Join the TH-cam Membership for only $1.99 a month for exclusive content: th-cam.com/channels/K13I_he8MsAidC9eDsfT3A.htmljoin Let's stay in touch: mailchi.mp/2f83838c05df/biblical-studies-and-reviews
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I’m sorry to take up your time but I have a final question for today. I retired to the Dominican Republic and started attending a local church and accepted Jesus Christ as my savior. Most people here use a Reina-Valera version of the bible. I’d like a recommendation for a Spanish translated bible. I prefer English but I’d like to follow along in Spanish also.
The majority texts include the Textus Receptus. This is often confused with the "critical texts" or Alexandrian texts which are actually are in the minority.
Lord willing, I will be doing a re-do on this video soon. I would like to present the material in a way that would be more accessible based on some feedback I received. 🙂
I'd love to learn more about this stuff but I know nothing so when people start talking I don't know the definitions of terms. Whats the majority text? The TR came from that thru the Byzantine text etc etc and I'm lost. Do you have a entry level video or know of one for someone who doesn't even know the basic's , need to start from ground zero!!
Thanks for the video! It's really interesting to see the make up of the manuscripts we have. I find it amazing the sheer number of manuscripts of the NT we havenand how really there aren't that many meaningful differences. It's very encouraging.
17:08 It should be fruitful to point out that in the book by Jack Moorman you mentioned, he actually compares the number of 1800 differences between the TR and the MT and subtracts a whole bunch based on factors that make these differences irrelevant. For example, he subtracts 1179 variants alone on the basis that none of these variants affect the English wording. His final count cites only a very small number of 375 variants which affect translation between the TR and the MT! You can find this information on page 44, at least in the edition I have; it's under the heading "Summary of the HF departures from the text of the Authorized Version".
Excellent video, a fine presentation. From my own studies, I find that the chief difference between the two is that the TR has Latin majority text readings from the Latin Vulgate, rather than Greek majority text readings, in some places. The most notable of these are I John 5:7 and Acts 8:37. However, such examples are rather few. Prior to modern times, the witness of the Church Fathers as to the readings was of critical importance. The differences between the MT and the TR are tiny compared to the differences between either of them and the modern Critical Text
OK, I’m not sniping here rather this discussion has recently caught my attention although I believe there are some who put way too much emphasis on it. Here are a couple of questions for you: 1) when you say ‘modern Critical Text’ aren’t you speaking of the Alexandrian Text? The Critical Text is the Alexandrian Text, yes? 2) you also say ‘witness of the Church Fathers’ so I take it this has meaning for you. So if there is clear evidence (and there is) that the early/ancient Church Fathers used the Alexandrian Text in their writings, why do you label it as ‘modern?’
@@fanman8102 The Critical Text is modern; Alexandrian readings are ancient. Some Church Fathers used (or seemed to use) Alexandrian readings from certain individual manuscripts (there never was an Alexandrian "text" or "family" as such in ancient times). The main purposes of the Critical Text are threefold 1) to prove that the Traditional (Ecclesiastical) Text is an artificially created, edited text; 2) to show that the Critical Text is closest to the "autographs" and 3) that two manuscripts from Egypt, Codex B and Codex Aleph, are the "best" manuscripts in existence, and closest to the autographs. That the Church Fathers quoted from what is today known as the Ecclesiastical Text is undeniable, although according to Critical Text theory such verses as Acts 8:37 should not exist and be quoted by a Church Father such as Ireneus, who lived long before Codex B was ever written. This is because Acts 8:37 is not found in Codex B or in Codex Aleph, and so its absence should "prove" that it only came into existence later and was inserted into the book of Acts for a "theological" purpose. The assertion of Westcott and Hort, (the two scholars who produced the initial Critical Text), that when these two manuscripts agree on the reading, then that reading must the true one, has been quite controversial. This Critical Text theory has been critiqued by some scholars, but generally they have been outsiders, and so have had almost no influence on the critical text guild of today. Two such scholars from Westcott and Hort's time were John Burgon and Herman Hoskier. Supporters of the Traditional Text in more recent times would be Edward Hills, Wilbur Pickering (who advocates for the "Majority Text") and Theodore Letis. Today's Critical Text is constantly being revised; it is not a sacred text at all in the traditional sense. Most churches today use the Critical Text, and this is not surprising, since it is promoted and used without question in most modern seminaries. The most significant holdouts who do not accept the Critical Text are the Orthodox Church, traditional Catholics, and some (by no means all) conservative Protestants.
The oldest copy of the long Mark ending is 200 and something AD. The oldest reference by a preacher to long ending of Mark is 160 to 180AD. If the long ending is not supposed to be there, then someone would have to conclude that it was added to Justin Martyr and Irenaus copy.
Thanks for the video and really appreciate the time you took to go through this. I wonder if it’s possible for someone to explain the whole time line on how and which translations were used to get to where we are today with different Bibles. I’m doing research on this to get a better understanding but getting my head around Received, Majority, Byzantine, Modern, Critical, Septuagint, mosaic texts is too hard for me to understand without how, why and when these terms are used and their relationship to the English Bibles we read today. If anyone can link me anything I would be very grateful.
Let me try! First, it needs to be understood that we are talking here about the Greek Text of the New Testament, not the Hebrew of the Old Testament. When it comes to the Traditional Text, it is sometimes also called the Received Text (Textus Receptus), because it is deemed the sacred text "received by the Church". It is also called the Ecclesiatical Text (Text of the Church). It is also sometimes called the Byzantine Text, because this was the center of Greek Christianity in ancient times, and the area where followers of Christ were first called Christians (at Antioch). Some also incorrectly call it the "Majority Text" since its readings are found in the overwhelming majority of manuscripts (99%). However, the Majority Text is not quite the same as the Traditional Text, because the Traditional Text as some readings found in only a minority of Greek manuscripts. (In most instances, however, these minority Greek manuscript readings are Majority Latin manuscript readings). The Majority Text relies only on majority Greek Text readings. (The problem with this is that many manuscripts have perished and are no longer available for examination. It is also problematic where no Greek Majority reading exists, such as is the case with the book of Revelation.) It should be noted that there are currently two major and somewhat different versions of what is called the "Majority Text" in publication. The Textus Receptus exists in several versions, all of which differ very slightly from one another. However, it should be pointed out that these differences pale into almost insignificance compared to the differences they all have with the Critical Greek Text, which is based on manuscripts that come from Egypt and its city of Alexandria (hence the name "Alexandrian Text"). The scholars who produced the famous King James Version of 1611 used the Textus Receptus, although apparently they used more than one version of it. Contrary to a popular idea, they did not much use Erasmus's Greek New Testament Text. I hope this helps a little!
for the spanish version of the Reina Valera the first translation came out in 1569 and we got our translation from Beza not scribner and we had an update on The Reina Valera in 1602 way before there was a King James so you can see my frustration on hering the kjv onlyist say so much nonsense when we have had our translation 42 years before the kjv so i hope you understand my frustrations and we have a revision of the text every 40 years the most recent one was before the pandemic thank you very much for listening to my rant God bless you
What do you say about the difference between MT and TR on Rev 22:19. Is it true that erasmus got the word 'book' instead of 'tree' from the Latin version instead of MT. In this book of Scrivener's, does he mention it or say about the reason for the variation.? Thanks.
interesting subject... and a rather rare subject... there are so much less work done in the area of the differences between the TR and the Majority Text, compared to the work done on TR vs critical text... pastor Moorman's work is good, and is in fact a pioneer work on the Majority Text in making the data so accessible to English readers... it is a shame that it's not more widespread ... and it may be that too many are just content with the marginal apparatus of the NKJV as an adequate source for the translatable differences between the TR, M-text and NU-text .... and it is very helpful, but it is not exhaustive ....
I agree with everything you wrote. I’m hoping to do a few more videos on this line. I realized from the feedback that I received that I need to break this down a little bit more.
Thank you for your presentation. I understand that the reason the Maj. Text is called that is because it is based on where the majority of the manuscripts agree rather than which texts are the oldest. I read that Erasmus used primarily the Codex Vat and Codex Sinaiticus for his translation but not the Byz text. If that is true then we would do well to use Byz as the basis and compare this with C V and C S. Your comments? Also, have you critiqued the Westcott & Hort text? Is it true that they used only C V & C S?
Is there a standard majority text that's accepted like the one you showed or because there are differences between byzantine texts so he used the Latin Vulgate to determine which was the most accurate rendering where there was significant variation?
I think that the KJV and the NKJV use the Textus Receptus for the New Testament. Are there any current bible translation that use the broader Byzantine Text? Thank you.
I recently found your TH-cam channel and find myself hooked on your content. I’m a newly born again Christian and I’d like to know which Bible you would recommend?
I personally read from the KJV for a number of reasons. But some people find it too difficult to understand. I would suggest either the NKJV or the Legacy Standard Bible unless you are comfortable with the older English in the KJV.
It’s the same word. If you look at the Septuagint translation of Joshua it is the same Greek word as Hebrews 4:8. The intent of the author was clearly Joshua from the context, the KJV had a footnote which said ‘Jesus: that is, Joshua’
What is your absolute favorite Bible most accurate to The times of Jesus uncorrupted. I've always been a k jv & nkjv type of guy. Are those textus receptus?
That’s such a difficult question. The translation I use the most is the KJV. The NKJV is also a great translation from the TR. Both are TR based. Young’s Literal Translation is also a very good translation. My favorite translation on the Critical text side is the new Legacy Standard Bible.
Pastor Jack Moorman went to be with the Lord on 31 May 2021. His funeral took place yesterday. I visited him six days prior to his death. I played him a recording of the Johannine Comma (1John 5 verses 7-8) being chanted in a Greek Orthodox church. He was so happy to hear it and smiled even though he was extremely ill. Yes, I know it is not found in the Byzantine Text but the Greek Orthodox church has officially adopted it (or readopted, if it was lost). The authorized 1904 Greek New Testament of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (the Patriarchal Text) has ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος καὶ τὸ ῞Αγιον Πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι· καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ, τὸ Πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. It is chanted at least once a year on the Thursday of Meat Fare Week as part of the reading from 1John 4. 20 - 5. 21.
@@learnbiblicalgreek316 thank you for sharing this with us. I’m so sorry that he has passed away. What a touching story about the Johannine Comma and Pastor Moorman.
If anyone can share the few passages where the TR and CT agree against the MT, I would really appreciate. Shouldn't be too many of them as I understand it...
It's been kind of driving me nuts that you keep referring to the part in the Bible about the adulterous woman being difference between texts but you have not said WHAT the difference is. (I know I have heard that difference before, but darn it, my memory cells dropped it and I cannot remember! It was a very interesting difference.) I let go of most of the Bibles I don't want to use for study and don't know if I have a Bible with the other adultery version. Which Bibles can it be found in?
1John 5:7,8 is supported by early Christians quoting it and is established in Michael Maynard's masterpiece "A Defense of 1John 5:7,8." It's also in the early Waldenses Itala version from AD 157.
"It does not appear in Greek textual witnesses until the 14th century .... It is absent from all ancient translations of the Bible, even from the oldest evidence of the Vetus Latina and the Vulgate ... Erasmus excluded it as spurious from his Greek text and Latin translations of the New Testament in 1516 and 1519. However, in 1521 he included it in a separate edition of his Latin translation, and in 1522 he also included it in his third edition of the NT, both in the Latin and Greek texts (from min. 61), just to protect his edition of the NT from heresy. Thus it became part of the Textus Receptus. Since the 19th century it has again been omitted from critical editions. The Comma Johanneum is now generally regarded as a late insertion."
The Ethiopian verse was acknowledge by the early church fathers who quoted it in the 1st century, to say it wasn't there in the original based on a manuscript from 1000 years later is incorrect.
I want this leather copy of scriveners.....I'm mad I cant find a copy. I also want a calfskin TBS Greek NT. Steven anderson, TA Desoto, and Dane Johannsen bought up all the remaining copies!!!! Arghhhhh!!! Lol
Steven Anderson did that? According to himself he knows Greek and read the New Testament only twice in Greek. I wonder why he needed all of those 🤷🏻♂️
The Textus Receptus might not read completely like the original but it's the Bible for us now. We aren't going to find anything else. The Bible we have now is sufficient. Any version can be used as long as it teaches us how to be godly walking in the Light of Christ.
@@MaiaGothmog we won't find the original. It's lost. We're in the end times already. If we haven't found it yet I don't think we'll find it in another millennium.
Orthodox Church while the Book of Revelation was included in the Canon of Scripture, it was not permitted to be read publicly in the services of the Church. The Orthodox Church in America
@@DavidHalko The strongest evidence that the book of Revelation is not canonical in the Orthodox Church is that it is not publicly read in the Orthodox Church. The only exceptions to this are some Alexandrian churches and the monastery on the Isle of Patmos itself. Is the Book of Revelation Canonical in the Orthodox Church? August 15, 2018 · Fr. Stephen De Young
@@jamessheffield4173 - Orthodox commentaries on Revelation amount to commentaries on St. Andrew’s commentary. This reveals another way in which Revelation is unique among Biblical texts in the Orthodox Church, in that it is the only New Testament text that is canonical by virtue of having a very particular canonical interpretation. August 15, 2018 · Fr. Stephen De Young
The Textus Receptus consisted of the letters written by those in Antioch where the church started and those who wrote them were called Christians as a put down. There are 6500 manuscripts that support the KJV. The Modern Translations are supported by the Vatican's Textus Vaticanus and the other Sainaticus; neither of these texts agree with each other, neither of these texts have a start date, neither have any evidence of proof of accurace. The KJV is the Holy Bible before the Modern Translations (Thanks to Westcott and Hort) came to the scene. The KJV has a history dating back over 300 years, starting with Tyndale. The Textus Receptus is in storage in England and cannot be accessed or changed w/o the permission of thekeeper of the manuscripts, that have specific instructions that the Textus Receptus will not be touched or changed in any way. It too 50 Holy Spirit inspired men in 3 committees in three different locations who rotated their work with each other committee to check, double check and tripple check for scriptural accurance using the TR and the Bishop's Bible. These guys were profecient in all languages of the KJV which was Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews if you could do a video on why the codex sinaticus transformed textual critiscm I managed to see the codex when it was in the british museum and was surprised how well preserved it was
Just curious, are you a KJV only advocate? Just trying to get an understanding regarding where you land on these issues. I watch all your videos but am not sure where you go sometimes in these discussions…
I am not KJV only. I love the KJV and it’s my favorite English translation. But I am not against other English translations. I think it’s a wonderful translation but it was translated by fallible humans. I’ve never claimed that it’s perfect. I merely claim that it’s amazing 😉
@@owenmace8278- you didn’t ask me the question but from my understanding the TR was a compilation of several Greek NT produced by different men including Erasmus. All these separate editions were published in the 1500’s while the compilation (the TR) was published in 1633. They were all based in the majority text of the day (Byzantine) just as the Latin Vulgate, Tyndale’s NT, and several others were. The Alexandrian Text didn’t become used for Bible translation until after 1900. So the TR differs 1500 times from the majority text of the day, the Byzantine Text.
Imagine spending your whole life reading/studying biblical manuscripts in many different languages and still not coming to the revelation, that Jesus Christ is God! We are called to believe!
I love it. This shows how the holy men of old "treated" the Word of God. The fear of mistranslating His Word, brought with it a reverence we could only imagine. You do have to come to the conclusion that if they didn't, they would feel as though they would be punished based on the writings they believed. Additionally, of the KJV isn't the inspired, inerrant Word of God, then we have no Word of God, and thereby God not having the power to provide such. At some point, we need to remove what we think and feel based on the human aspect, and trust He has the ability to give us His preserved Word. Holy men of old, wrote as the the Holy Spirit moved upon them to write.
Thanks for commenting Greg! I love the KJV. I wouldn’t quite invest it with the same authority as the originals, but it’s an amazing and beautiful translation. Hope you’ll find this channel helpful. Blessings!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews looking forward to some amazing content. Personally, I believe there has to be a God inspired writing. If we, as humans, say that there are errors, I have to hold that it's us...that need to understand what is there. We are comparing our understanding and grading His word... I don't think that's a position we can taute. It only stands to reason that there has to be. Perfect Word out there for His Perfect Plan.... If not, then we have no hope, because the word is tainted. Also, God would have failed in His attempt to have His Word in the hearts of mankind. And we both know, 'that ain't right' 😉
@@olegig5166 I think it’s any Bible which accurately conveys the original Hebrew and Greek texts. If you are asking if I think that the KJV is the final authority (and sorry if you are not), I would say insofar as it accurately represents the original texts.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews ok, but doesn't that present a few problems? One problem is are there not many, many Greek text which, in some places, do not agree with each other? Another problem concerns the common layman who only reads English, loves the Lord and wishes to read and study the Lord's word as instructed. Does this man need learn the Greek just to read a perfect New Testament? If not then this man must depend on a "scholarly go between" to tell him what the word says. However this man knows the vail was torn and he is indeed the Temple of God, but to find the perfect word of God this layman must submit to another man's authority? Does one actually feel this is the system intended by the Lord? It's very confusing!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews let me give example of what I just said above: We are talking about translations, therefore as a layman I turn to the scriptures for God's meaning of to "translate" or perhaps examples of the action. In the KJV there are 3 examples of something being translated. One is the kingdom from Saul to David, while the other 2 deal with people, the Christian from death to life and Enoch from this world to Heaven. I would note each of the 3 translations is an improvement, it's for the better. However when we look at the same scriptures in the NIV, the NASV, the ESV, or the MEV no mention of translation is made. What's the layman to do? How does one decide which is accurate?
Dr. David Fruchtenbaum "The oldest Hebrew text we had was called the Masoretic text but then the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered and the time between the Dead Sea scrolls and the Masoretic text is a thousand years and there were some differences but they are very very minor and those minor differences do not change the actual content of that verse between saying he went to Jerusalem he went unto Jerusalem to and unto that's how slight the variant but doesn't change the meaning the man went to Jerusalem." They began to translate the dead sea scrolls but got partway in, realizing they agree with the TR and they quit translating them, they sat dormant for nearly 70 years, they have since been put online and some are doing the translating, which shows you that with the scholars they have an agenda, if something fits their agenda they will publish it, if it does not fit like the dead sea scrolls agreeing with the TR then they let it sit dormant refusing to even finish the translating work they started. Common 70 years and they still have not finished translating it? there is no lack of biblical scholars that could have worked on it, but no because it agrees with the TR they just refused to finish translating it, THAT IS AN AGENDA.
I’m not quite following. The Dead Sea scrolls do not contain the New Testament. I’m thinking you mean the Dead Sea scrolls support the Masoretic text, maybe.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Yes I should have been more specific, the dead sea scrolls support the Masoretic text, which is what was used to to give us our KJV old testament. I am KJVO but I want to present this with solid evidence, both for my position and against the modern texts that are still being revised with no end in sight. I do not wish to be a fanatic about the KJV but only to rely on the evidence, and even though it is one of my passions not to bring fanatical emotions into the discussion. 2Co 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. I represent Christ, so my actions and speech are a reflection on Christ, that is why I have to fight against becoming emotionally involved in my passions and to stay objective, something I do struggle with. I believe we do have Gods word today in English in the KJV, and I believe that the modern versions based on the Alexandrinus texts are counterfeits from the devil. Is there truth in them yes, as there are scriptures that are pretty much the same as in the KJV I believe that the gnostics in Alexandria took the true text and removed/changed the bits they did not like. And that is why there are many similarities because there were many places that were not removed/changed, that is how the enemy operates, he will give us truth, and because we see and know that truth we then swallow his lies hook, line, and sinker. He is the master counterfeiter, who is transformed into an Angel of light. Col 1:14, Phil 2:6, 1 Tim 3:16, 1 Joh 5:7 Zec 13:6 Isa 7:14, these and many more have been corrupted by the Alexandrinus texts, some even being completely removed such as 1 Joh 5:7 and Mark 16:9-20 the modern scollars have this mindset 1: the KJV is always wrong 2: we do not have the perfect words of God and that God's word can be improved. The KJV cannot always be wrong because there are places where the KJV and their modern bibles agree. We are on the Nestles/Aland 28th revision of their Greek text, each revision renders the previous revision outdated or obsolete. With each new revision they can print all new bibles in all of the popular bibles and all of each particular bibles flavor. The NLT mens bible etc... for each version, its the perfect setup of planned or builtin obsolescence.
The Masonretic text, which adopted Theodotians free-hand edited version of Daniel's prophecies of the arrival and return of Christ. The Old Greek has it right, but there is no proper English translation available. How many times shall I forgive my brother, until 7 times? I say unto you, not until 7 times, but until 70 times 7. 3,430 years from the Exodus, Dan. 9:15. The 70 weeks is missing an additional 7 on the date for the return of Christ.
Acts 13:17-21 are still wrong in both TR and MT readings according to the earlier manuscripts. It should say the 450 years is the entirety of the time from when the Israelites became slaves until the anointing of Samuel as a prophet. GOD Bless! ❤️
I would be very hesitant to assume the TR/MT are in error because of any apparent problem in chronology. It could be that the TR/MT are correct and that this "problem" text actually is a key to understanding something about redemptive history. See "Bible Chronology: The Two Great Divides" by J. A. Moorman. He refers to the work of Edward Denney who first proposed a solution in 1849 in "Forgiveness Seventy and Sevenfold". The solution may be there are two different calendars and that in the redemptive calendar God does not count years of broken fellowship. If Denney's solution is correct then a logical inference would be that one reason God placed such a thorny problem in the Bible was to reward a faith based approach to scripture that would, in His timing, confirm the true text when it was under attack by rationalism. If this "error" is not an error then any contradictory minority readings were harmonized which shows them to be untrustworthy witnesses.
@@dondgc2298 unless the correct manuscripts were used so much they had to chance to survive, and the surviving older text with differences were not used because the differences were considered mistakes.
In Christianity, the term Textus Receptus (Latin for "received text") refers to all printed editions of the Greek New Testament from Erasmus' Novum Instrumentum omne (1516) to the 1633 Elzevir edition.[1] It was the most commonly used text type for Protestant denominations. In the textual criticism of the New Testament, the Byzantine text-type (also called Majority Text, Traditional Text, Ecclesiastical Text, Constantinopolitan Text, Antiocheian Text, or Syrian Text) is one of the main text types. The Textus Receptus for whatever reason, I was sure was also the majority text, in KJV circles I have heard Textus receptus and Majority text bandied about together, it is never prudent to assume anything, one must always be willing to factcheck everything, which I did not. The Text of the KJV all of the manuscripts are in 99% agreement. I have Sinaiticus, I know about the CFA being solid white while the rest has been darkened by a forger, Porfiry Uspensky, a Russian bishop visited St.Catherine's in 1845, the year after Tischendorf. He said all of it was WHITE! I have images of Sinaiticus, I can show the white contrasted against the dark, the CFA (Codex Friderico-Augustanus) still exists and is still juust as white as it ever was, back in the 1800s forgers would use coffee or tea to stain the pages of a book to make it look older than it was, why? MONEY the forgers are after making ill gotten gain by creating forgeries. That is exactly what Tischendorf did, he darkened Sinaiticus and the modern day scholars go goo goo gaga over that forgery. How about this, how about running chemical analysis on it to see what that darkening actually is, ya right do you really think they are gonna do that when hundreds of millions of dollars worth of modern bibles would be riding on such results, not in this lifetime.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I have watched the entire series of David Daniels on Sinaiticus, I learned a lot, it starts at 01 and goes through 19 video blogs just on Sinaiticus. Although he does not say so, the things he brings out are the things that a Paleographer like John Dean Burgon would bring out. I for me the devil is in the details, how modern scolars fawn over Vaticanus and Sinaiticus just does not make sense, we have the TR with over 5000 Greek manuscrips and those are 99% in agreement. For example of the 620 manuscripts that contain The Gospel of mark only two of them do not contain Mark 16:9-20 618 of them have those verses. That's all 600 minuscules (that's lower case letters), all 15 uncials (that's upper case letters), and 3 of 5 codices (you know, "big books") Only 2 of the 620 leave out those verses: The Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus. And modern bibles are based on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus for the most part, yes Beza, ans Papyrus 75, as well as Codex Alexandinus and a few others. Like I said I have a copy of Sinaiticus and anyone with working eyes can see the editing, can see the erasing/deletions of whole columbs!!! but they are still just visible and with good photo software like Adobe Photoshop those slightly visible texts can have contrast and other filters applied to make that text stand out clearer. all we have to go by is God's word, it is imperitive that we have that which is His word and not the enemies counterfeit, 2Ti 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. Wrong doctrine and even the wrong "God's word" overthrows faith, only the true word of God builds true faith. Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
If Satan wanted to corrupt God‘s word in the most effective place he could, he would likely pick the first sermon that Jesus ever delivered. Like, maybe Matthew chapter 5 verse 22.
Thank you for this video. The sad thing is the modern bibles attack 1 John 5:7 and Acts 8:37 and it's no coincidence that you mentioned those 2 scriptures. Those 2 are one of the most important scriptures to not tamper with.
Right off the bat you said something wrong, 00:04 which is superior the 00:07 um majority text or the Textus Receptus The alexandrinus texts are not the "Majority Text" that title is held by the Textus Receptus The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work, having over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian. The dates of these manuscripts range from circa 125. this is not counting the hundreds of quotes from the church fathers The false teachers of the minority text did something not long ago, in one of their ongoing revisions of the dead language they called that revision "majority text" trying to confuse people into thinking their text is the majority text, that is WILLFUL DECEPTION. codex vaticanus codex sinaiticus bezae papyrus 75 Last count I had there were 45 actual alexandrinus texts, they claim these are older, but The Majority Text has very old manuscripts as well, John Burgon was a Paleographer, and said in The Revision Revised. It matters nothing that all four are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant MSS. besides, but even from one another. This last circumstance, obviously fatal to their corporate pretensions, is unaccountably overlooked. I have a copy of sinaiticus, you do not have to be able to read the Koine Greek to see the many places where the text has been erased, as you can still see the text faintly like the ghost craters on the moon. The alexandrinus texts vaticanus and sinaiticus differ in 3,000 places just in the four Gospels alone. sinaiticus has been edited by 10 scribes between the 6th and 7th century, lines begun are suddenly stoped, lines ending in a clause are removed if the next line begins with the same clause. The alexandrinus texts are not the work of God but of man, the masorites had very strict rules, one mistroke of the pen, and the whole documents was thrown away, they counted letters, they counted to the middle letter, they could tell you how many letter were in each book. It was that dedication with God's help that preserved the "Majority Text" even those who hate the Majority text have sited reading supported by the majority text. Deu 17:16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. God said Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. not even to get horses, if they were not to return that way anymore why on earth would you think we should get our text from there? Alexandria bad, home of the gnostics, Act 6:9 Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen. The first mention of Alexandria are those arguing with Stephen who would later take part in stoning him. Paul being taken to his trial before Ceaser Act 28:11 And after three months we departed in a ship of Alexandria, which had wintered in the isle, whose sign was Castor and Pollux. The 2 ships taking Paul to his ultimate death were of alexandria. Again Alexandrian shown in negative way, do you really want to get your bible from there after the gnostics erased what they did not like and other editing done, is that How God brings us a text called His Word. I thank God for His continued preservation of His Word, the modern scholars hate the textus receptus and absolutely adore and love the catholic mutilated alexandrinus texts, Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever Since modern scholars hate the True text, it is safe from them trying to pervert it. The nestles/aland text is on revision 28, anyone who wants to stay current must run out and buy a new bible each time the nestles/aland text is revised, as bibles like everything else have a market saturation point, but if they keep revising the dead greek text, then new bibles can be printed and people buy the new bible, cha-ching cha-ching cha-ching laughing all the way to the money storage place. Oh and they have no plans whatsoever to stop revising their text, would you want to slay your cash-cow? Builtin or planned obsolescence works wonders to keep selling new bibles.
Thanks for commenting. My video wasn’t really about the Alexandrian text. This video is about the 1800 times the Textus Receptus departs from the majority of extant Byzantine witnesses. Blessings and thanks for watching.
@@narrowistheway77 Yes and Amen, there is afamine for the true words of God as the devil with his gnostic alexandrinus text has deceived many. The evidence is very plain to see, the sloppy editing, whole columbs erased but still visible. Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. God has promised to preserve His word, and the Hebrew and Greeks texts God inspired are still preserved, as the only changing/editing being done is to the alexandrinus texts.
Join the TH-cam Membership for only $1.99 a month for exclusive content: th-cam.com/channels/K13I_he8MsAidC9eDsfT3A.htmljoin
Let's stay in touch: mailchi.mp/2f83838c05df/biblical-studies-and-reviews
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I’m sorry to take up your time but I have a final question for today. I retired to the Dominican Republic and started attending a local church and accepted Jesus Christ as my savior. Most people here use a Reina-Valera version of the bible. I’d like a recommendation for a Spanish translated bible. I prefer English but I’d like to follow along in Spanish also.
The majority texts include the Textus Receptus. This is often confused with the "critical texts" or Alexandrian texts which are actually are in the minority.
The include it but they are not it.
Lord willing, I will be doing a re-do on this video soon. I would like to present the material in a way that would be more accessible based on some feedback I received. 🙂
I'd love to learn more about this stuff but I know nothing so when people start talking I don't know the definitions of terms. Whats the majority text? The TR came from that thru the Byzantine text etc etc and I'm lost. Do you have a entry level video or know of one for someone who doesn't even know the basic's , need to start from ground zero!!
@@70corwin th-cam.com/video/RkPufsUiQx0/w-d-xo.html try this one and see if it helps.
What do you think of digital bibles like Amazon's Appstore bibles?
@@Kens1966 I think there a good thing
Thanks for the video! It's really interesting to see the make up of the manuscripts we have. I find it amazing the sheer number of manuscripts of the NT we havenand how really there aren't that many meaningful differences. It's very encouraging.
17:08 It should be fruitful to point out that in the book by Jack Moorman you mentioned, he actually compares the number of 1800 differences between the TR and the MT and subtracts a whole bunch based on factors that make these differences irrelevant. For example, he subtracts 1179 variants alone on the basis that none of these variants affect the English wording. His final count cites only a very small number of 375 variants which affect translation between the TR and the MT! You can find this information on page 44, at least in the edition I have; it's under the heading "Summary of the HF departures from the text of the Authorized Version".
Thanks for that clarification and for watching!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews You're welcome and thank you for the video! God bless you!
Awesome analysis! When CSPMT was active, there was an entire page with lists where the various byzantine 'family' texts differed.
Thanks Dwayne!
Excellent video, a fine presentation. From my own studies, I find that the chief difference between the two is that the TR has Latin majority text readings from the Latin Vulgate, rather than Greek majority text readings, in some places. The most notable of these are I John 5:7 and Acts 8:37. However, such examples are rather few. Prior to modern times, the witness of the Church Fathers as to the readings was of critical importance. The differences between the MT and the TR are tiny compared to the differences between either of them and the modern Critical Text
Well put. Thanks for watching!
OK, I’m not sniping here rather this discussion has recently caught my attention although I believe there are some who put way too much emphasis on it. Here are a couple of questions for you:
1) when you say ‘modern Critical Text’ aren’t you speaking of the Alexandrian Text? The Critical Text is the Alexandrian Text, yes?
2) you also say ‘witness of the Church Fathers’ so I take it this has meaning for you. So if there is clear evidence (and there is) that the early/ancient Church Fathers used the Alexandrian Text in their writings, why do you label it as ‘modern?’
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews- you responded ‘well put’ to the original response. Would you mind responding to my questions?
@@fanman8102 The Critical Text is modern; Alexandrian readings are ancient. Some Church Fathers used (or seemed to use) Alexandrian readings from certain individual manuscripts (there never was an Alexandrian "text" or "family" as such in ancient times). The main purposes of the Critical Text are threefold 1) to prove that the Traditional (Ecclesiastical) Text is an artificially created, edited text; 2) to show that the Critical Text is closest to the "autographs" and 3) that two manuscripts from Egypt, Codex B and Codex Aleph, are the "best" manuscripts in existence, and closest to the autographs. That the Church Fathers quoted from what is today known as the Ecclesiastical Text is undeniable, although according to Critical Text theory such verses as Acts 8:37 should not exist and be quoted by a Church Father such as Ireneus, who lived long before Codex B was ever written. This is because Acts 8:37 is not found in Codex B or in Codex Aleph, and so its absence should "prove" that it only came into existence later and was inserted into the book of Acts for a "theological" purpose. The assertion of Westcott and Hort, (the two scholars who produced the initial Critical Text), that when these two manuscripts agree on the reading, then that reading must the true one, has been quite controversial. This Critical Text theory has been critiqued by some scholars, but generally they have been outsiders, and so have had almost no influence on the critical text guild of today. Two such scholars from Westcott and Hort's time were John Burgon and Herman Hoskier. Supporters of the Traditional Text in more recent times would be Edward Hills, Wilbur Pickering (who advocates for the "Majority Text") and Theodore Letis. Today's Critical Text is constantly being revised; it is not a sacred text at all in the traditional sense. Most churches today use the Critical Text, and this is not surprising, since it is promoted and used without question in most modern seminaries. The most significant holdouts who do not accept the Critical Text are the Orthodox Church, traditional Catholics, and some (by no means all) conservative Protestants.
@@fanman8102 the modern critical text relies heavily on the Alexandrian tradition but is not identical to the Alexandrian text type.
The oldest copy of the long Mark ending is 200 and something AD. The oldest reference by a preacher to long ending of Mark is 160 to 180AD.
If the long ending is not supposed to be there, then someone would have to conclude that it was added to Justin Martyr and Irenaus copy.
If the longer ending of Mark is original why is there multiple endings for for it?
@@datchet11 copiest
@@billyr9162 could you elaborate what you mean?
@@datchet11 because a copiest put what they thought was a supposed to be there. Copying and preserving manuscripts wasn't exactly easy as today.
@@billyr9162 I see, what do you think? Should mark end at verse 8 or is the longer ending original?
Thanks for the video and really appreciate the time you took to go through this. I wonder if it’s possible for someone to explain the whole time line on how and which translations were used to get to where we are today with different Bibles. I’m doing research on this to get a better understanding but getting my head around Received, Majority, Byzantine, Modern, Critical, Septuagint, mosaic texts is too hard for me to understand without how, why and when these terms are used and their relationship to the English Bibles we read today. If anyone can link me anything I would be very grateful.
I don’t know of one like that but I could make one if you like.
Let me try! First, it needs to be understood that we are talking here about the Greek Text of the New Testament, not the Hebrew of the Old Testament. When it comes to the Traditional Text, it is sometimes also called the Received Text (Textus Receptus), because it is deemed the sacred text "received by the Church". It is also called the Ecclesiatical Text (Text of the Church). It is also sometimes called the Byzantine Text, because this was the center of Greek Christianity in ancient times, and the area where followers of Christ were first called Christians (at Antioch). Some also incorrectly call it the "Majority Text" since its readings are found in the overwhelming majority of manuscripts (99%). However, the Majority Text is not quite the same as the Traditional Text, because the Traditional Text as some readings found in only a minority of Greek manuscripts. (In most instances, however, these minority Greek manuscript readings are Majority Latin manuscript readings). The Majority Text relies only on majority Greek Text readings. (The problem with this is that many manuscripts have perished and are no longer available for examination. It is also problematic where no Greek Majority reading exists, such as is the case with the book of Revelation.) It should be noted that there are currently two major and somewhat different versions of what is called the "Majority Text" in publication. The Textus Receptus exists in several versions, all of which differ very slightly from one another. However, it should be pointed out that these differences pale into almost insignificance compared to the differences they all have with the Critical Greek Text, which is based on manuscripts that come from Egypt and its city of Alexandria (hence the name "Alexandrian Text"). The scholars who produced the famous King James Version of 1611 used the Textus Receptus, although apparently they used more than one version of it. Contrary to a popular idea, they did not much use Erasmus's Greek New Testament Text. I hope this helps a little!
@@thomasjefferson6 Thanks for taking the time to explain this, I found your response very useful and informative.
Excellent analysis. Thank you!
Thank you!
Where can I buy the scrivener Text?
Trinitarian Bible Society
for the spanish version of the Reina Valera the first translation came out in 1569 and we got our translation from Beza not scribner and we had an update on The Reina Valera in 1602 way before there was a King James so you can see my frustration on hering the kjv onlyist say so much nonsense when we have had our translation 42 years before the kjv so i hope you understand my frustrations and we have a revision of the text every 40 years the most recent one was before the pandemic thank you very much for listening to my rant God bless you
We are quite familiar with the Reina Valera. My wife lived in Mexico most of her life and my in laws still live there.
You gave a good idea for a video!
What do you say about the difference between MT and TR on Rev 22:19. Is it true that erasmus got the word 'book' instead of 'tree' from the Latin version instead of MT. In this book of Scrivener's, does he mention it or say about the reason for the variation.?
Thanks.
interesting subject... and a rather rare subject... there are so much less work done in the area of the differences between the TR and the Majority Text, compared to the work done on TR vs critical text... pastor Moorman's work is good, and is in fact a pioneer work on the Majority Text in making the data so accessible to English readers... it is a shame that it's not more widespread ... and it may be that too many are just content with the marginal apparatus of the NKJV as an adequate source for the translatable differences between the TR, M-text and NU-text .... and it is very helpful, but it is not exhaustive ....
I agree with everything you wrote. I’m hoping to do a few more videos on this line. I realized from the feedback that I received that I need to break this down a little bit more.
Thank you for your presentation. I understand that the reason the Maj. Text is called that is because it is based on where the majority of the manuscripts agree rather than which texts are the oldest. I read that Erasmus used primarily the Codex Vat and Codex Sinaiticus for his translation but not the Byz text. If that is true then we would do well to use Byz as the basis and compare this with C V and C S. Your comments? Also, have you critiqued the Westcott & Hort text? Is it true that they used only C V & C S?
Yes I would like a review of the book that you mentioned, on the differences.
Very helpful video. Thanks!
Is there a standard majority text that's accepted like the one you showed or because there are differences between byzantine texts so he used the Latin Vulgate to determine which was the most accurate rendering where there was significant variation?
Really appreciate this video.
Thanks for the info. Are there any English translations that are based on the Majority Text? It seems that they are all either TR or Minority text.
I think that the KJV and the NKJV use the Textus Receptus for the New Testament. Are there any current bible translation that use the broader Byzantine Text? Thank you.
World English Bible. English Majority Text Version. But no major translations unfortunately
I've heard that the Mev translation is the same as the KJV and the NKJV.
I recently found your TH-cam channel and find myself hooked on your content. I’m a newly born again Christian and I’d like to know which Bible you would recommend?
I personally read from the KJV for a number of reasons. But some people find it too difficult to understand. I would suggest either the NKJV or the Legacy Standard Bible unless you are comfortable with the older English in the KJV.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews ok KJV, what are the number of reasons?
@@MegaTemptress this is old but still represents my view: th-cam.com/video/eCH3Gemt8Zg/w-d-xo.htmlsi=ttjQbopMyvxSNQTZ
What does it say in Hebrews 4:8 in the Byzantine? Joshua or Jesus like in the KJV?
It’s the same word. If you look at the Septuagint translation of Joshua it is the same Greek word as Hebrews 4:8. The intent of the author was clearly Joshua from the context, the KJV had a footnote which said ‘Jesus: that is, Joshua’
What is your absolute favorite Bible most accurate to The times of Jesus uncorrupted. I've always been a k jv & nkjv type of guy. Are those textus receptus?
That’s such a difficult question. The translation I use the most is the KJV. The NKJV is also a great translation from the TR. Both are TR based. Young’s Literal Translation is also a very good translation. My favorite translation on the Critical text side is the new Legacy Standard Bible.
Great video! Please do a Review on that book by Jack Mormon. Thank You!
I will do it!
Pastor Jack Moorman went to be with the Lord on 31 May 2021. His funeral took place yesterday. I visited him six days prior to his death. I played him a recording of the Johannine Comma (1John 5 verses 7-8) being chanted in a Greek Orthodox church. He was so happy to hear it and smiled even though he was extremely ill. Yes, I know it is not found in the Byzantine Text but the Greek Orthodox church has officially adopted it (or readopted, if it was lost). The authorized 1904 Greek New Testament of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (the Patriarchal Text) has ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος καὶ τὸ ῞Αγιον Πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι· καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ, τὸ Πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. It is chanted at least once a year on the Thursday of Meat Fare Week as part of the reading from 1John 4. 20 - 5. 21.
@@learnbiblicalgreek316 thank you for sharing this with us. I’m so sorry that he has passed away. What a touching story about the Johannine Comma and Pastor Moorman.
I appreciate your channel, here to learn from down under
Thanks for explaining this difference.
Thanks for watching!
Thanks for watching!
Okay, why modern version have put out half of the last book of Mark?
What's the issue with I John 5:7 does it really alter the meaning?
If anyone can share the few passages where the TR and CT agree against the MT, I would really appreciate.
Shouldn't be too many of them as I understand it...
There are more than you might think. I don’t have a list. But most of them are very minor indeed.
It's been kind of driving me nuts that you keep referring to the part in the Bible about the adulterous woman being difference between texts but you have not said WHAT the difference is. (I know I have heard that difference before, but darn it, my memory cells dropped it and I cannot remember! It was a very interesting difference.) I let go of most of the Bibles I don't want to use for study and don't know if I have a Bible with the other adultery version. Which Bibles can it be found in?
Most Bible translations will put the story in brackets and cast doubt on the whole story’s authenticity
1John 5:7,8 is supported by early Christians quoting it and is established in Michael Maynard's masterpiece "A Defense of 1John 5:7,8." It's also in the early Waldenses Itala version from AD 157.
I hadn’t ever heard of anything from the early Waldenses. Thanks for sharing
"It does not appear in Greek textual witnesses until the 14th century .... It is absent from all ancient translations of the Bible, even from the oldest evidence of the Vetus Latina and the Vulgate ... Erasmus excluded it as spurious from his Greek text and Latin translations of the New Testament in 1516 and 1519. However, in 1521 he included it in a separate edition of his Latin translation, and in 1522 he also included it in his third edition of the NT, both in the Latin and Greek texts (from min. 61), just to protect his edition of the NT from heresy. Thus it became part of the Textus Receptus. Since the 19th century it has again been omitted from critical editions. The Comma Johanneum is now generally regarded as a late insertion."
That’s false.
@@Aaroniii You can deny it, but it does not change the facts.
@@thesenate6636 I replied to Brian. I agree with you
The Ethiopian verse was acknowledge by the early church fathers who quoted it in the 1st century, to say it wasn't there in the original based on a manuscript from 1000 years later is incorrect.
I want this leather copy of scriveners.....I'm mad I cant find a copy. I also want a calfskin TBS Greek NT. Steven anderson, TA Desoto, and Dane Johannsen bought up all the remaining copies!!!! Arghhhhh!!! Lol
Hahahahaha! Someone told me yesterday they found the original Cambridge edition of the scrivener
Steven Anderson did that? According to himself he knows Greek and read the New Testament only twice in Greek. I wonder why he needed all of those 🤷🏻♂️
The Textus Receptus might not read completely like the original but it's the Bible for us now. We aren't going to find anything else. The Bible we have now is sufficient. Any version can be used as long as it teaches us how to be godly walking in the Light of Christ.
True. But in order to get as close as possible to the original text, we must have critical editions, like the Nestle-Aland 28th edition.
@@MaiaGothmog we won't find the original. It's lost. We're in the end times already. If we haven't found it yet I don't think we'll find it in another millennium.
@@JesusMessiahOnly We have the original with 99.5% certainty.
@@MaiaGothmog so why do you want to keep looking?
@@JesusMessiahOnly We are playing around with just the minutia of the text
Orthodox Church while the Book of Revelation was included in the Canon of Scripture, it was not permitted to be read publicly in the services of the Church. The Orthodox Church in America
Interesting… I have known Coptic Orthodox churches to read Revelation in entirety, toward the end of the calendar year, in public services.
@@DavidHalko The strongest evidence that the book of Revelation is not canonical in the Orthodox Church is that it is not publicly read in the Orthodox Church. The only exceptions to this are some Alexandrian churches and the monastery on the Isle of Patmos itself. Is the Book of Revelation Canonical in the Orthodox Church? August 15, 2018 · Fr. Stephen De Young
@@jamessheffield4173 - Orthodox commentaries on Revelation amount to commentaries on St. Andrew’s commentary. This reveals another way in which Revelation is unique among Biblical texts in the Orthodox Church, in that it is the only New Testament text that is canonical by virtue of having a very particular canonical interpretation.
August 15, 2018 · Fr. Stephen De Young
@@DavidHalko Interesting. Thanks. Blessings.
@@jamessheffield4173 🙏🏼❤️
The Textus Receptus consisted of the letters written by those in Antioch where the church started and those who wrote them were called Christians as a put down. There are 6500 manuscripts that support the KJV. The Modern Translations are supported by the Vatican's Textus Vaticanus and the other Sainaticus; neither of these texts agree with each other, neither of these texts have a start date, neither have any evidence of proof of accurace. The KJV is the Holy Bible before the Modern Translations (Thanks to Westcott and Hort) came to the scene. The KJV has a history dating back over 300 years, starting with Tyndale. The Textus Receptus is in storage in England and cannot be accessed or changed w/o the permission of thekeeper of the manuscripts, that have specific instructions that the Textus Receptus will not be touched or changed in any way. It too 50 Holy Spirit inspired men in 3 committees in three different locations who rotated their work with each other committee to check, double check and tripple check for scriptural accurance using the TR and the Bishop's Bible. These guys were profecient in all languages of the KJV which was Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.
The Douay-Rheims came before KJV
Everybody take a drink every time he says "Lets zoom down on the text". lol
As long as the drink is root beer, I’ll support that 😂
Great video I used to think that the majority text where one and the same
Well, i think quite a few people still think that. With only a 2% difference, I don’t think it’s a big mistake.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews if you could do a video on why the codex sinaticus transformed textual critiscm I managed to see the codex when it was in the british museum and was surprised how well preserved it was
@@lloydcrooks712 sounds like fun! I’ll see what I can do!
If you were to sue a critical text Bible which one would you use? Especially considering how much was changed in the 2020 NASB update
I would use the LSB.
LSB or ASV.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews thank you for the reply
Just curious, are you a KJV only advocate? Just trying to get an understanding regarding where you land on these issues. I watch all your videos but am not sure where you go sometimes in these discussions…
I am not KJV only. I love the KJV and it’s my favorite English translation. But I am not against other English translations. I think it’s a wonderful translation but it was translated by fallible humans. I’ve never claimed that it’s perfect. I merely claim that it’s amazing 😉
@@arrt3590 I’m unfamiliar with that one. Maybe you could help me.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews in the old KJV it says he killed the brother of Goliath, but many modern translations say he killed Goliath
@@arrt3590 I see. I haven’t investigated it. Why is that?
I’m confused. I thought the TR and the majority were the same. I thought the controversy was between the majority TR and the Alexandrian
The TR in the majority text are 98.5% the same. The TR disagrees with the majority text in over 1500 locations.
So Erasmus used the what is known as majority text from Antioch and created what became known as received texts but he differed in 1500 places?
@@owenmace8278- you didn’t ask me the question but from my understanding the TR was a compilation of several Greek NT produced by different men including Erasmus. All these separate editions were published in the 1500’s while the compilation (the TR) was published in 1633. They were all based in the majority text of the day (Byzantine) just as the Latin Vulgate, Tyndale’s NT, and several others were. The Alexandrian Text didn’t become used for Bible translation until after 1900. So the TR differs 1500 times from the majority text of the day, the Byzantine Text.
Thank you so much
Imagine spending your whole life reading/studying biblical manuscripts in many different languages and still not coming to the revelation, that Jesus Christ is God! We are called to believe!
It’s a shame that brilliant minds are wasted in not knowing that Jesus is Lord!
I love it.
This shows how the holy men of old "treated" the Word of God.
The fear of mistranslating His Word, brought with it a reverence we could only imagine.
You do have to come to the conclusion that if they didn't, they would feel as though they would be punished based on the writings they believed.
Additionally, of the KJV isn't the inspired, inerrant Word of God, then we have no Word of God, and thereby God not having the power to provide such. At some point, we need to remove what we think and feel based on the human aspect, and trust He has the ability to give us His preserved Word.
Holy men of old, wrote as the the Holy Spirit moved upon them to write.
Thanks for commenting Greg! I love the KJV. I wouldn’t quite invest it with the same authority as the originals, but it’s an amazing and beautiful translation. Hope you’ll find this channel helpful. Blessings!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews looking forward to some amazing content.
Personally, I believe there has to be a God inspired writing.
If we, as humans, say that there are errors, I have to hold that it's us...that need to understand what is there.
We are comparing our understanding and grading His word...
I don't think that's a position we can taute.
It only stands to reason that there has to be. Perfect Word out there for His Perfect Plan.... If not, then we have no hope, because the word is tainted.
Also, God would have failed in His attempt to have His Word in the hearts of mankind. And we both know, 'that ain't right' 😉
Indeed
💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviewsAnd where are the originals?
One question:
Do you agree the Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice?
Of course
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews That's great and so do I. Now, please, one more question:
Which Bible is our final authority?
@@olegig5166 I think it’s any Bible which accurately conveys the original Hebrew and Greek texts. If you are asking if I think that the KJV is the final authority (and sorry if you are not), I would say insofar as it accurately represents the original texts.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews ok, but doesn't that present a few problems?
One problem is are there not many, many Greek text which, in some places, do not agree with each other?
Another problem concerns the common layman who only reads English, loves the Lord and wishes to read and study the Lord's word as instructed.
Does this man need learn the Greek just to read a perfect New Testament?
If not then this man must depend on a "scholarly go between" to tell him what the word says. However this man knows the vail was torn and he is indeed the Temple of God, but to find the perfect word of God this layman must submit to another man's authority?
Does one actually feel this is the system intended by the Lord?
It's very confusing!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews let me give example of what I just said above:
We are talking about translations, therefore as a layman I turn to the scriptures for God's meaning of to "translate" or perhaps examples of the action.
In the KJV there are 3 examples of something being translated. One is the kingdom from Saul to David, while the other 2 deal with people, the Christian from death to life and Enoch from this world to Heaven.
I would note each of the 3 translations is an improvement, it's for the better.
However when we look at the same scriptures in the NIV, the NASV, the ESV, or the MEV no mention of translation is made.
What's the layman to do? How does one decide which is accurate?
Dr. David Fruchtenbaum
"The oldest Hebrew text we had was called the Masoretic text but then the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered and the time between the Dead Sea scrolls and the Masoretic text is a thousand years and there were some differences but they are very very minor and those minor differences do not change the actual content of that verse between saying he went to Jerusalem he went unto Jerusalem to and unto that's how slight the variant but doesn't change the meaning the man went to Jerusalem."
They began to translate the dead sea scrolls but got partway in, realizing they agree with the TR and they quit translating them, they sat dormant for nearly 70 years, they have since been put online and some are doing the translating, which shows you that with the scholars they have an agenda, if something fits their agenda they will publish it, if it does not fit like the dead sea scrolls agreeing with the TR then they let it sit dormant refusing to even finish the translating work they started.
Common 70 years and they still have not finished translating it? there is no lack of biblical scholars that could have worked on it, but no because it agrees with the TR they just refused to finish translating it, THAT IS AN AGENDA.
I’m not quite following. The Dead Sea scrolls do not contain the New Testament. I’m thinking you mean the Dead Sea scrolls support the Masoretic text, maybe.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews
Yes I should have been more specific, the dead sea scrolls support the Masoretic text, which is what was used to to give us our KJV old testament.
I am KJVO but I want to present this with solid evidence, both for my position and against the modern texts that are still being revised with no end in sight.
I do not wish to be a fanatic about the KJV but only to rely on the evidence, and even though it is one of my passions not to bring fanatical emotions into the discussion.
2Co 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
I represent Christ, so my actions and speech are a reflection on Christ, that is why I have to fight against becoming emotionally involved in my passions and to stay objective, something I do struggle with.
I believe we do have Gods word today in English in the KJV, and I believe that the modern versions based on the Alexandrinus texts are counterfeits from the devil.
Is there truth in them yes, as there are scriptures that are pretty much the same as in the KJV I believe that the gnostics in Alexandria took the true text and removed/changed the bits they did not like.
And that is why there are many similarities because there were many places that were not removed/changed, that is how the enemy operates, he will give us truth, and because we see and know that truth we then swallow his lies hook, line, and sinker.
He is the master counterfeiter, who is transformed into an Angel of light.
Col 1:14, Phil 2:6, 1 Tim 3:16, 1 Joh 5:7 Zec 13:6 Isa 7:14, these and many more have been corrupted by the Alexandrinus texts, some even being completely removed such as 1 Joh 5:7 and Mark 16:9-20
the modern scollars have this mindset
1: the KJV is always wrong
2: we do not have the perfect words of God and that God's word can be improved.
The KJV cannot always be wrong because there are places where the KJV and their modern bibles agree.
We are on the Nestles/Aland 28th revision of their Greek text, each revision renders the previous revision outdated or obsolete.
With each new revision they can print all new bibles in all of the popular bibles and all of each particular bibles flavor.
The NLT mens bible etc... for each version, its the perfect setup of planned or builtin obsolescence.
Wilbur Pickering has a great book on the New Testament. Isaac Newton investigated 1 John 5:7 and lays all the blame to the added text to Jerome.
The Masonretic text, which adopted Theodotians free-hand edited version of Daniel's prophecies of the arrival and return of Christ. The Old Greek has it right, but there is no proper English translation available. How many times shall I forgive my brother, until 7 times? I say unto you, not until 7 times, but until 70 times 7. 3,430 years from the Exodus, Dan. 9:15. The 70 weeks is missing an additional 7 on the date for the return of Christ.
Some people spend years.
Indeed.
The received text is the majority text.
James white is a student and follower of Bruce Metzger 😢
The more the KJV is criticized, the more I prefer it. I grew up with it, I study it, and I memorize it.
I love the KJV too.
Acts 13:17-21 are still wrong in both TR and MT readings according to the earlier manuscripts. It should say the 450 years is the entirety of the time from when the Israelites became slaves until the anointing of Samuel as a prophet.
GOD Bless! ❤️
Thanks for sharing that!
I would be very hesitant to assume the TR/MT are in error because of any apparent problem in chronology. It could be that the TR/MT are correct and that this "problem" text actually is a key to understanding something about redemptive history. See "Bible Chronology: The Two Great Divides" by J. A. Moorman. He refers to the work of Edward Denney who first proposed a solution in 1849 in "Forgiveness Seventy and Sevenfold". The solution may be there are two different calendars and that in the redemptive calendar God does not count years of broken fellowship. If Denney's solution is correct then a logical inference would be that one reason God placed such a thorny problem in the Bible was to reward a faith based approach to scripture that would, in His timing, confirm the true text when it was under attack by rationalism. If this "error" is not an error then any contradictory minority readings were harmonized which shows them to be untrustworthy witnesses.
So, I suppose a good question may be, why is Critical text even used? Because it's older? How ridiculous.
Why is it ridiculous? The older the text the less likely errors have been introduced into it.
@@dondgc2298 unless the correct manuscripts were used so much they had to chance to survive, and the surviving older text with differences were not used because the differences were considered mistakes.
In Christianity, the term Textus Receptus (Latin for "received text") refers to all printed editions of the Greek New Testament from Erasmus' Novum Instrumentum omne (1516) to the 1633 Elzevir edition.[1] It was the most commonly used text type for Protestant denominations.
In the textual criticism of the New Testament, the Byzantine text-type (also called Majority Text, Traditional Text, Ecclesiastical Text, Constantinopolitan Text, Antiocheian Text, or Syrian Text) is one of the main text types.
The Textus Receptus for whatever reason, I was sure was also the majority text, in KJV circles I have heard Textus receptus and Majority text bandied about together, it is never prudent to assume anything, one must always be willing to factcheck everything, which I did not.
The Text of the KJV all of the manuscripts are in 99% agreement.
I have Sinaiticus, I know about the CFA being solid white while the rest has been darkened by a forger,
Porfiry Uspensky, a Russian bishop visited St.Catherine's in 1845, the year after Tischendorf. He said all of it was WHITE!
I have images of Sinaiticus, I can show the white contrasted against the dark, the CFA (Codex Friderico-Augustanus) still exists and is still juust as white as it ever was, back in the 1800s forgers would use coffee or tea to stain the pages of a book to make it look older than it was, why? MONEY the forgers are after making ill gotten gain by creating forgeries.
That is exactly what Tischendorf did, he darkened Sinaiticus and the modern day scholars go goo goo gaga over that forgery.
How about this, how about running chemical analysis on it to see what that darkening actually is, ya right do you really think they are gonna do that when hundreds of millions of dollars worth of modern bibles would be riding on such results, not in this lifetime.
Thanks for your comment. I haven’t spent much time researching the forgery stuff.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews
I have watched the entire series of David Daniels on Sinaiticus, I learned a lot, it starts at 01 and goes through 19 video blogs just on Sinaiticus.
Although he does not say so, the things he brings out are the things that a Paleographer like John Dean Burgon would bring out.
I for me the devil is in the details, how modern scolars fawn over Vaticanus and Sinaiticus just does not make sense, we have the TR with over 5000 Greek manuscrips and those are 99% in agreement.
For example of the 620 manuscripts that contain The Gospel of mark only two of them do not contain Mark 16:9-20
618 of them have those verses. That's all 600 minuscules (that's lower case letters), all 15 uncials (that's upper case letters), and 3 of 5 codices (you know, "big books") Only 2 of the 620 leave out those verses: The Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus.
And modern bibles are based on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus for the most part, yes Beza, ans Papyrus 75, as well as Codex Alexandinus and a few others.
Like I said I have a copy of Sinaiticus and anyone with working eyes can see the editing, can see the erasing/deletions of whole columbs!!! but they are still just visible and with good photo software like Adobe Photoshop those slightly visible texts can have contrast and other filters applied to make that text stand out clearer.
all we have to go by is God's word, it is imperitive that we have that which is His word and not the enemies counterfeit,
2Ti 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
Wrong doctrine and even the wrong "God's word" overthrows faith, only the true word of God builds true faith.
Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
If Satan wanted to corrupt God‘s word in the most effective place he could, he would likely pick the first sermon that Jesus ever delivered. Like, maybe Matthew chapter 5 verse 22.
Thank you for this video. The sad thing is the modern bibles attack 1 John 5:7 and Acts 8:37 and it's no coincidence that you mentioned those 2 scriptures. Those 2 are one of the most important scriptures to not tamper with.
Maybe the “tampering” was inserting them into the TR.
❤KJV
He’s Catholic and one isn’t. The Catholics hate one love the other. That’s the difference
Right off the bat you said something wrong,
00:04
which is superior the
00:07
um majority text or the Textus Receptus
The alexandrinus texts are not the "Majority Text" that title is held by the Textus Receptus
The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work, having over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian. The dates of these manuscripts range from circa 125. this is not counting the hundreds of quotes from the church fathers
The false teachers of the minority text did something not long ago, in one of their ongoing revisions of the dead language they called that revision "majority text" trying to confuse people into thinking their text is the majority text, that is WILLFUL DECEPTION.
codex vaticanus
codex sinaiticus
bezae
papyrus 75
Last count I had there were 45 actual alexandrinus texts, they claim these are older, but The Majority Text has very old manuscripts as well,
John Burgon was a Paleographer, and said in The Revision Revised.
It matters nothing that all four are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant MSS. besides, but even from one another. This last circumstance, obviously fatal to their corporate pretensions, is unaccountably overlooked.
I have a copy of sinaiticus, you do not have to be able to read the Koine Greek to see the many places where the text has been erased, as you can still see the text faintly like the ghost craters on the moon.
The alexandrinus texts vaticanus and sinaiticus differ in 3,000 places just in the four Gospels alone.
sinaiticus has been edited by 10 scribes between the 6th and 7th century, lines begun are suddenly stoped, lines ending in a clause are removed if the next line begins with the same clause.
The alexandrinus texts are not the work of God but of man, the masorites had very strict rules, one mistroke of the pen, and the whole documents was thrown away, they counted letters, they counted to the middle letter, they could tell you how many letter were in each book.
It was that dedication with God's help that preserved the "Majority Text" even those who hate the Majority text have sited reading supported by the majority text.
Deu 17:16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
God said Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. not even to get horses, if they were not to return that way anymore why on earth would you think we should get our text from there?
Alexandria bad, home of the gnostics,
Act 6:9 Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen.
The first mention of Alexandria are those arguing with Stephen who would later take part in stoning him.
Paul being taken to his trial before Ceaser
Act 28:11 And after three months we departed in a ship of Alexandria, which had wintered in the isle, whose sign was Castor and Pollux.
The 2 ships taking Paul to his ultimate death were of alexandria.
Again Alexandrian shown in negative way, do you really want to get your bible from there after the gnostics erased what they did not like and other editing done, is that How God brings us a text called His Word.
I thank God for His continued preservation of His Word, the modern scholars hate the textus receptus and absolutely adore and love the catholic mutilated alexandrinus texts,
Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever
Since modern scholars hate the True text, it is safe from them trying to pervert it.
The nestles/aland text is on revision 28, anyone who wants to stay current must run out and buy a new bible each time the nestles/aland text is revised, as bibles like everything else have a market saturation point, but if they keep revising the dead greek text, then new bibles can be printed and people buy the new bible, cha-ching cha-ching cha-ching laughing all the way to the money storage place.
Oh and they have no plans whatsoever to stop revising their text, would you want to slay your cash-cow?
Builtin or planned obsolescence works wonders to keep selling new bibles.
Thanks for commenting. My video wasn’t really about the Alexandrian text. This video is about the 1800 times the Textus Receptus departs from the majority of extant Byzantine witnesses. Blessings and thanks for watching.
To this comment I have a passage for you to keep in mind. Amos 8:11-14. This was promised in advance.
GOD Bless! ❤️
@@narrowistheway77
Yes and Amen, there is afamine for the true words of God as the devil with his gnostic alexandrinus text has deceived many.
The evidence is very plain to see, the sloppy editing, whole columbs erased but still visible.
Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
God has promised to preserve His word, and the Hebrew and Greeks texts God inspired are still preserved, as the only changing/editing being done is to the alexandrinus texts.
Egyptians called the Messiah god... We need another exodus from their idolatry.
Forget the
western.
Byzantine.
Majority.
Critical and the
Alexandrian texts, because they are all erroneous texts.
FALSE TEACHER!!
Why are you calling me a false teacher on this video?
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviewssome troll posts are best ignored. You don’t need to defend yourself to those people. Thanks for the video.
They are completely different. One is Jesuit catholic the other is not.
❤KJV
❤KJV