Talking Byzantine/TR with pastor DOUG WILSON!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ส.ค. 2024
- Today I had the opportunity to talk with Pastor Doug wilson about his preference for the Byzantine text type. We had a chance to talk about the Textus Receptus and why he chooses to use the King James Version, or the KJV. We also talk a little bit about modern Bible translations and about Mark Ward's 'false friends'.
Canon Press:
/ canonpress
Blog and Mablog:
/ @blogmablog4870
Pastor Doug's Blog:
dougwils.com/
~~~ RESOURCES ~~~
Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible:
www.christianbook.com/authori...|legacy&Ntk=keywords&event=ESRCP
~~~ CONTENTS ~~~
0:00 Introduction
0:46 Why Pastor Doug prefers the Byzantine text
2:14 Jots and tittles
3:58 Which type of Byzantine text do you prefer?
5:08 Is the TR Perfect?
6:10 Why then do you use the KJV?
7:34 Translation philosophy
8:05 I wouldn't mind the NKJV but...
9:10 Mark Ward and his False Friends
11:04 the word 'wilily'
12:00 Are you KJV only?
13:29 The practice of the church in modern translations
14:12 How can we work together as Christians despite textual preferences?
14:56 Conclusion
#ByzantineText #KingJamesVersion #DougWilson
Thank you two . Wonderful a breath of fresh air.
I really appreciate that you edit out the "ums" and pauses in your interviews
This is great! Love that you did this, Dwayne. I really respect Pastor Wilson.
Thanks Stephen!
I am so glad to hear this from Doug Wilson. It is so good to hear a well studied pastor defending the preservation of the Word of God!
I'd love to hear a discussion on this topic between Pastor Wilson and James White. I respect both of them a great deal, I'm sure it would be a very enlightening discussion.
Wow! Love Pastor Doug! Great interview! ❤️
Great interview!
Always like hearing Doug Wilson's views. Good interview
Thanks David!
Excellent discussion
Just found your channel and really enjoying these conversations. I’m a fan of the nkjv and see it as having a growing readership as we move through time. I think we have definitely reached peak ‘textual criticism’!
Loving the setup of the studio! Great discussion.
Thanks Jonathan!
Great points from Doug Wilson , not only about Byzantine/TR text but also comments on our "translated faith," modern translation copyrights, KJV issues, Mark Ward, etc.
Great interview Dwayne. Pastor Wilson has strong opinions but still maintains a great attitude and what appears to be a loving spirit
Thanks Jon! I agree, he's very charitable when it comes to Bible translations. He's principled in his use of the KJV, but not 'prickly' :)
Thanx, Gentlemen. Great work, Dwayne. 🌹🌹🌹🌹
Glad you enjoyed it!
Just stumbled on this site. I really appreciate the discussion. That said, in 1985, I was getting a haircut at my barbershop.( yes, barbershop, not salon), and as my pastor was being dusted off with Pinaud Clubman talic, I asked him “ what the best or most accurate translation “? He said, why the New King James- it just came out, go pick up a copy.
Ha! If you browse around in my videos, you'll find that the NKJV is my favorite! Thanks for stopping by :)
Love Pastor Doug!
Great vid! I always seem to float back to the TR as most legit
I'm not fully there with the TR, but i'm certainly closer in textual affinity to the TR than the CT.
very good video... nicely done... :)
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it!
Good interview. I enjoyed hearing Doug Wilson speak. He wasn't even on my radar until fairly recently, and since so much of what is said about him in secular culture and/or by pseudo-Christian clergy is adamantly negative, I had wondered about his beliefs. I was actually doing some online searches about him, and so this video of yours was a welcomed opportunity to hear him in his own words.
Also, in your video, it sounds like you cited the reference to "wilily" in the book of Joshua (in the KJV) as being found in chapter *five* verse 4. Maybe I heard wrong; my ears are almost 69 years old. If not, I'm guessing that it was just a misstatement in the moment, since the adverb is found in chapter *nine* verse 4. And Collins and Merriam-Webster give its definition as "in a wily or cunning manner," and its pronunciation as ˈwī-lə-lē.
It took some time for me to make the connection to 'wil e cyote!" from the Bugs Bunny show!
Great to hear a well articulated perspective from the “other” side
Opened an email from Pastor Doug and he had linked this video. I have no doubt, the Holy Spirit prompted me to open that email, and watching this video was an answer to prayer. Finding myself in a dilemma related to KJVO and hearing Pastor Doug's breakdown and his thoughts just bought me so much peace on this subject. He is a Pastor and scholar who's opinion i highly appreciate and respect, and I'm so grateful you had him on and he linked this interview.
Looking forward to watching more of your content. God bless the good work you are doing!
Thank you for this! The goal of my channel is to present and encourage dialogue among believers who may have different 'textual preferences'. I hold to a more to a Byzantine tradition than a TR tradition, but they much closer than the current critical text. Either way, I don't believe this is an issue that believers need to be dividing over.
Would love to hear both of your thoughts on Geneva 1599.
Great interviews Dwayne!
Thanks Daniel!
I love the NKJV its my favorite
Same here! I use it for everything (but you probably heard me say that in the video! lol)
By choosing the TBS as his starting point, it seems he has shifted slightly from the position he took with Dr. White where he said: I should also say at this point that since I am not arguing for one perfect TR sample under glass in a museum, but rather for a penultimate TR with a teleological future, it is possible to have more than one penultimate version. It could be Stephanus (1550), and it could be Elzevir (1633). We shall see.
I would love to know what further developments have taken place in his thinking on the subject.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Good observation! I'm not entirely sure but it would be interesting to find out. It could be he may just be simplifying the discussion given our limited time.
@@Dwayne_Green could be. It’s hard to get too deep in the weeds in 15 minutes. But I thought you both did a good job. At one point he sounded like Mark 16 was a problem within the Byzantine tradition, which I thought was odd. But I can’t imagine he actually thinks that it’s a problem for any variety of Byzantine advocate.
I wonder what his perspective on the 1560 GENEVA Bible is since it predates the KJV by 50 years and was translated using the same textual basis as the KJV.
I'm not sure, but in just guessing... I think he would be okay with it.
Dwayne, have you produced a video or do you know of one that describes the differences between the Textus Receipts, Byzantine text, Majority Text, Alexandrian Text, and the Critical Text. As a laymen, I get very confused. It seems like some of these are the same or they overlap. I am looking for something simple that can break these all down. Thanks, Adam
Your the second person that has asked this! So I might just put something together in the next few weeks! I don't know of anyone off the top of my head that has compared all of them, but to tie you over... The Byzantine Text and the Majority are so similar, they could ALMOST be considered the same text, then there's the Textus Receptus which is similar to the Byz/Majority with the exception of some 'minority' reading... For example the Three heavenly witnesses and the Ethiopiean Eunich.
The Alexandrian text is touted to be a localized text found in the early centuries in alexandrian Egypt and it's noted for typically having shorter readings, according to some, it didn't contain the Long ending of Mark as an example.
then the Critical, is modern scholars attempt at reconstructing the original text, and tends to favour Alexandrian readings though recently has opened to some Byzantine readings.
I know its' SUUUPPPER quick, but hope that clarifies things a bit for you. I tend to hold to something closer to a Byzantine text.
@@Dwayne_Green Thanks Dwayne. That is helpful. I hope you do put something more detailed together for us laymen. Thank you my brother.
@@Dwayne_Green I just came across an excellent article by Daniel Wallace "The Reliability of Bible Manuscripts" on page 2585 of the ESV Study Bible which clarified some of my questions.
Just curious, why do expand/widen/blow-up your head or the heads of your interviewees when editing? :)
just trying out different editing styles. Mostly breaks up the monotony of staring at two talking heads :)
Here is an interesting idea is to update the kjv using the kjv not the Greek and Hebrew. Also only use people who are not influenced positively by the critical texts I would be interested to see what comes out
Good interview, but I was surprised to hear the story about the word “wilily”. Surely he’s watched Wile E. Coyote before.
I certainly have, but for some reason, my brain didn't make the connection!
Sir, I believe the word you referred to in Joshua -- "wilily" ... has its root in "wile" (i.e. a trick or stratagem) not in "will" -- so "wilily" is the adverb form of "wile"... right?
I don't know... Never encountered that word until I read through Joshua in the KJV.
Which books can you recommend to me that support the majority text please I'm interested in?
There's a bunch :) Read the preface to the Byzantine Textform and the appended essay. Same with the Majority Text. Sturz book "The Byzantine Text-type and New Testament Textual Criticism", also this: ancientworldonline.blogspot.com/2020/04/festschrift-for-maurice-robinson-on-line.html
That will get you started :)
This discussion needs to be continued. God willing.
Thanks James! I enjoyed the discussion with Pastor Doug, but I only had a limited amount of time with him.
@@Dwayne_Green I have enjoyed your You Tubes of Text Criticism. A rational discussion between the different schools is needed. INMOHO Blessings
WOW…nothing like starting off with a confession that he believes his confession OVER Scripture, instead of as a SUMMARY of Scripture like the writers meant it as!
Need some help brothers and sisters… I’ve been reading and listening to anything and everything on modern text criticism, majority-Byzantine and TR evidence. I heard or read someone stating that some of the patristic writings contained 1 John 5:7 ( three heavenly witnesses) but I don’t remember the church father… does anyone know where these quotes are from? Blessings
There is a website which allows you to search a scripture reference and church father quotes come up with the book written and author. Sometimes they are legitimate and sometimes not but it is useful because sometimes they are legitimate. Let me know if you need help finding it
Kongebarn has a good video to see. It's Proof that the textus receptus & traditional text preceeds the critical text.
John’s disciple Poly Carp quotes 1 John 5:7, as does Cyprian(lived 200-248 AD)was martyred. Besides the handful of Greek manuscripts, it’s in the three oldest Bibles. The Syrian, and the Greek Orthodox from the mid to late 2nd century(in English they only use the KJV). The Oldest is the Old Latin Started by the Apostle John, Poly Carp, and Papias around 90 AD, completed by Poly Carp, Papias, Irenaeus, and Tertullian around 130-140 AD.
Thank you so much for clarifying that Douglas Wilson is not remotely associated with the false teacher Peter Ruckman.
What’s false, specifically?
Doug Wilson looks like Obi Wan Kenobi speaking through a Holoprojection machine.
too funny
Interesting interview, but why the constant zooming in and out. It’s distracting to the conversation.
Some people like it, yet other don't... I'll have to play around with my editing techniques to find a good balance, it's a lot harder than it looks! :)
I think it’s smart that you use it to accent points made, but it is still distracting.
“Wilily” is like the “wiles” of the devil.
Cambridge owns copyright on the KJV. Look on their website.
Cambridge only has copyright on the Cambridge text, which is slightly different than the Oxford. Their copyright only applies in England, and If I am correct, they don’t even enforce it.
@@j.alexandermyersen1176 But there is a copyright. You will need to correct this in a video.
@Artemus Bowdler But if you buy a Thomas Nelson KJV or Hendrickson KJV, there is no copyright. Here in the USA, we don't recognize the British Crown's patent of the KJV due to a little something that started on the 4th of July, 1776.
MERICA! 🇺🇸
I’m sorry but I’ve never been able to make sense of choosing Textus Receptus that was made by Scrivener in 1889 that was made to exactly match all of the decisions made by the KJV translators and pretending you’re choosing an actual ancient Greek text. The KJV exactly matches none of the actual Greek manuscripts exactly, none of the original TR’s perfectly, and none of the majority texts perfectly. This isn’t debatable. Why do KJV people pretend it does match any TR except the one that was reverse made in 1889?
I'm not a TR guy, but Scriveners goal wasn't to 'pretened to choose an ancient Greek Text'. It was actually a response to a request by the Convocation of Canterbury to produce a Greek text for comparison with the Revised Version. I did a video on this a while back you may find helpful :)
th-cam.com/video/P-gthv-y34E/w-d-xo.html
@@Dwayne_Green , I’m not saying that his intention was to deceive. I’m saying that’s what his TR is. A TR using all of the decisions that the KJV translators made
@@shawnglass108Well, there isn’t too much difference between Scrivener and Beza. When they didn’t go with Beza they went with one of the other Greek texts available. Kind of like if the ESV went with NA28 most of the time but sometimes Tyndale House or another Greek text.
@@yahrescues8993, I’m not sure what your point is.
@@shawnglass108 The readings in Scrivener will be in one of the texts produced in the reformation, usually it is in Beza 1598.
Wait a minute! If the word of God has been preserved all down through history, then those older less used texts also contain the word of God. And should not be avoided either. That is where the Critical Text comes from.
Well the Alexandrian type text are basically three manuscripts: Alexandrianus(Westcott & Hort), Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Sinaiticus. The Alexandrianus is from the time of Jerome(1700 years ago). The Alexandrian’s were cultists, mostly gnostics with other religions mixed in. They had made their own versions of the NT, all pre-Nicene church fathers(except those from Alexandria- Origen(a heretic), only used Bible manuscripts from Antioch, it was considered the only authorized place to get them from. Jerome got ahold of a copy from Alexandria, and compared it with the Antioch manuscripts. He said that the Book of Revelation 50 from when John penned it was totally corrupt from Alexandria! The rest of the NT was corrupted by the end of the 2nd to the beginning of the 3rd century. So Jerome along with the other leaders invoked Jewish scribble protocols for them to be destroyed(burned). All known copies were gathered up, and burned. The Alexandrian’s were so rebellious, hard hearted, and unrepentant they managed to bury one copy, this is what Westcott & Hort found. Now the Vaticanus was supposedly found in 1475, with absolutely no prior history whatsoever? Erasmus was given the Vaticanus by the Catholic Church when putting together the first complete Greek NT. He examined it, and found it to be a fraudulent/fake made in that time period. He knew that he was being watched, scrutinized, and pressured by Rome. Knowing what was done to John Wycliffe, he was very careful. Most people think that Erasmus only had a few late copies of the NT, but that is false he knew where to go to get them. He wrote that he had multiple dozens of copies from Antioch, or was directly traced back to Antioch. Also the story that he back translated the end of Revelation is false, he said he had the manuscripts. All the reformers were aware of the Vaticanus, and knew that it was false as well. Now the Sinaiticus, this was made by Constantine Simonides in the early 1800’s. Dave Daniels of Chick Publications systematically shows that this is a fact, Constantine Tischendorf was a money hungry, liar. He also shows proof though independent chemical testing that the ink used on the Sinaiticus, both the color pictures, and the black ink written parts that the pigments are 19th century! So we have the corrupted Alexandrianus, the fraudulent/fake Vaticanus, and the fraudulent/fake Sinaiticus! This is part of the Alexandrian cult, and the modern church has been deceived. To the extent of making so called bibles from demonic manuscripts! They are not the inspired word God! The Majority Text/Byzantine type, and the TR are!
No. Textual criticism gets it right. The office church got influenced by the changing politics and culture of the Roman empire
The example you gave of 'wilily' o being an example of a false friend is a poor example.
"wilily", "wily" and "wile" have the same root.
We are very familiar with the phrase, "be careful/aware of the wiles of the evil one/devil".
If you know the meaning of "wile/wiles" then you should know the meaning of "wily" or "wilily".
The problem is not one of a false friend, but rather it's a problem with our breadth of knowledge of English grammar.
In fact, I heard a sermon yesterday which used the word "wily" repeatedly in reference to Jacob.
By the way, I do believe false friends exist. Just wanted to correct the example given.
Yes and I think it should be pronounced so that it rhymes with the word “smile” as in like the wiles of the devil. So wilily almost like the coyote. Wile E. Coyote: (Genius). In the old cartoon. He always call him self a genius lol
The KJV is definitely copyrighted and always has been. However, people in the United States simply ignore the English Copyright.
This is a common misconception. The "copyright" on the Authorised Version (AV) in the UK is not a true copyright in the modern legal sense and practise, it being under Letters Patent that predate the modern concept of copyright by well over 100 years, and this solely for the purpose of preserving the text. For the purposes of publishing in the UK, anyone may apply for and receive a license from Cambridge University or his majesty the King to print it so long as they don't change the text, and the importation of faithful copies of the Bible in the authorized text is allowed. Furthermore, the Letters Patent don't apply outside the UK: even though the UK is a signatory to the international copyright convention, this isn't a matter of copyright per se, yet even if it were a true "copyright" subject to further protections in the UK, it is well outside the length of protection recognised by the convention. One nation having taken special steps to ensure the preservation of the text of a faithful translation of God's word in the English tongue isn't the same as creating "copyrighted" works that grant an exclusive monopoly and the rights to the profits thereof: historically, the AV was published frequently at the cost of run, even at a loss to the printers at times, to get God's word in the English tongue into the hands of every English speaking person. This is very much different from the other "modern version" "bibles", the copyright for which is a money making protectionism scheme.
Wow! Thank yo so much for that information; much appreciated@@jamesarthurreed
"It's a Frankenstein quote." EXACTLY. 🤢
Interviews like this are quite informative and I appreciate them greatly. But for the life of me, I cannot understand why you've chosen this peculiar stylized editing style (stretching, zooming, distorting etc.). Apart from trimming out extraneous content that doesn't lend itself to the topic, why not just leave the footage alone? Maybe I'm alone in this, but I find it enormously distracting and unnecessary.
Incidentally, I think the originator of this editing style is a guy named Vic Berger, whose YT videos had me in tears laughing with his re-editing of Jim Bakker's tv shows... A short sample: th-cam.com/video/6lA3T78o9pY/w-d-xo.html
I've changed the way I'm doing my editing, my more recent stuff does this sort of thing a lot less :)
Cool video. Please don't do the jump cuts it's kind of jarring, just a piece of advice
Thanks!
I did a poll a while ago about my editing style, and for the most part, people were either okay with it, or didn't mind it.
@@Dwayne_Green Yeah I don't mean at all to be a crank. It just felt excessive and kind of disorienting. Content was good, just made it a little tougher for me to digest.
@@TestifyApologetics Its all good :) People have their opinions, and in today's society, people need to hear that thats ok :)
Jesus said to beware those who would like to kill you thinking that he's doing God a service. That means the devil who'd like to kill you are strict religious fundamentalists. That's true be they Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist.
relevance?
3:59 He is inconsistent. The OT was not preserved down through the ages in Hebrew. In fact, what we have today in Hebrew for the OT was invented from what the Jewish leaders thought the OT should say and finished 900 years after the death of Christ. For 900 years of Church history we had the Septuagint and still do today. Mr. Wilson is not applying his own reasoning to the OT. Therefore, I do not take him seriously, although I agree with him.
Unfortunately what everyone accepts, or knows as Septuagint(LXX) is a fake created in the 3rd Century AD by the heretic Origen. The Original Septuagint was created around 250 BC(only the Torah), and was destroyed in a fire according Jewish historical documents a 100 years later. When it was made they lamented afterwards, because they sinned. Scripture forbade them from going to Egypt(Alexandria), and only Levitical scribes were allowed to copy the Torah, not a mix of generic scribes. I know many people think that there was a Septuagint at the time of Jesus, but there wasn’t, it didn’t exist! Even if there were He wouldn’t have been able to use it, only Hebrew was allowed to be read, and spoken in the Temple, and synagogues. Jesus followed all Jewish laws, and traditions, and was without sin. By using the Septuagint if had been available would have made him ineligible for the cross. There is a plethora of Jewish historical references, and documents that the Masoretic Hebrew texts goes back over 2500 years. The supposed NT quotes that are thought to be from the Greek Septuagint, and are different from the Hebrew. These were new revealed teachings. Origen was the one who changed things, just as he did with the Alexandrian Greek NT. It’s sad that the modern church has bought into this lie!
Why? WHY do you feel the need to have such distracting, herky jerky editing? That kind of modern "hip" video "technique" is for the short attention span types on TikTok. For those of us who are very visual and not at all of short attention spans (note the subject matter) it is incredibly distracting and detracts also from the serious and thoughtful subject matter. Please. Stop.
It's truly a matter of balancing the need for smooth audio vs smooth video. In these types of videos, its 'typically' better to have a better audio experience than a video experience. It's surprising how often we use things like filler words, half sentences, double thoughts, awkward silences... All these take away from the flow of the speaking. Of course, each time those get edited out or reduced, it causes a small 'blip' on the screen which you perceive as 'herky jerky'. My editing favors flow of audio over flow of video.
Truly sorry if this bothers you. Your the first person that's commented about this negatively... If the general consensus becomes that it's bothersome and annoying, I'll consider changing my editing techniques.
Thanks for the reply. The editing is much more than a “blip” because you are also manipulating the focus and the frame. As humans in conversation we are all quite used to the pauses and such things that are part of natural speaking . I don’t think pauses take anything away but it’s certainly a subjective opinion. Some people are more strongly visual and others more strongly audial . I found the editing so distracting that I did not watch to the end. Just fyi.
@@pamelaregentin5766 thanks for the feedback
For myself, if it is good enough for the Apostle Paul it IS good enough for me. The KJV is THE HOLY BIBLE for all English speaking people. Unfortunately, Mr. Wilson IS a fellow-traveler with the corrupted-critical text advocates. BTW, Kiplinger's book "New Age Bibles" is fascinating.
Um, you don't get the joke?
If it was absolutely necessary that Pastor Doug was forced to choose another Bible translation (hypothetically), he can always go for the Webster Bible. Based on the TR, same translation method as the KJV, retians the Thee's thou's ye etc., and it's in the public domain. 👍🏻🎚