Is The Majority Text The Word Of God?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ก.ย. 2024
- Pastor Steve Waldron, New Life of Albany - Albany, Ga
What Bible Text is Gods preserved Word? Byzantine, Alexandrian, Textus Receptus, Eclectic, Western, Ceasarean? We take a look. God bless!
newlifeofalbany...
I’m so thankful I grew up with the KJV, in an A/G church, with godly parents who were bible teachers and studied the Word of God at home with me. When you know the truth, you can spot a false doctrine a mile a way.
Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Indeed it is.
Yes.
I prefer the Majority Text due to so much of value that would be lost with only a Critical Text- the doxology of the Lord's Prayer, the Woman caught in adultery, the longer ending of Mark.
But I do have to admit doubt that I John 5:7's Three Witnesses in Heaven was part of the original.
However, I would not say that Critical Text NT's are not the Word, just not as much Word as the Majority Text ones, akin to each Testament is God's Word but not in fulness without each other,
Wondering if there is a book or other resource that is a good starting place as an introduction to textual criticism? I'm sure it's been asked and answered many times here, thank you in advance
Forever settled by moorman
The King James Only Controversy by Dr James White
The Question of Canon by Dr Michael Kruger
Canon Revisited by Dr Michael Kruger
Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament
Dr Daniel Wallace
(This book is a response to those who says the NT has been corrupted. It argues the preservation of, not corruption of)
I’d start with those, If you want to know why there’s an argument against KJV-only-ism.
@@apostolicclips thank you! These books destroy reasonable KJVO.
@@apostolicclips James White is a Calvinist. Calvinism is an unbiblical doctrine. I have heard what these people have to say, and have also listened to the KJVO folks. At the end of the day, I cannot endorse any bible translation that leaves out or adds scripture. Here’s what the bible says:
18 For I testify unto every man that hearth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plaques that are written in this book:~
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Revelation 22:18-19 KJV
@@RUT812 I’m very well aware of what Dr. White believes. I also recommended Dr. Kruger’s books too. He’s also a Calvinist. I’m also aware that the aforementioned are theological opponents of ours. I just recommended their books because they’re scholarly works. I’m Apostolic to the core, and I love the KJV. But I can’t endorse it in the same way that KJV-Onlyists do. The evidence is against it. That said, I’m a KJV-Preferred person; I appreciate, love, and even prefer the KJV, but I don’t believe in its supremacy.
What? There's no church father or different texts? Is that a pentecostal view of text?
It seems like your argumentation comes from the belief that the KJV is perfect. You do know that the KJV doesn’t translate everything correctly from the TR? The argument that “They (KJV Scholars) were the best at this or that...” is not a good argument. Anyone who knows how to read the NT in Greek will tell you that the KJV doesn’t correctly translate the TR in every place. And the Majority Text is probably the best text out there, and is definitely above the TR and CT in terms of accuracy. The TR, though a faithful text, contains some readings not found in most manuscripts. The Majority Text does correct this by looking at ALL of the Greek manuscripts available, and removing the readings with very little support. A good MT translation I would recommend is the EMTV translated by Paul Esposito. And I think the best TR translation available is the KJ3 translated by Jay P. Green. Regardless, I believe both translations and texts can be called the Word of God, in the sense that they both keep the essential doctrines of the Christian faith, and the variants between them are very little, and mostly unimportant in terms of doctrinal issues. I can’t really say the same for the CT though, because there is definitely some questionable things in that text. For me, I prefer the MT over the CT and TR based on the research I’ve seen, but I still love the TR, and I read mainly from my KJ3
Here KJ3 online: www.obohu.cz/bible/index.php?styl=KJ3
Blessings
So basically you are saying the Kjv could be perfect so far as you know, seeing how the other references cited are not proven to be more accurate. So it’s a matter of opinion? The kjv translators used hundreds of sources of Tr works, unlike J P Green, etc, etc. I wouldn’t give a plug nickel to anyone who can read the Greek Text. No translation of any writing is verbatim from any one language to another. Anyone who can’t read the NT in Greek knows that. Why do Greek readers overlook that, should be the question. Yes, kjv translators were far superior scholars compared to today’s liberal modernists that most everyone seems to hold in such high regard. I’m still waiting for a remotely reasonable argument against the superiority of the KJV.
Brian Haley The KJV translators didn’t have access to all the Greek manuscripts we have today. I’m not doubting their scholarly integrity for a second. And I definitely agree with you that modern scholars are not better then them in that regard. But we have access to many more manuscripts and we have plenty of new info that they didn’t have when translating the KJV.
Jay P. Green used the exact same manuscripts the KJV translators used, and translated them literally word-for-word. In doing so, he corrected some translation errors in the KJV. What I’m saying is that they did not translate every word correctly in the KJV, and it’s perfectly ok to revise it.
Even the KJV translators themselves put translation notes that offered different renderings, and they made it quite clear that they didn’t hold a KJV only view. In fact, they were all for revisions and new translations to be made in the future. And one of those is the KJ3.
Now, I wouldn’t even call the KJ3 perfect. It certainly doesn’t translate everything correctly, but it is more literal then the KJV, which is why I prefer it. Though my preference is the KJ3, it is factual that it is more accurate then the KJV in terms of translation, and the KJV translators themselves were ok with revisions and new translations like this!
My whole point is that you can’t use this argument that “These scholars had good resources and were the best at...” as an argument, because that is simply a statement and doesn’t prove anything. I could show you examples of where the KJ3 corrects the KJV as proof?
In conclusion, I respect the KJV and am all for reading it. It’s an amazing translation that has stood the test of time. But to tell people that “Oh, this is the best! Don’t read those other modern bibles.” Is just wrong. Some people cannot read old English. One of the reasons I don’t personally use the KJV is because the archaic words and such, which is why I’d personally recommend a revised or newly translated one to people, though I wouldn’t tell them not to read the KJV as well. Again, I respect the KJV and all the good that has come from people using it over the years, but I don’t think it’s the best translation available
@@JesusIsLord-sp9tu I would only agree with using any other translation available, from the same textual sources and never from the Critical text.
I pray you're not controlled opposition, for the R.C.C..
You have a plan video about the church fathers quotes on the majority/TR & fragments?
I’ve done a review on Morman’s book on the subject.
Before Erasmus was there a completely compiled NT in the Maj. Text? If there was I assume it was just not in Greek...
Hello Pastor. What book/s by Burgon would you recommend?
All that I know of.
The revision revised is a must have for your library.
@@Brandaniron tough reading though, you gotta have your thinking hat o haha
Wow 😳
Uhhh oh you don’t seem to agree with James white on a few things.
And he put James White and Ray Comfort in the same group. That hurt my head. haha
That is correct. And I meant Philip Comfort not Ray Comfort!
I knew that had to be s mistake. I can watch Ray’s street preaching and teaching all day every day, I can’t watch James White for 30 seconds before I’m ready to move on.
What Bible has the Majority Text?
In English that’s a long story. Maybe the World English Bible?
Reading the World English Bible (WEB) based on the majority text. Much more accurate than the poorly translated KJV. Of cource KJV only cultists will disagree.
Are you a non-KJV cultist?
@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa No.
If you can find anti nicene fathers quoting from the westcott and Hort compilations texts that are not in the king James then wouldn't that validate those verses?
Is there such a thing?
Yes there, and no it does not. it just means corruptions entered the Text very early. See Burgon and Hills on that. God bless you!
@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa
Thanks but I can't find anything on those people you reference. There's a bunch of people named that in the world.
@@billyr9162 Dean Burgon. Edward F. Hills.
@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa
Are there verses in the NIV that did not appear in copies for hundreds of years as well?
@@billyr9162 Not to my knowledge.
“They are vary wrong” ok where did you study to see how they are wrong and go talk to one of those men and see how quickly you would louse your LJVO arguments.
It’s always funny to see what KJVO people say.