain about the Trinity? Absolutely not!
@@west that is an echo chamber. “There is not one doctrine changed”. as the rip whole paragraphs out the bible. Luke 4:4 is a doctrine and a quote from the OT. completely removing the teeth. Matthew 18:11 is a doctrine completely removed from new age bibles. of course 1 John you mentioned. these people rip up the bible and remove the teeth out of the verses and say “it’s all good. nothing to worry about, it’s just an easier read”. it’s horribly deceiving
@@treybarnes5549 I'm afraid you're simply mistaken as to the historical views of the Puritans and Reformers, for you would have to call them "horribly deceiving" as well. For example, here is a quote from Samuel Rutherford, one of the contributors to the Westminster Confession of Faith: "And though there be errors of number, genealogies, etc., of writing in the Scripture, as written or printed, yet we hold Providence watcheth so over it, that in the body of articles of faith and necessary truths, we are certain, with the certainty of faith, it is that same very word of God, having the same special operations of enlightening the eyes, converting the soul, making wise the simple, as being lively, sharper than a two-edged sword, full of divinity of life, Majesty, power, simplicity, wisdom, certainty, etc., which the prophets of old, and the writings of the Evangelists, and Apostles had."
A lot of people are waking up to the truth of the Byzantine/TR being the inspired scriptures of the Church. I myself use the KJV as my main translation which has been a big blessing for me. If you put time into reading and learning the KJV you will definitely realise how theologically watered down many modern versions are. However there are some words which have changed meaning or sentences which are phrased in difficult way for the modern reader so at times I will reference the ESV (because I already own a copy) but the golden standard in english will always be the KJV. I encourage everyone reading this to at minimum incorporate the KJV into your life. You will be greatly blessed.
I'm not English, the kjv is a mess to read for me. I'll stick with the nkjv. Why not just use the nkjv or mev if it's the tr that matters? Otherwise it come across as kjvo.
@@BloodBoughtMinistries The KJV is better. However if the KJV english was difficult for me I would use the NKJV. I am not KJVO, I consult other translations when appropriate. The KJV is the best bible translation and literary work in the english language. God bless.
@@AlexM-md6lz I recommend Mark Ward's book "Authorized" and his TH-cam series on "False Friends". Regarding the latter, not only is antiquated English often hard to understand (and certainly no longer in the "vulgar" / common language as was the goal of the KJV translators), but many words have actually changed their meaning in 400+ years, leading to some probable misunderstandings of what the text actually says.
After all these years, this is the first time I've ever heard that there is a difference between ye and thou. Therefore, it never made sense and I wouldn't read my Bible because it was so confusing and unreadable. In Kentucky y'all is plural. Maybe they should use that.
Love it. Yeah, and your Renaissance festival types will tell "you," one is a subject pronoun the other an object. To thee I speak, that thou mayest understand. (singular). To ye I speak, that you may understand. (plural) (I believe that's how it works. Confusing)
@@duncescotus2342 In shakespeare, thou is informal and for inferiors. You is formal and for superiors. KJV uses thou as singular and you as plural. The use of thou as singular and you as plural in kjv was kjv translators reviving archaic usage of thou and you that was already archaic in 1611 so it is sort of biblical english and not common usage as seen in shakespeare plays.
@@duncescotus2342 I enjoy learning from 1611 english experts. I heard wife of bart ehrman is a shakespeare scholar. I have never been to renaissance festivals but I would assume they follow shakespeare usage of thou and you instead of following the kjv usage of thou and you. Shakespeare used geneva bible rather than kjv.
There is no such thing as a Ruckman camp when it come to the KJB, its a Boogy Man/Scare Crow Genetic Fallicy trying to associate KJB believers as a Ruckman Camp? Many believe the KJB is the preserved word of God and Ruckman had zero influence in that conclusion, text critics have to label us Ruckman Camp as defamation to are character since Ruckman was extreme personality, had strange beliefs and tragity in his family life. Ruckmanism is a term used for slander to keep people like Mathew from acknowledging the Final Textus Receptus the KJB because he will lose friends who will label him a Ruckmanite.
@@hudsontd7778 The reason I said that is his argument is essentially that the KJV contains the "pure in all ages" Greek text, which is exactly what Ruckman argued - that the KJV corrects inaccurate Greek texts. The method of reasoning is different. Ruckman would have said that the authority of the KJV is what gives that TR its authority, whereas this gentleman would say that the authority is in the Greek and that the KJV managed to pull together the "pure in all ages" text into one place. But however you get to the position, the practical end result is the same: the KJV determines which Greek text is correct. I doubt that's what he intended to say (and I'd really like to hear his clarification of that point), but that's the position he expressed. And to be clear, I'm not saying any of these men are Ruckmanite. But ***the way*** that he expressed his position is so similar to the Ruckmanite position that it's very difficult to differentiate between the two.
@@calebschaaf1555 I am confused as to how you got any of that out of my words. Perhaps I misspoke or you misunderstood. Ruckman puts no stock in the TR whatsoever. He believes in a form of re-inspiration. I was attempting to articulate the "providential argument" that some proponents of Confessional Bibliology put forward, namely, that the Greek readings, found in the Greek MS tradition and contained in the reformation era printed Greek texts, which the KJV translators chose to adopt in the body of their translation, have a sort of stamp of divine approval providentially placed upon them by their usage throughout English speaking Church history. I would not necessarily agree with that argument entirely, but many find it persuasive. My position is that any of the editions of the TR are good to go, and any faithful translation (in whatever language) of any of those editions is also good to go.
@@DaneKristjan That's helpful, thank you. I find the providential argument to be de-facto the same thing that Ruckman argued, just through a different means. An acceptance of any TR is much more stable a position, IMO.
@@DaneKristjan I suppose I should clarify, too, what I mean by "de-facto the same thing that Ruckman argued." Ruckman claimed to hold a word-perfect text based on re-inspiration. The position that I originally heard you express here was that the pure in all ages, word perfect text was the TR that matched the KJV, Scrivener's TR. If that's the argument, it's saying that the word perfect text is determined by the KJV, which is Ruckman's position, just achieved through a different rhetorical pathway. Thanks again for taking time to clarify what you meant! I listened to the whole interview and appreciated it.
Those who updated the kjv were not authorized and had no training in hebrew and greek and were just printers. This is 1 reason why some kjvo believe only in the 1611 first edition kjv even though it has plenty of typo errors.
What do you do, Matt, with the many, many verses in the King James Bible that clearly teach that the word of God is settled, very pure, incorruptible? What compels you to rail against these verses?
@@DaneKristjan You know the many verses that I'm referring to. These verses teach clearly that the words that Jesus Christ commanded us to live by are pure, available, and to be received. Matt, like you, Dane, has made a career of opposing these clear Bible truths.
1611 kjv did have marginal notes about variants and the reality of variants cannot be denied unless you prefer to believe in fantasies like a perfect text.
@@AndreWalsh93 probably depends on interpretation. 1 verse can be interpreted in thousands of ways which is why there are thousands of protestant sects.
@@sbs8331 God made a promise guy and I believe Him the kjv is the only English Bible with the type of history that it has and it’s the best Bible for apologetics hands down and you fight against it that’s a shame!
@@AndreWalsh93 So to which translation did Psalm 12 apply for 1610 years (or 2600+ years since it was written)? Which TR? What about non-English translations? It's a misinterpretation, to put it kindly, to assume that two verses in Psalms refer to a single translation in a single language. I recommend getting a copy of the preface to the KJV. It's clear that its own translators considered it neither inerrant nor the end-all be-all of English translations.
It’s not so much that one translation is better than another, but that the English language is inferior to the original Hebrew and Greek! Duh!! Those who have a problem with the translations need to get off their lazy rear ends and learn the original languages! We can’t all be raised properly like Jonathon Edwards and his sisters who were taught Hebrew, Latin, and Greek by their parents!😢😂
😢an example of what I mean by The English language being inferior: take the word Israel for example: It consists of 4 Hebrew letters. It’s meaning in English: “You have striven with God and with man, and have prevailed” That’s 11 words, and 45 letters! Any questions, class?
It is not just greek pronouns and hebrew pronouns which are lost in translation and many things are lost in translation so it is better to learn hebrew and greek. For example, elohim means many gods and is often mistranslated. YHWH is often mistranslated as LORD.
This is incorrect thinking. The King’s English is the ONLY English that correctly renders the Hebrew and the Greek distinctions - modern English cannot do that. Simply nonsense presumption.
@@mresab1997 1611 english can still be used but it requires helps like annotated kjv such as defined king james and or TBS westminster. Many classic christian works from the 1600s and 1700s are also in archaic english so it is useful to learn archaic english to read more christian classics. Classic literature like shakespeare are also in archaic english.
@@mresab1997 In KJVer it uses you to indicate singular, you(p) to indicate plural. Some kjv revisions use you for singular and you all or all of you for plural.
Hey everyone! If you like my content here on TH-cam, please consider ordering my new book called "Souls: How Jesus Saves Sinners." It contains my best stuff on the simple, pure, glorious Gospel. God saves us through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ! Get it here: amzn.to/3yI0y4P
Good stuff, brother. Do more of it. I personally know ROPC in AZ to be a faithful congregation, and Brett to have been instrumental in pushing me to TR. A fine interview done with brotherly love!
Excellent episode Pastor Matt! Each of these questions/points of discussion could be an entire hour long episode!
Thank you for asking great questions Matt excellent interview.
I really enjoyed this video, great questions and great answers!
I again learned some new thing because of your critique of this book on the Received Text. I think I need to show my appreciation by buying that book, and your commentary on the WCF.
The point about the Westminster Standards and supporting documents being inspired by the KJV is resonating with me.
12:47 👏 second person plural vs singular
Ye vs thou
This distinction is not talked about enough.
Edifying and beneficial.
The passages with brackets etc. are not "disputed passages within scholarship" but are actual variations in the manuscripts. As many people pointed out regarding John Mill's edition of the TR in 1707 - Mill (i.e. "scholarship") didn't create the variant readings, he catalogues them.
Stoked for this!
Really great conversation!
Really appreciated this discussion. Seemed a little unfair to ask a couple of questions regarding positions these two didn't seem to hold in their own essays, but I was also interested in their answers so 🤷♀️
Great video!
Excellent and enlightening discussion. However, I wish pastors and scholars would cease from referring to "jots and tittles" regarding inerrancy and preservation as was done throughout this discussion. Context, gentlemen. In Matt 5:18, Jesus said that not one jot or title would pass "from the LAW" (not from all of Scripture) "till all be fulfilled." The implication is that the law would indeed pass away when it's fulfilled. Lo and behold, in the previous verse Jesus declares regarding the law "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil". So the law (e.g. the old covenant) did indeed pass away as having to do with man's relationship with God when Jesus "finished" his mission (Jn 19:30; Heb 1:3; 10:12) and fulfilled the law as the perfect sacrifice, ushering in the new covenant. Hence Paul's declaration that "we are not under the law, but under grace." (Rom 6:15, cf. John 1:17). The subject(s) raised in this video and the book to which it refers are worthy of discussion, but this analogy doesn't fit.
When Matthew ask can you put a perfect TR in my hand I don't feel like they adequately answered that question. I think the short answer is simply no. There are variants in all the text but those variations don't effect doctrine. I think the critical approach is simply necessary.
Maybe TR only believers need to have at least 3 TR editions in their hands to be confident.
Thanks for your contribution. We were seeking to show that the "Which TR?" question is not the "gotcha" that so many think it is. The 16th and 17th century Confession framers believed in the body of printed texts as the word of God, not one specific text, see Turretin, first volume, second topic, questions 10-12. Yes, a critical text is necessary, that is why it is good to have Stephanus' critical text, and Scrivener's critical text. The answer is not "no." The answer is what the Reformation answered. I am sorry you weren't satisfied with the historical protestant answer. We are not textual absolutists or KJVO, as much as people wish we were, so they could just dismiss us. The Protestant answer to these questions is not as easily dismissed as the anabaptist KJV fundamentalist answer. Disappointment is a function of expectation; you seem like you were expecting us to fit into an easily dismissible category, and I just don't think we can be dismissed that easily.
@@brettmahlen722 First of all thank you both for your willingness to have this discussion! I think the most important issue is that we endeavor to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. So many discussions on this topic degenerate into heated debate. I believe whether we use a translation based on the critical text or the textus receptus it's God's word and is capable of ministering salvation and life to the hearers. God bless you guys may the Lord give you fruitful ministry.
Very good interchange and dialogue. Well thought out questions.
I primarily use the NKJV, but compare certain verses with the KJV when they seem to ‘disagree’. That leads me to ask WHY? Which is MORE accurate and precise?
When it comes to differences between the TR and the Majority, I ask ‘Why did the translators choose a minor reading here?
I also find that the footnotes in the NKJV are very helpful and non-judgmental - just informative. And in a group Bible study where I encounter various versions, it is apparent if ‘differences’ are due to textual variants or to translational decisions.
As far as how ‘literal’ it is compared with other versions, I agree with the conclusion of Michael Marlow at bible-researcher: At times it exceeds the NASB, and at times it does not. Also, view the findings on TH-cam by Grant Jones.
I would be interested in seeing a video on various views of Matthew 5:18 on the ‘jots and tittles’. I am not sure that the meaning can be applied to what we should expect to find in the transmission of the text of God’s Word. But that is a different discussion.
Agree... I'm pretty settled on NKJV for several years now... while not perfect, it ranks the highest in most categories IMHO.
Can you please make a video on what is the majority text i still want to understand?
I plan to. I have the notes ready for the most part.
Dane and Matthew's bookshelves are almost perfectly aligned. It is nearly a visual illusion :D
If only I knew what was on my bookshelves half as well as Matthew knows what are on his!
@@DaneKristjan HA! Dr. Everhard sure does know his stuff!
This is one of the most frustrating topics. As a lay person who studies theology and textual criticism daily, I can see both sides of the TR and CT positions, but I’ve never heard a TR advocate win a debate. They have theories and nostalgia on their side - and that’s not nothing - but it won’t win debates on facts. I love the KJ and NKJ but I cringe when hearing some of the answers in this video and certainly in TH-cam comment sections everywhere. There is no perfect underlying text - but the stories, drama, passion truth and message is not lost in any of them.
TR only believers and majority text only believers probably lost the debate in the 1800s and the dead sea scrolls are just more nails in their coffins.
What about our answers made you cringe. Just wondering where we can communicate more helpfully.
@@DaneKristjan A couple from memory were both answers discussing the question about which TR is the true TR. If you took the answers and applied them to the TR vs CT debate you’d have a great description to the question, “which one is the real Bible?” The other that stands out is trying to explain how the KJV is vulgar language. I believe you’re fitting a story to your belief system because it doesn’t ring true.
I appreciate your openness to other translations for certain situations. Brett came across more hardline - and that’s fine but you have to realize these arguments are just not convincing, and worse, the arguments from KJVO people in general don’t ring true and that turns people off. CT-only people sound the same way. It’s unfortunate this is even a discussion.
We have God’s word/message. We should be thankful anytime we find ancient documents that provide additional clarity while realizing that either source text is correct. Being ‘more correct’ is an argument that loses people.
I heard a joke the other day by a rabbi whose views I don’t agree with but nevertheless said something hilarious.
He joked: “Why did God create Mormons? …So “Christians” would know how Jews feel.”
This joke does not make me laugh when I think about Christians who keep it simple and show compassion towards their fellow Christians, the homeless, etc.
The joke, however, makes me laugh when I think about the sorta Christian who makes videos with the intention of arrogantly displaying their “superior” views over other Christians.
It’s like, dude, your overthinking might be making things worse. Isn’t Christianity supposed to unite us and not divide us?
@@elliottkos I'm sorry we weren't of help to you. Let me know if we can scratch where you are itching. I appreciate your comment.
So cool that Agros merged!
I would love to know what convinced Dane to change to infant baptism.
Brett M point about Turretin on 1 John5:7 is extremely vulnerable.
That's one [very nice] way to put it.
@@matthewmurphyrose4793 lol
TBH Dr Riddle's Word #54 that Brett points us to is a massive exercise in misdirection.
@@matthewmurphyrose4793 Well in the original post as crafted in my head the word "nonsense" appeared, but you know me - I do *try* to be as fair as I can.
@@hefinjones9051 have you ever read Letis' article where he omits that section [...] when quoting Turretin at length-only to have to mention that, "Turretin seems to be labouring under some misinformation in regards to the data on the Johannine Comma" in a footnote? I laugh every time I read it!
@@hefinjones9051 I haven't seen WM #54 yet (I think?). Has the CB crowd not heard of the *law of averages* is my question?
Great video presentation. I only wish I were educated well enough to make an informed decision on my own. Issues on biblical translation and textual transmission require a lifetime of study to grasp.
The truth is, Paul, that no man is "educated enough" to make an " informed decision" on what the words of God ought to be.
@@johnhull8438 well said John.
@@phmoffett Amen.
I’m surprised not as many people don’t find it more concerning how the critical text came to popularity with people that weren’t imo born again fundamental Bible believers. Wescot and Hort were part of the German rationalist movement and questioned biblical inerrancy. Also Egypt isn’t on Gods favored areas list biblically speaking.. where these critical texts were found there were large gnostic schools. I have a variety of translations and am not TR only at all but I don’t like the group and the spirit to which the CT was championed. CT was popularized and embraced buy people questioning inerrancy and the TR was used and embraced by martyrs and great men of faith of the reformation. I think the topic is interesting and I’m not TR only but something in me just doesn’t sit well with the CT in where it came from and who popularized them.
In textual criticism, it is normal to work with atheists like Bart Ehrman.
yes, My then 9 year old came to me asking why the bible says that some manuscripts do not include this scripture. I said “What?”. When I started looking into it, I’m shocked at what has been done to modern bibles. Absolutely sloppy thinking based on subjective speculation and assumptions. The reason there are 600 versions now is because the liberal opinions of the people schooled in german rationalism can not nail down anything. all of it is sinking sand
If you are concerned about the source of your Bible's text theologically agreeing with you I would start with the people who copied the manuscripts. They almost certainly had very different theological views than most people watching this channel.
Bro Matthew, You say that you believe the long ending of Mark and the story of the woman taken in adultery are both canonical. Would you mind telling us a little more about why you are convinced these passages are canonical? Thanks very much.
38:00 What readings can not be found in any Greek manuscript that is found in the TR? I know ones which have low support. But what examples can be provided that have literally none?
Didn't know Dane became Presbyterian, any videos on him dealing with his journey to that position?
Brett M is 100% correct that the ESV "silently" omits 1 John 5.7b-8a - as do some other translations. In that I regard I think both the NKJV and NIV 2011 footnotes to that text do better than the ESV in that particular case.
NKJV has 1 John 5.7 in the text. The NKJV is based on the TR.
At about 16:00 ... has Presbyterian accountability mellowed Dane?
We hope so. ;)
@@DaneKristjan 🤣
@@DaneKristjan I'm an old IFB (with a twist) and happy where the Lord has taken me on my journey with Jesus. However I am interested in what changed your mind about Baptism specifically. I encourage you to make a TH-cam video exploring that very topic. I am always keen to learn new things. Also thank God you have moved away from Steven Anderson and the uncharitable KJVO cult before it damaged your reputation. God bless.
I’d like to know what seminary that is that Brett mentions which is undermining (intentionally or otherwise) the faith of their students.
Very glad Dane distanced himself from "Satan's Bible" comment - Dane is more confessional and true to Reformed Orthodoxy than the author of that essay.
Hello Pastor Matt, just wanted to add that the three witnesses in between 1 John 5:7-8, are not in brackets nor is there a footnote in my Cambridge ESV. Thanks for continuing this discussion on the text 👍
That is correct sir. That is because there is nothing to footnote in that case... the Greek mss evidence just isn't there. There is perhaps one mss that is 15th century, but *may* be even contemporary with the printed editions of the TR. There are some patristic quotations that sound kind of like it, but most of them are only so close to the wording. The Vulgate has it, but the ESV only uses the Vulgate as a comparative when existing variant readings are present, but not to introduce readings not found in the Greek.
@Matthew Everhard "There are three than bear record in heaven. The whole of this verse has been by some omitted. Jerome thinks that this has happened through design rather than through mistake, and that indeed only on the part of the Latins. But as even the Greek copies do not agree, I dare not assert any thing on the subject. Since, however, the passage flows better when this clause is added, and as I see that it is found in the best and most approved copies, I am inclined to receive it as the true reading." This is from John Calvin's Commentary.
While he does not assert one way or the other he does lean to his own oppion. But we can see this wasn't a "modern tactic to make one question their King James Bible." As I was taught this growing up so I(and others) wouldn't use anything but than the KJV
*edit on the last sentence*
"Anything but THE KJV"
Always good to have dialog and healthy discussions. ESV did not do this quietly but under good information. Of all the pieces of manuscript copies we have only 8 have the full text and of those 8, 4 have the full text in the margin notes. I actually thought this had been settled some time ago. It is pretty darn clear the fuller/longer text of 1 John 5:7-8 was added in the 1500's or so.
Wish this could be longer, and more detailed. Dane has really strong arguments in the Reformed biblology channel. Many of those brought me back from the CT to the TR. Loved how charitable the conversation was though while still asking the tough questions.
Well you now prefer one Greek text that you cannot read over another Greek text that you cannot read. Tell us, what doth it profit?
@@johnhull8438 You don't have to be able to read the Greek text to be competent in this discussion. Many men who do know these things have made then accessible to us plebs in the vulgar tongue, to which I praise God for. Besides that I am currently studying Greek and hope to read the new testament soon.
@Bible Fanatics If you really did "return" do the TR, then you didn't know crap about the CT at all... The TR position is for people who don't know crap
@@G.D.9 Alright, I may not know anything. However many men way better than myself have held this position. I do not know how you can look at the CT and believe it is the word of God. Do you know the people on the commitiess of these Greek texts? The UBS and Nestlé Aland. Most of them are not believers, some jews, some atheists. These are the people at the head of your Greek text. I have nothing against the translators of the esv or nasb I do believe they are good godly people. But the people on the Greek text commitess are not. So to say we don't know crap is fine but at least we don't have unbelievers putting our text together under the guise of they know what manuscripts are best.
@@BibleFanatics I have the upmost respect for evidence based positions based on scholarly research that utilize scientific methodology to obtain results, only the CT (majority) and MT (minority) positions do this, first they look at all the evidence to then come up with a conclusion, contrary to the so called "TR or confessional bibliology" position which is purely theological since it first starts with a conclusion (jot and tittle, perfect text) and then scrounges up any type of evidence or even fabricates or falsifies it to back it up, it is undefensable in theory, in evidence and the text itself that is a mixture of a handful of byzantine greek manuscripts, Vulgate readings and other weird stuff, not to mention dozens of editions! I simply cannot understand how people in good faith say a text that has had multiple editions all different with one another are jot and tittle perfect, it is an offense to rational thinking! So it is only logical to conclude that this so called "TR or confessional bibliology" position is simply a rebranding of KJVOnlyism, a false theory that only illudes either the uneducated or fanatics.
To avoid misunderstanding idioms, for prison ministry, probably better to use thought for thought translations like ncv, erv, new life version, gnt, cev.
Why those translations are garbage... the NKJV is perfectly sufficient. I just started doing this type of ministry and they understand it fine. Even KJV would be fine.
@@trevorskopczynski5791 If teachers are around to explain idioms or if readers are also reading commentaries, using literal translations should be fine.
Looks like some in the confessional bibliology TR only believers are evangelicals who use evangelical translations like nkjv, niv and esv.
Good solid questions, M. Everhard. Unfortunately, it seemed like the most important questions weren't answered very clearly: kinda like the questions were *bulls* and Dane and Brett were *matadors. Please asked Riddle and McShaffrey if/when/where they actually believe that a KJV/Scrivener 1881 reading is wrong.*
The KJV certainly has some outright errors in translation. Hebrews 10:23 rendering "faith" for ἐλπίς and the famous "Easter" for Πάσχα passage in acts. The Scrivener is missing the "Amen" at the end of Ephesians. I'm sure there are others.
@@DaneKristjan thanks for that. I noticed recently on Puritan Board that you still "receive" Rev. 16:5 & Eph. 3:9 even though you recognize the weak extant evidence supporting each reading. Are you just being careful? Or do you need more time to think things through? (I'm asking because I don't want to press you if you're in a slight state of flux, if that makes sense.)
I would recommend looking at I Tim. 1:4, Rev. 8:7 & Rev. 13:7 (if I may be so bold). If you're trying to distance yourself from KJVO-those are clear cut cases from an evidence perspective and there's not much baggage involved viz. they're not hot button issues like I Jo. 5:7-8. (I can give specifics on each variant if you're interested.)
FWIW, I hope you and Taylor are still friends, and both doing well.
@@matthewmurphyrose4793 I agree with Dane on his examples, though I don't mind Easter in Acts 12:4 because there really is no Passover after Christ's death because the Old Covenant was finished after His death. The last Supper gave way to the last Passover. The Jews call something Passover, but it is a Passover falsely so called. Jewish people call something Passover, but it is simply a form of Passover, but they deny it's power (2 Timothy 3:5) because Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us (1 Corinthians 5:7). I believe the KJV translators were making a statement, one that modern Bible makers aren't willing to make, that the Jewish Passover is not really Passover; I also think they were giving a nod to Tyndale, who invented the word Passover.
@@matthewmurphyrose4793 I would also add that I wish the KJV and NKJV were stronger on Acts 16:34. The Greek is clear that the jailer believed, the whole household was baptized, and the jailer and the family rejoiced. The KJV and NKJV are less explicit, but the ESV is much more clear on it. This has implications for covenantal household baptism because the whole household is baptized upon the belief of the patriarch. There is no explicit statement that the household believed, but they were baptized anyway, and the ESV makes clearer what the Greek says.
@@brettmahlen722 thanks Brett. I've always believed that "Easter" in Acts 12:4 was retained as an "Ecclesiastical" term, and only in said location due to it being the only post resurrection mention of Πάσχα in a historical setting. And I personally would have to disagree with both the current Jewish celebration of Passover and the "traditional" Christian celebration of "Easter," being a quartodeciman (which I consider to be Apostolic).
That all said...these minute details are not going to put much (if any) distance between "Confessional Bibliology" and KJVO, unless (of course) there's many instances in which you gentleman actually believe that the A.V. translators chose the wrong *Greek* reading. Because the text is really the issue here. Even if one moves towards a TRO position, many will consider it KJVO (or essentially KJVO) if the A.V.'s underlying Greek text and/or Scrivener 1881 is never (or almost never) departed from.
Their arguments are essentially the critical text position...
TBS says they believe in all the reformation era TRs which were probably the TRs used by martin luther, casiodoro de reina, william tyndale, kjv, etc. In practice, many just use scrivener TR which is dependent on the variants chosen by the kjv translators so it is kjvo.
The basic perspective is this: The TR has verses that originated from scribal notes that over centuries got brought into the text, as texts. The Alexandrian Texts do not have this problem since they are from an earlier period.
They were texts that fell out of circulation because it wasn'tvthe most Faithful textual tradition...
Which TR ?
And why that one ?
@A Reformed Fundamentalist
We did not get an every jot and tittle text .
And absolutely no good answers were given as to the reason why we shop accept the various editions of the TR over the CT , tyndale , of Byzantine, when the same types of variants that exist between the TR editions are also the same as those in the other Critical editions.
@@michealferrell1677 What you got was the Confessional Text view (see Stephanus' marginal notes, see original KJV marginal notes, see Turretin Volume 1, Second Topic, questions X, XI, XII, and XIII). What you didn't get was the 20th Century Anabaptist KJV Perversion (see Ecclesiastical Text by Theodore Letis, Chapter 8). So, "Which TR?" is not the "mic drop" or the "gotcha" that you think it is and the persistent use of that argument is a strawman fallacy.
@@brettmahlen722 just keep telling yourself that:)
I’m moving on to better things
~24:00-36:00 question answered.
@@michealferrell1677 Thanks, just keep parroting refuted arguments. Passive aggression is not an argument, and it is not a response to what I wrote. I think moving onto other things is a good idea.
If the testimony of the past is honored, why isn't the long ending of Mark rejected then?
If like the thee, thou, ye, can use parallel bibles like kjv nkjv, kjv mev, kjv nlv, etc. Jubilee bible does retain thee, thou, ye.
I love the KJV! And have been using it as long as I have been a professing Christian (late 1980's)...... But I am not a KJV Onlyist....... It has some errors made by man in some passages. The Church I will be going back to uses the ESV, and I cannot be too upset with that because they used to use the NIV in the which I had HUGE problems with.
Also glad to see Dane become Presby !!!
While one can entertain the commercial argument about English tranlations I don't think anyone can seriously entertain that the existance of the various greek critical texts is a commercial venture.
I think a serious argument against the TR position is it is not a good apologetic regarding the preservation of the text to non-Christians. The TR position is basically a theological argument. Where as the critical text argues that from the multitude of manuscripts we can get to what the original texts said. The critical text position is more scientific in a sense. That said I don’t personally have a strong view against the TR, but I don’t think the arguments in its favour are very convincing.
This Iranian pastor in the UK who interacts regularly with Muslims in a street preaching ministry says the opposite about his apologetic success with the KJV vs CT versions: th-cam.com/video/mC0gNMfUR7A/w-d-xo.html
The problem is that scientific method still has not produced an original text. No scholar in this field is even trying to pursue the original text they are just trying to get close to it. On top of that check out all the Muslim apologist who quote James White as a proof text on why the Bible isn't perfect. Personally I think the Theological argument is strong than the scientific method that still hasn't got us to an original text.
@@BibleFanatics well I think one could say we have enough support to know the original text from the multiplicity of documents, to a very high confidence level. The questionable variants are so minor that there is no serious concern over whether we are missing anything significant. We have so many copies of the NT that it is nothing more than a rhetorical trick to attack the Bible by claiming we don’t have the original text or that it has been corrupted. Muslim apologists don’t really have a leg to stand on in that area. Do you think a theological for the TR would be as convincing to a Muslim apologist or an atheist though? I am likewise not convinced by muslim theological claims abut the perfect preservation of the Quran (which is also disproven by historical fact)
@@eliasarches2575 You bring up some good points, on Jeff Riddles Channel I believe he interviews a brother who was Muslim and convert to Christianity and he uses the TR when he talks to Muslims and defends the Bible very well.
@@BibleFanatics thank you for your good points. I’ll look into that 😁
""You can have any TR and that is the jots and tittles" "Kept pure in all ages" But it is not a problem that there are still variants!" The significance or insignificance of the difference is not the issue, the fact that there are differences is the issue. Because the critique raised aggressively against the non-TR position is that there are differences and the TR is pure! It simply comes across as insincere if not worse.
Good discussion. Unfortunately I felt like Mahlen was a bit uninformed in certain areas. E.g., I don't think "the other views" don't account for manuscript destruction. They consider translations into other languages and the testimony of the church fathers. When we come to 1 John 5:7 however, the evidence is overwhelming that it came from the Latin.
He brings up Turretin as saying they had copies, but Turretin was not offering first-hand evidence, he was quoting Roman Catholic scholar Sixtus Senensis, who himself made the bare statement that it was "in all the copies", without evidence, and which is obviously untrue in a literal sense.
Another piece of evidence is often pointed to, that Stephanus had 9 copies that contained the Comma. This is also untrue, if you do a little digging. Stephanus went to the Royal Library at Paris and examined the manuscripts there. In his critical apparatus, he did not mark this passage as missing, leading some to assume the Comma was contained in them. But as early as 1580, Fransiscus Lucas Brugensis examined those manuscripts and it was not contained in one. Thus, this "evidence" for the Comma, is essentially a typo on Stephanus' part.
Rather than say that "the other views don't account for manuscript destruction", I would say that the other views work with the evidence they have, rather than make conjectures which are unsubstantiated by anything other than theories.
Thanks for your comment. I am definitely uninformed in certain areas, in fact, in most areas. If you have CT sources that account for manuscript destruction and say, "We don't have any extant manuscripts that say X, but people in the past said they had manuscripts that say X, so we believe X," I would be all ears, but I have not found any, even when I was a CT proponent. The reformation protestants did not believe 1 John 5:7 came from the Latin, but they knew that the Latin overwhelmingly supported it and they claimed they had Greek manuscripts that had it. If you read an ESV in the Old Testament it will tell you in many instances that the reading in the body is not a Hebrew reading, but another reading is inserted. I'll grab my ESV off the shelf and show you... Okay, so I am now looking at 2 Kings 11:2, which I selected at random, and the LXX, Syriac, and Vulgate have "they" and the Hebrew has, "she." So why is it okay to insert "Latin" (and Syriac and LXX) readings into the Old Testament, when there is no Hebrew support for "they," yet it is wrong to believe 1 John 5:7 is extant in the Latin? Shouldn't what is good for the goose (OT) also be good for the gander (NT)? Do you only allow Latin insertions in the OT and not the NT?
Thanks for your comment about Fransiscus Lucas Brugensis. Do you have a source for that? I would be glad to look deeper.
In my experience, it is the CT advocates who make conjectures, see the current conjectural emendation in 2 Peter 3:10. I don't advocate for conjectural emendation. Your last paragraph is contradictory, brother. You say, CT advocates do account for manuscript destruction (I've never seen it), but then you say they work with what they have; which is it? The only thing I have seen CT advocates do is assess claims of previous centuries based upon present extant evidence, rather than the evidence they had centuries ago.
@@brettmahlen722 Brett, first, thanks for the response. I hope I wasn't offensive as I never intend to be.
Second, I am not a CT advocate (I have an appreciation for the TR and lean strongest toward the methodology of the Byzantine Priority). I'm no fan of conjectural emendation either.
The issue I've seen though is that many people present evidence that exclusively supports their side: i.e., "Gill says that 1 John 5:7 was in 9 of Stephanus' copies", which if you look at the copies he looked at, is untrue. It game from a typo. Then others will point to Turretin saying "it's in all the Greek copies" and we don't know what manuscripts they had. But if you actually read the passage from Turretin, he is merely translating what Sixtus Senensis said, that it was in "all the Greek copies since the time of the Apostles". But someone hearing "Oh, Turretin said it existed, therefore they must have had a bunch of copies of it back then" is making a conclusion that is unwarranted.
So now our authority is Senensis. His statement cannot be strictly true (it's not in all the copies, and how would he have known that anyway? He couldn't look at them all). So did he mean most? Did he mean some? Did he mean "all of the two copies I looked at", or was it a statement of pious argument, like the Roman Catholics were prone to make, without any evidence but assumed?
And yes, it is a problem if it comes from the Latin. The confessional bibliology position holds to the Westminster Statement "kept pure" but the Confession doesn't stop there. It says the Hebrew and Greek. The confessional bibliology position claims to be the historical position, but if they accept it came from the Latin, that's something none of the Reformers or Puritans would have accepted. Anyone of that time period accepting the Comma, did so because they believed it was in the Greek (even if they'd not seen any evidence). Their methodology was firmly to look at Greek sources.
As for Brugensis and Stephanus, the following is a quick read:
books.google.com/books?id=RXVAAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA274#v=onepage&q&f=false
I'm happy to hear arguments for the Comma, but it's unfortunate that so many are just repetitions of something which is only half-true. As it stands, we have only 10 manuscripts that contain it in some form. Of those, all but three are certainly or almost certainly later additions (post-Erasmus, post-Reformation). Of the three that remain, none contain the Comma in the exact form we find it in the TR.
evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-greek-manuscripts-of-comma.html
On the other hand, we have hundreds of manuscripts that do NOT contain it.
www.thetextofthegospels.com/2020/01/first-john-57-and-greek-manuscripts.html
If the TR advocate holds to it despite all this, then they might as well not discuss evidence at all, because it's really a presuppositional position at that point (i.e., what ended up in the KJV is the providentially preserved text). Evidence is essentially meaningless, because it will never change the conclusion one way or the other. And that's fine to hold that, but it's certainly not the position of the Reformers or Puritans or Divines.
@@west Thank you for the resources. I'll plan to check them out. Thanks for your lengthy response; there is a lot I would like to say but I want to check out your resources first. I really don't take offense when people don't believe 1 John 5:7 because I get why people don't believe it. It is interesting how people lose their minds (not you) when people believe 1 John 5:7. Have you read Charles Forster? Blessings!
Why you deleting my posts, buddy?? New versions are Vatican versions that are based on the non-ecclesiastical Vaticanus manuscript! What’s the matter??
I understand that if you include a link then TH-cam deletes or hides the comment. No conspiracy here, just like no conspiracy with textual critics.
@@sbs8331 that’s funny, William Dean Burgon (the man at the forefront of the debacle in the late 1800’s) said that the mischief that he traced back was to Drs. Wescott and Hort, was “what appeared to be in the language of lawyers conspiracy.” Seems to me you don’t know what you’re talking about.
And fyi, both advocates and opponents of the critical text EXTENSIVELY agree that the CT is based over 90% on the Vaticanus (and reluctantly goes to Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus for the portions that are lacking in the Vatican).
Who said anything about a “conspiracy” again?
avoid putting links in comments which might cause the comments to be moved to the need approval section.
@@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175 I’ll keep that in mind, but either way people are deleting their replies. Speaks worlds.
Brothers, thank you for a great interview! I especially appreciated Brett and Dane clearly stating that they are not claiming to have absolute certainty about every jot and tittle of the text, rather they are arguing for maximal certainty. I am happy to agree that the variants between TR editions are very minor and that any edition of the TR is the word of God. I hope all CB advocates will adopt this position and be consistent with it in their rhetoric. The question that I think we must all answer is, at what point can an edition or translation of the Bible no longer be considered the word of God? I don't believe I have a clear answer to that question yet myself, though I obviously would not affirm everything that claims to be the word of God as such.
Why did the translators translate απο in revelation 13:8 to (πρό) before? No other translation does this as its wrong. But this does fit a Calvinist leaning.
Here for example is how the NASB translated that verse.
Revelation 13:8
[8]All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.
Personally I wanted to give the NKJV a solid chance but when I read the editors (Art Farstead) book about the translation philosophy of of the NKJV he ruled it out for me
@Aaron I would recommend reading his book for yourself and make your own decision
The horrible brackets in the ESV is what started me on my journey. My then 9 year old came to me a asked why does the bible say some more reliable manuscripts do not have this?
I was completely shocked at what was being done to modern bibles. I had been reading the ESV for two years and noticed that it read like a car manual, but never really read the footnotes and brackets.
It’s very crazy for these bibles to pretend we don’t know what is in the bible. It’s all just criticism. I can’t not understand how we are being instructed by people who’s life’s work is criticizing the bible? It’s insane we sheep are being lead astray by these liberal scholars. It should be very clear by anyone looking into this is terrible
I suggest that if you look into it, Christians for almost two-thousand years have had uncertainties about these passages marked in the ESV. That doesn't mean that the Bible is uncertain at all. Also, the job of textual critics is not to "criticize the Bible". Most textual critics in history have been Christians. Solid Christians.
@@west yes uncertainty is a hallmark of christian for sure. Martin Luther Tindale,Hess, Whitcliff, Erasmus, the puritans, the baptist all completely unsure of what was in the bible to the point now thousands of years later we are going to have the authority, knowledge and understanding to correct it all and clear it all up with the brilliant ESV. It’s all just bringing in huge doubt and trying to bring in the scholar-priest back from the mid evil church and saying the common people can not understand and know but trust liberal scholars. But when plowboys like me read the ESV and it says David’s mighty man killed Goliath and a quote from Malachi is it attributed to Isaiah and 1000’s of other blunders as such, I quickly realize that the scholar isn’t finally making things clear nor correct, but wreaking the Word and the church is quickly following behind it.
@@treybarnes5549 Uncertainty about a few readings (really only a tiny fraction) is not close to the same as uncertainty about what the Bible teaches. There is no confusion over doctrine, but when you come across one manuscript that says "Jesus Christ" and another that just says "Jesus", which one is correct? We can absolutely be certain about what the Bible teaches, but we cannot always be certain about certain readings, and certainly some of those men you mentioned also were uncertain about some readings (Erasmus, Luther, the Puritans in particular).
For example, Luther's German Bible did not have 1 John 5:7 because the Greek text he had access to did not contain it. Was he uncertain about the Trinity? Absolutely not!
@@west that is an echo chamber. “There is not one doctrine changed”. as the rip whole paragraphs out the bible. Luke 4:4 is a doctrine and a quote from the OT. completely removing the teeth. Matthew 18:11 is a doctrine completely removed from new age bibles. of course 1 John you mentioned. these people rip up the bible and remove the teeth out of the verses and say “it’s all good. nothing to worry about, it’s just an easier read”. it’s horribly deceiving
@@treybarnes5549 I'm afraid you're simply mistaken as to the historical views of the Puritans and Reformers, for you would have to call them "horribly deceiving" as well. For example, here is a quote from Samuel Rutherford, one of the contributors to the Westminster Confession of Faith:
"And though there be errors of number, genealogies, etc., of writing in the Scripture, as written or printed, yet we hold Providence watcheth so over it, that in the body of articles of faith and necessary truths, we are certain, with the certainty of faith, it is that same very word of God, having the same special operations of enlightening the eyes, converting the soul, making wise the simple, as being lively, sharper than a two-edged sword, full of divinity of life, Majesty, power, simplicity, wisdom, certainty, etc., which the prophets of old, and the writings of the Evangelists, and Apostles had."
A lot of people are waking up to the truth of the Byzantine/TR being the inspired scriptures of the Church. I myself use the KJV as my main translation which has been a big blessing for me. If you put time into reading and learning the KJV you will definitely realise how theologically watered down many modern versions are. However there are some words which have changed meaning or sentences which are phrased in difficult way for the modern reader so at times I will reference the ESV (because I already own a copy) but the golden standard in english will always be the KJV. I encourage everyone reading this to at minimum incorporate the KJV into your life. You will be greatly blessed.
I'm not English, the kjv is a mess to read for me. I'll stick with the nkjv. Why not just use the nkjv or mev if it's the tr that matters? Otherwise it come across as kjvo.
@@BloodBoughtMinistries The KJV is better. However if the KJV english was difficult for me I would use the NKJV. I am not KJVO, I consult other translations when appropriate. The KJV is the best bible translation and literary work in the english language. God bless.
@@AlexM-md6lz I recommend Mark Ward's book "Authorized" and his TH-cam series on "False Friends". Regarding the latter, not only is antiquated English often hard to understand (and certainly no longer in the "vulgar" / common language as was the goal of the KJV translators), but many words have actually changed their meaning in 400+ years, leading to some probable misunderstandings of what the text actually says.
After all these years, this is the first time I've ever heard that there is a difference between ye and thou. Therefore, it never made sense and I wouldn't read my Bible because it was so confusing and unreadable. In Kentucky y'all is plural. Maybe they should use that.
Ye = Plural
Thou = Singular
Thus it makes sense for the continued usage of KJV.
Love it. Yeah, and your Renaissance festival types will tell "you," one is a subject pronoun the other an object. To thee I speak, that thou mayest understand. (singular). To ye I speak, that you may understand. (plural) (I believe that's how it works. Confusing)
@@duncescotus2342 In shakespeare, thou is informal and for inferiors. You is formal and for superiors. KJV uses thou as singular and you as plural. The use of thou as singular and you as plural in kjv was kjv translators reviving archaic usage of thou and you that was already archaic in 1611 so it is sort of biblical english and not common usage as seen in shakespeare plays.
@@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175 Is that so? Somewhere in my pile of papers is an English degree. I should probably know this!
Nice to see you again.
@@duncescotus2342 I enjoy learning from 1611 english experts. I heard wife of bart ehrman is a shakespeare scholar. I have never been to renaissance festivals but I would assume they follow shakespeare usage of thou and you instead of following the kjv usage of thou and you. Shakespeare used geneva bible rather than kjv.
The KJV translators would never follow this trad view and would use the critical text.
Not sure where you get that idea....
@28 minutes in, I know he's not intending to be in Ruckman's camp. But that's exactly Ruckman's argument about Greek.
There is no such thing as a Ruckman camp when it come to the KJB, its a Boogy Man/Scare Crow Genetic Fallicy trying to associate KJB believers as a Ruckman Camp?
Many believe the KJB is the preserved word of God and Ruckman had zero influence in that conclusion, text critics have to label us Ruckman Camp as defamation to are character since Ruckman was extreme personality, had strange beliefs and tragity in his family life.
Ruckmanism is a term used for slander to keep people like Mathew from acknowledging the Final Textus Receptus the KJB because he will lose friends who will label him a Ruckmanite.
@@hudsontd7778 The reason I said that is his argument is essentially that the KJV contains the "pure in all ages" Greek text, which is exactly what Ruckman argued - that the KJV corrects inaccurate Greek texts.
The method of reasoning is different. Ruckman would have said that the authority of the KJV is what gives that TR its authority, whereas this gentleman would say that the authority is in the Greek and that the KJV managed to pull together the "pure in all ages" text into one place. But however you get to the position, the practical end result is the same: the KJV determines which Greek text is correct.
I doubt that's what he intended to say (and I'd really like to hear his clarification of that point), but that's the position he expressed.
And to be clear, I'm not saying any of these men are Ruckmanite. But ***the way*** that he expressed his position is so similar to the Ruckmanite position that it's very difficult to differentiate between the two.
@@calebschaaf1555 I am confused as to how you got any of that out of my words. Perhaps I misspoke or you misunderstood. Ruckman puts no stock in the TR whatsoever. He believes in a form of re-inspiration. I was attempting to articulate the "providential argument" that some proponents of Confessional Bibliology put forward, namely, that the Greek readings, found in the Greek MS tradition and contained in the reformation era printed Greek texts, which the KJV translators chose to adopt in the body of their translation, have a sort of stamp of divine approval providentially placed upon them by their usage throughout English speaking Church history. I would not necessarily agree with that argument entirely, but many find it persuasive. My position is that any of the editions of the TR are good to go, and any faithful translation (in whatever language) of any of those editions is also good to go.
@@DaneKristjan That's helpful, thank you. I find the providential argument to be de-facto the same thing that Ruckman argued, just through a different means. An acceptance of any TR is much more stable a position, IMO.
@@DaneKristjan I suppose I should clarify, too, what I mean by "de-facto the same thing that Ruckman argued." Ruckman claimed to hold a word-perfect text based on re-inspiration. The position that I originally heard you express here was that the pure in all ages, word perfect text was the TR that matched the KJV, Scrivener's TR. If that's the argument, it's saying that the word perfect text is determined by the KJV, which is Ruckman's position, just achieved through a different rhetorical pathway.
Thanks again for taking time to clarify what you meant! I listened to the whole interview and appreciated it.
Those who updated the kjv were not authorized and had no training in hebrew and greek and were just printers. This is 1 reason why some kjvo believe only in the 1611 first edition kjv even though it has plenty of typo errors.
Matt, these guys are being intentionally evasive. I don't mean to offend. But, it's pretty obvious.
What do you do, Matt, with the many, many verses in the King James Bible that clearly teach that the word of God is settled, very pure, incorruptible?
What compels you to rail against these verses?
Rail? C'mon. Nowhere does that say it's the TR.
Easy to reinterpret any verse.
In all my years watching Dr Everhard, I've never seen him "rail" against a single verse in scripture.
It's in all translations and manuscripts.
@@DaneKristjan You know the many verses that I'm referring to. These verses teach clearly that the words that Jesus Christ commanded us to live by are pure, available, and to be received.
Matt, like you, Dane, has made a career of opposing these clear Bible truths.
1611 kjv did have marginal notes about variants and the reality of variants cannot be denied unless you prefer to believe in fantasies like a perfect text.
So did God lie in psalm 12:6-7?
@@AndreWalsh93 probably depends on interpretation. 1 verse can be interpreted in thousands of ways which is why there are thousands of protestant sects.
@@AndreWalsh93 No, but neither does it refer to the KJV.
@@sbs8331 God made a promise guy and I believe Him the kjv is the only English Bible with the type of history that it has and it’s the best Bible for apologetics hands down and you fight against it that’s a shame!
@@AndreWalsh93 So to which translation did Psalm 12 apply for 1610 years (or 2600+ years since it was written)? Which TR? What about non-English translations? It's a misinterpretation, to put it kindly, to assume that two verses in Psalms refer to a single translation in a single language. I recommend getting a copy of the preface to the KJV. It's clear that its own translators considered it neither inerrant nor the end-all be-all of English translations.
Why don't you talk about the problem John Burgon saw with the school of Text criticism derived from Griesbach (4 January 1745 - 24 March 1812) ?
They're coming for your ARs and your AVs. "Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of spiritual warfare."
It’s not so much that one translation is better than another, but that the English language is inferior to the original Hebrew and Greek! Duh!! Those who have a problem with the translations need to get off their lazy rear ends and learn the original languages!
We can’t all be raised properly like Jonathon Edwards and his sisters who were taught Hebrew, Latin, and Greek by their parents!😢😂
😢an example of what I mean by The English language being inferior: take the word Israel for example: It consists of 4 Hebrew letters. It’s meaning in English: “You have striven with God and with man, and have prevailed” That’s 11 words, and 45 letters! Any questions, class?
It is not just greek pronouns and hebrew pronouns which are lost in translation and many things are lost in translation so it is better to learn hebrew and greek. For example, elohim means many gods and is often mistranslated. YHWH is often mistranslated as LORD.
@@jameswillison1527 YHWH is a personal name so saying LORD is a mistranslation. It is like translating Jesus as GUY.
This is incorrect thinking. The King’s English is the ONLY English that correctly renders the Hebrew and the Greek distinctions - modern English cannot do that. Simply nonsense presumption.
@@mresab1997 1611 english can still be used but it requires helps like annotated kjv such as defined king james and or TBS westminster. Many classic christian works from the 1600s and 1700s are also in archaic english so it is useful to learn archaic english to read more christian classics. Classic literature like shakespeare are also in archaic english.
@@mresab1997 In KJVer it uses you to indicate singular, you(p) to indicate plural. Some kjv revisions use you for singular and you all or all of you for plural.
@@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175 again, I disagree on this *opinion*. I know plenty who don’t require such. But to each their own.
Great video!