What does the Bible really say? How was the Bible preserved? The Biblical Literacy Project is the outreach arm of the Center For Ancient Texts and Languages (CATL), an academically oriented non-profit that seeks to preserve ancient manuscripts and mentor young scholars. www.biblicalliteracyproject.org/
hello Dr, I am Isaac from Ethiopia I am taking ur lecture it so helpful God bless u for sharing it on RU-vid and if its possible i wish to get material of the lecture
Well, I'm Argentian, I have many translations, even in English. My two favourite English translations are the LSB and the RSV 2CE. In Spanish, I have my Reina Valera 2020. People use the Reina Valena 1960 a lot, and I have to admit is a good translation, specially when you are studing greek. I like what you said about the importance of teaching the Bible, no translation can do that for you.
You are very nice, even if you say something I don't agree is really pleasing to hear you. Here, I do disagree with you regarding inerracy, and I believe that is a biblical doctrine. Many people like D. A. Carson, Andreas Kostenberger, Robert Yarbrough, Greg Beale, J. I. Packer (now with the LORD) and many are solid scholars and believe that the doctrine is not just and invention in reaction to modernist. Neither that inerracy means a magical perfection.
Hi Nicolas, Thank you for your thoughtful response to the video. This is definitely an area where evangelical scholars differ. They will also differ in their definition of inerrancy, many of them defining it the way I defined infallibility, which would therefore mean that we agree after all. But if someone wants to hold to inerrancy in its strictest definition, I would have to respond that, as a textual critic with extensive experience working with the ancient manuscripts, I really struggle to see how anyone could say that the wording of the NT text is "without error." We have over 5000 Greek manuscripts of the NT and no two of them are identical. Many would reply that, well, the wording is inerrant in the "original manuscripts." However, we don't have those MSS, so what good is such a claim? And it is pretty clear that even if you could get your hands on the "original" manuscript written by Mark or John, you would still find, for example, grammar mistakes. Insisting on a kind of perfection in the wording of scripture has led a number of conservative Christians to lose their faith. As soon as they see the evidence that the authors of scripture were fallible humans, they have a tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater - "If I can't trust every single word then I can't trust any word." But the godly authors of scripture wrote incarnationally, both inspired by and obedient to the Holy Spirit, and also writing from their own personalities, perspectives, knowledge - and lack thereof - etc. Remember the statement in the video: God did not violate the integrity of the person. He used real people, as themselves, to write to real historical situations. It's not the wording we should be concerned about (though we try our best to discern what the oldest form of the text is), it is obedience to the text.
@@amyanderson9665 Hi Amy. Thanks for awnsering! And sorry if my English is a bit rough in the edges. I will respond in order. First, yes, all depend how you define the terms, and maybe we agree after all. My preference with inerrancy comes from the fact that many use infallibility to means something lesser to inerrancy, or just refer to soteriology and things like that. I agree with that "without error" does not make any sense if you consider all the manuscripts if we say that the "without error" extend to the grammar and spelling. I also know that many attack the fomulation of the orginal manuscripts, I recognice that it can be a flaw in the argument, but It can be defended, or at least refine. Regardless of that, I agree with you in much you said. Well, your friend Bart fell in that pit. I agree with your statement. Nothing to add to that, maybe I like to use more the phrase "organic inspiration" but again, I like what you said. Hope to keep watching the rest of the videos.
@@amyanderson9665 I got it from B. B. Warfield. Btw I have your book in Textual Criticism, I have to read it but I happy to know you a little more through your videos.
I will supend judgment about why you divide inerrancy and infalibility until you unpacked. I consider myself and evangelical and use the term inerrancy, but I'll see why you said that.
Well, I have to say your course is really pleasing. I don't undestand why I did not heard it before. I'm from Argentina, I try to listen while working in the office and is soo nice that I can't believe some of the videos are more than 30 min long. I hope to at least finish all of them, and I can't just sit down and study the content, but I enjoy anyway. Thanks.
You can tell that this is one of the first video teachings I ever made, and that I was at home, because of the embarrassing incident of me answering the phone in the middle of my teaching. Ooops! I hope to edit that out, but don't know how, so for now you can squirm with me for a minute or two. Dr A 🙄
Hi Dr Anderson. I love your work and I follow it closely. I really wish to converse with you and get clarity on some issues as I seek to grow. I'm South Africa. Thank you for such thorough work.
I love your critique of the modern Western standard for worship in church. If I can, I would like to provide something of a counterargument. I would love this to become a full-fledged discussion! Firstly, I should say that I do not like the Western church model of meeting weekly in buildings with large groups of people. If it ever worked well, then I think that that time has come to an end and that the sooner the Church goes back to a house church model, the better it will be. Anywho... 1. Around the 3:00 mark you mentioned that when the music is so loud as to drown out my voice and the voice of the person next to me, then it communicates that my voice (and the voice of my neighbor) is not important. I would say that this is good, especially in an individualist culture. In my experience, more American Christians are in need of a greater appreciation for the community, not for the self. That said, this is not improved if, like you say, the attention is taken off of the individual self only to be placed on the individuals leading worship. But my own experience has enabled me to notice a distinction between those who see themselves as the center of the worship-leading experience and those who see it as their job to guide the congregation in worship. For this reason, I would see this less as an issue of the model and more as an issue of those employing the model. 2. Around that same mark you also make the argument that this boy-band style of worship gives the impression that our worship must be perfect, with only the "professionals" being allowed to sing loudly. I would also make a similar argument that this error is more to do with those leading worship than with the model itself. The best worship services that I have ever been to were ones where those leading worship worshiped as though their job was to employ their skills to create the best musical art that they could in partnership with the congregation. I'm not sure if this is how they would have described it, but it is very much how it felt to be a part of that service. That said, the worst times of worship that I have ever been a part of were also ones where those leading saw themselves as artists -- but it was they and their art who deserved the worship in their minds.
Hi from Portugal. Thanks. This was one of the best explanations I've seen of this matter. It is simple, accessible and well explained. It is very good for me at the moment when I am studying the second letter of Peter and Jude in more depth. (Note: I had the great privilege of taking 1 Corinthians classes with Dr. Gordon Fee at a Bible institute in Portugal).
This hits hard, as I am currently reading an essay by a scholar of some school from the 1970s who argues that notions of truth and falsehood eliminate, and I believe I am quoting, the "possibility of humanity." Socrates is still correct; we must be very careful with which knowledge we decide to feed our soul.
Dr Anderson you did an outstanding job. I've been working on my dissertation. You have the best and simplistic but profound way of explaining gnosticism. I am very blessed to have heard you. Thank you for your ministry and your outstanding academic teaching. May God bless you.:-)
This was the first video I created after tangling with the neighbor's cat, Tootsie, who doesn't like anyone outside of her own family. I was cat-sitting for them and she decided to give me some lovely punctures in my lip!
Hi, So sorry that I didn't see this question. I just tried running the video and it does not seem to get stuck. Were you able to see the whole thing or are you still having difficulty with it? Amy
Thank you, this was a great explanation of the approaches to translation. I really appreciated the specific examples along the way from each of the three approaches, and the recommendation at the end to have a 'good' Bible from each approach. We're blessed to have access to so many different translations!
Very good points Reverend Anderson. The goal of exegesis is to obtain a biblical world view not a religious world view. Our faith should be based on the revelation of God which is in the written record of His revelation to His people.
Thanks for doing this, very helpful! I especially appreciate the comments on inerrancy. Because of my background as an atheist prior to becoming a Christian, I had the worldview that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and therefore if God cannot, through verbal plenary inspiration, get certain details correct (geography, historical information, etc.), there is not a good reason to trust the scriptures for more important things (namely, eternal spiritual matters). Inerrancy as I’ve heard it defined by most people is not that there are no errors present in the text available to us, but is more so that the original autographs, which are no longer extant, were free from error. That perspective helps me get comfortable with there being half a million spelling variants and half a million non-spelling variants in the New Testament. The way you explained the purpose of scripture really helps me get comfortable with the idea that certain things were less important (spelling/grammar), so I can understand why people hold to that. I look forward to more video content!
Thank you for your comment! (Sorry I didn't notice it sooner.) I'm glad this was helpful. As a textual critic, I would also add that the idea of the original autographs being inerrant is really a cop-out. We have so many copies of the NT text that we surely have the oldest form of the text in most cases. And what good does it do us to claim that the originals were inerrant if we no longer have them? Instead, as you say, it is much more natural and healthy to focus on how God nearly always chooses to reveal Himself through our human frailty.
