Daniel Wallace - The Basics of New Testament Textual Criticism 

*postmodern church.

​@@ZeroESG.goopootoob *Modern

Agreed. I have relatives in Latin America, and I will frequently see them spell things differently both in their native language, and in the language Europeans brought them

It’s nice that information like this has been made freely available!

Hi Josh My understanding is it wasn't so much nicea as the Carthage hippo and Rome councils that dealt with Canon issues Though the Catholic Canon as it stands today was not dogmatically defined until Trent Otherwise your spot on The church has the wisdom and spiritual insight to recognise scripture not the authority to make something scripture Scripture is scripture whether we recognise it or not As Protestants we can't infallibly know we have the right Canon but we can have faith that the spirit led the church to it We believe people can be wrong about what scripture is (as the early councils were about the apocripha) the scripture cannot be wrong though Now, Catholics will try to undermine scripture here and say since only they claim infallible knowledge only they can have certainty in the scripture and we can't appeal to scriptural authority without infallibly knowing what scripture is... This falls down on several counts Firstly as Dan would say you can have truth without certainty and certainty without truth Secondly claiming your position has infallible knowledge doesn't make your position superior unless you can substantiate that claim so Catholics must demonstrate the infallibly of the church, Popes and councils otherwise neither side has infallible certainty but at least Protestants are honest about it! Catholics won't defend an alternative to biblical authority they just attack Protestant views This is similar to KJV only arguments that state only they have a perfect bible because they claim the KJV is perfect and everyone else does not claim their translation is perfect: claiming something to be perfect does not make it so the truth is no TRANSLATION is perfect but non KJV onlyists are the better position that they can seek ever greater accuracy Lastly as White argues you have responsibility before to decide where you'll place your confidence in the Bible or in the church Your decision is a fallible one so neither decision gives infallibly you must seek truth based on evidence not certainty. I hope that helps...

Philip Todd wow you really do know your stuff, I’m only 14 and just started getting into textual criticism and I don’t know a lot and I have a lot to learn. so it was nice to see your view of the council of Nicea etc and to learn from that. God bless you

@@Michael-uk3pj just to be clear: you're aware that their doctrine of papal infallibility was not recognized until the 19th century?

I heard 616 is based on anther language, as this language would have Nero's name equal 616. This is in a study Bible I have someplace.

The story of the woman taken in adultery doesn't appear in any copy of John until the fourth century; it was obviously added in by some anonymous copier. The last twelve verses of Mark aren't in any manuscripts until much later and they don't fit in with the rest of the book, also obviously added in later. In the earliest manuscripts of Mark, Jesus is "moved with anger" instead of being "moved with compassion" when the leper asks to be healed. Being "moved with anger" goes against the author's theological understanding of Jesus, so it is far more likely to be true and the "moved with compassion" bit a later alteration. This is a tiny sampling, needless to say.

@@KurtVogel88 then what else has been changed about the messiah's emotions and nature? Why would he have been moved with anger when asked if he could heal a leper? I thought he healed all the time? This concerns me.. what else has been changed to fit the scribes biased understanding of christ?

Yes, it's Beethoven. Can you identify the piece for me please? Getting older is frustrating. It toys with things you know and are on the tip of your tongue but..... Thanks.

I found it to be rather distracting, but in a good way.

I noticed Bach's C Major Toccata at 26:00. It should be played by an organ of course!

I believe it means among the 25,000 texts. Yes, that means the average is somewhere between 16-20 variations. Again, note, this is the AVERAGE. Some will vary more than others. I haven't heard if he does it in this lecture (didn't listen to all of it yet), but in another lecture, he discusses how many variations are possible. Within one simple sentence, "John loves Mary," variations in spelling and word order alone could produce almost 100 different variations. So the variations in the NT manuscripts are less significant by several orders of magnitude.

@@livingpicture Thank you very much for clearing that up for me. Go bless you.

@@livingpicture if there are mistakes and things added that arent in the originals then how is this actually the inspired word of the father guided by the holy spirit?

katlin jones That’s why I believe in a perfectly inspired bible the AV. Old english does better in regards to preterits and second-person and third-person pronouns.

@@JewessChrstnMystic are you content to read scripture in English? Is it acceptable to translate the texts? That alone changes it far more than textual variants. And yet considered perfectly acceptable.

56:11

1:51:09

And before the KJV translators came along? What was the preserved word of God before the TR existed?

@Ivette Ivette 🤣🤣🤣

Dear Kyle C, Not a good idea ! The TR was compiled from some rather poor manuscripts. There are better manuscripts from even the Majority Text Line, if you don't like the Alexandrian line. However the TR is not very faithful the to Majority Text Line with over 1800 variants from the Majority Line. Then there are the textual problems with the TR. Example Rev. 22:19 says "book" of life in the TR, but all other Greek manuscripts agree and say, "tree" of life. We understand how this error in the TR occurred. Erasmus used the Latin Vulgate to backwards translate the Greek from the Latin and made a mistake confusing the Latin and Greek words because they are similar. It may seem simple to you but there is a lot that you seem to be unaware of and I suspect you have been misinformed by reading some materials of low scholarly value. Be Well DZ

@@interpretingscripture8068 The TR still existed before the KJV. Duh

@@Silverheart1956 Thank you for your opinions and I understand the TR stands alone in rev 22:19 as "book of life" and not "Tree of life". However, due to the it completing the heptadic rhythm ("book of life" occurs 7 times in the TR in Rev) as the TR is most likely correct. This is no mistake in the TR, the words do not look nor sound similar in the Greek.

Dear Guitaoist, The fathers quote the Textus Receptus ??????? What ??? The Textus Receptus didn't exist at the time of the Church fathers. The Textus Receptus was edited and compiled from several manuscripts that were from mostly the second millennium (well after the time of the church fathers) and the first version of what we now call the Textus Receptus, was finished around 1516 AD. It didn't exist before that time. The Textus Receptus is not a good representative of the Majority Text Line and varies from the Majority Text over 1800 times. It also has some very unique readings that are not found in ANY Greek manuscripts (Ex. Rev. 22:19 - "Book" of life). We are very, very certain God's Word says "tree"of life. The Church fathers may have said some things that were similar to what later was placed in the Textus Receptus, but this in no way means the Church fathers had a copy of the Textus Receptus and quoted from it. Dear Guitaoist, I cannot imagine where you got that misinformation from (obviously from some source that is not very bright), and I would conclude that you are not really aware of how bizarre and nonsensical your assertion is. It's kind of like saying the church fathers quoted from William Shakespeare's play, Hamlet. You need to give your assertion a little more thoughtful, rational consideration and more objective research. Be Well DZ

not since it has been assaulted by black magic.....since when have two men in a bed, one will be taken the other left, two women will be grinding, one will be taken the other left.......originally found in the KJV? How bout the words 'bottles' instead of wineskins, or sergeants the word alone let alone misspelled, or 'banks', or police? so Yes Shawn, the KJV is no longer the perfect word of God.....see EYA

Thats right ! in light of church manuscript history EVIDENCE !

No bible or book of the bible thereof is the word of God, and the bible tells us the bible isnt the word of God. The WORD (logos) of God is Jesus, who became flesh and dwealt among us. The Bible is a recording of some of the perfect words of God. Only Jesus, who is God is the perfect eternal word of God because he is God who made himself known by wearing a coat of flesh.

@@1974jrod ...close but no...the bible makes a distiction between scripture and jesus and says they are both the word of God.

@@shawnstephens6795 Really? Book, chapter verse that backs your claim. John 1 says "in the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God,.............and the word became flesh and dwealt among us." This is saying the immaterial spirit of God was informative and by his Word(s) he created all materials and matter, and then actual indwelled his creation by his spirit residing in the flesh he created. The eternal, came and lived with the finite. You are failing to make a distinction between Jesus, who is God in the flesh. Jesus who by all things were created. Jesus is the singular Word of God, and spoke words (plural) to create matter. God became flesh, he did not become a book. The bible is SOME of the words of God, but the bible is not the Word of God. That distinction is for Jesus only. Jesus was and is the eternal Word and mouthpiece of God. Not a book. The book is had a beginning and is material. Jesus is God, is immaterial and eternal. That is the proper distinction my friend. Please cite book, chapter, and verse that say a book is co eternal with God!

People like you always male me laugh 😂 like where's your brain. It is called a translation. Don't call any Hebrew prophet or king by their name anymore then lol. Fun fact. The Catholics and the Orthodox compiled the bible you are reading en.

What are you saying?

katlin jones In other words, this person relies on intellect rather than faith. Knowledge puffeth, but love buildeth

@@JewessChrstnMystic You can't argue that the majority of Greek texts don't have the comma of John, but later say BTW the majority of Greek texts are corrupt. Blessings.

These guys do that with lots of things. They conveniently ignore quite a bit and assume quite a bit. They almost never quote any scripture to back up their ideas on the scripture and ignore one certain, quite significant historical being, Satan. Would he have any interest in corrupting or attacking God's words? I have a Bible and have read it and know the answer. These guys never even address the issue. James White says it couldn't be the devil or he would have removed all the references, lol. Like that's how the devil works.

Hi Wade So no criticism ok So you have 5500ish manuscripts Where they differ which one do you go with and why If you decide reading A not reading B for whatever reason Is that not an act of textual criticism?

Now I take from your quote that you're a KJV advocate Erasmus made textual critical choices of compile the TR was he asking "has God said"? What about stephanus? What about beza? If you read their writings they all performed ciritcism in much the same way as Dan expounds... Where they sinning? What the KJV translators? They made decisions between the editions of Erasmus, of stephanus of beza as well as previous translations including Tyndale, the geneva and the bishops as those differed. So if all these men engaged in forms of criticism i.e. they became judges as to what was and was not the original readings of the word of God then why were they permitted without sin to do so but BELIEVING textual critics today not permitted? UNBELIEVING textual critics today like Bart erman don't even ask "has God said" they dogmatically assert "He hasn't said because he doesn't exist"! And, for the record, Dan here has a number of times put himself out there publically defending the scriptures against the assertions of Earman and others. Have you done that?

Philip Todd Yes I am aware that many people can’t stand the KJB and the people that use it. I’m nothing but a Bible believer. You can use what ever bible you want, I won’t be mad at you. We’re responsible for your own volition. Yes I am aware of the refining process that those men went through to produce the KJB. Is it important to know for sure we have the true word of God, in our language? Yes. And once you've done that stand on it, and move on. The critics goal is to prove that not only do we not have it, but that we cannot have it, even though God said he would preserve them, forever. This is the common denominator with textual critics. You can either believe the verses of preservation or not, it’s your choice. Isa 30:8, Isa 40:8, Psa 12:6-7, Psa 119:160 just to name a few. For every book I could refer you to that supports the Textus Receptus as the true text of the Bible, I’m sure you could probably quote me ten more that argues against it. At some point it’s up to you to decide, and it also has to matter, to many it doesn’t. If you can believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, why is it so hard to believe that God can preserve his word forever? 1Pet 2: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Just because sinful man put pen to paper doesn’t mean we can’t trust the copies.

Agreed

Strange that all the church fathers were trinitarian then.

SpitfireMase I don’t know if that’s true at all spitfire

Abdool

Well, that does it! Guess Matt Dillahunty just said something no one has ever thought of or answered. Pack your bags people-Des Gardius 2012 has just enlightened us.

Or this guy and people like him are wrong about how God chose to preserve his words.

You denied the video. Typical from ignorant people.

But they are so certain they have/can come up with the original reading, except when t they can't. He gave an example with 666/616 where they don't know.