Dan Wallace's BEST objections against the Byzantine Text (Part 1) 

Amen! Keep these sessions with Dr. Robinson coming! With sincere thanks! 😊📖🙏

It is my understanding, that the Peshita is from the 2nd century (perhaps 150ad) and it lines up well with the MT. If this is true, why do we always say or agree that the critical text, from the Vaticanis and Sinaticus is older?

Congratulations, amazin interviw again. Pleas make more videos like this with the Dr. Robinson. God bless you.

Wow, excellent interview! Interesting how the early Church Fathers would quote a verse slightly differently each time they quoted it. Almost like they were more interested in a verses dynamic equivalence rather than a literal repetition.

This was great. Thanks~ We like things to be cut and dry and it's just more complicated than that!!!

Texts used by the churches wore out and copies had to be made, while texts not used much and abandoned could survive.

There are distinctive Byzantine readings in the extant (non-Byzantine) manuscripts from the first four centuries. That is quite a piece of evidence for the antiquity of the Byzantine Textform. And 60% of (fore-Nicene) Church Father's readings are distinctively Byzantine as well.

Great vid!

Not that this betrays my own overall opinion, but rather, just Darrell Hannah's conclusions from his monograph, "The Text of I Corinthians in the Writings of Origen" (that Dr. Robinson refers to). Here are two quotations from the concluding chapter: "Origen’s text is thoroughly Alexandrian. The quantitative analysis of chapter four shows that Origen consistently stands nearer the Alexandrian witnesses than he does to either the Byzantine or the Western witnesses (see Table I)." "Concerning the Byzantine text we must conclude that it seems to be nonexistent in Egypt during the third century. This is just what we should expect if it is, in fact, a later text which arose during the fourth century. Nor can Origen’s relatively high (62%) agreement with Byzantine uniform agreements be construed as evidence for a proto-Byzantine text, as these agreements result from Alexandrian and Byzantine witnesses sharing the same reading. Rather, this phenomenon suggests what others have argued: that the Byzantine text was constructed from a mixture of Alexandrian read ings and other elements."

How do we square church practices and beliefs prior to receiving the canon? People were already living the faith long before the canon. Hold fast to the traditions you received from us weather spoken or written. Not the traditions of men but the apostolic tradition handed down. This is why I’m taking a long hard look at Catholicism and orthodoxy. Protestantism/evangelicalism has become a wasteland. Respectfully

Someone needs to go and see Burgons volumes in the British museum. The claim from the critical text advocates is that they dont exist.

Are there older ante Nicene father’s letter quoting scripture to assist? 1John 5:7 for example.

So basically he’s saying I should stick with my KJB.

What do you do with Tertullian quoting Rev. 22:14 saying "keep my precepts" instead of "wash robes"? That's sometime between 155-220 AD. We also know the Syriac text used the same because the Harklean and Philoxenian which were 500-616 AD. The manuscripts the Philoxenian were based off of were originally from Greek and the Harklean was directly from Greek. The CT arguments used against the MT and particualrly the TR are becoming less impressive the more I study.

I love the interviews and request more of them, but I need a "Dr. Robinson for Dummies" big-picture synopsis, please.