White is completely ignorant, or deliberately subversive, of basic history. The Old Testament books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the New Testament books were written by roughly the end of the first century A.D. But the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, illustrating that it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon-or list of books-of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Bible is not a not a self-canonizing collection of books, as there is no table of contents included in any of the books. Although the New Testament canon was not determined until the late 300s, books the Church deemed sacred were early on proclaimed at Mass, and read and preached about otherwise. Early Christian writings outnumbered the 27 books that would become the canon of the New Testament. The shepherds of the Church, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those which only claimed to have these qualities. The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442. Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.
White is completely ignorant, or deliberately subversive, of basic history. The Old Testament books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the New Testament books were written by roughly the end of the first century A.D. But the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, illustrating that it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon-or list of books-of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Bible is not a not a self-canonizing collection of books, as there is no table of contents included in any of the books. Although the New Testament canon was not determined until the late 300s, books the Church deemed sacred were early on proclaimed at Mass, and read and preached about otherwise. Early Christian writings outnumbered the 27 books that would become the canon of the New Testament. The shepherds of the Church, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those which only claimed to have these qualities. The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442. Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.
White is completely ignorant, or deliberately subversive, of basic history. The Old Testament books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the New Testament books were written by roughly the end of the first century A.D. But the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, illustrating that it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon-or list of books-of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Bible is not a not a self-canonizing collection of books, as there is no table of contents included in any of the books. Although the New Testament canon was not determined until the late 300s, books the Church deemed sacred were early on proclaimed at Mass, and read and preached about otherwise. Early Christian writings outnumbered the 27 books that would become the canon of the New Testament. The shepherds of the Church, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those which only claimed to have these qualities. The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442. Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.
Yes Tracy, we know of no manuscripts of the NT existing now that is written on papyrus, only fragments. The originals, as they came from the hand of apostle and evangelist, have totally disappeared. And this is a key reason why the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is flawed: 1. ALL apostolic teaching was oral and was the truth which Christ would bring to every generation. Some of that was eventually written down as scripture. And so we do not profess to rest our revealed truth on the "Bible- alone" and we would be just as we are, and what we are, if there were no Bibles at all. Christ promised "He who hears you, hears me" and that "His church would never fail". He said nothing about preserving copies of the written Tradition. 2. The first Christians, like us now, have the living, infallible Church to teach and guide us through the mouth of St Peter and the Apostles and their succcessors; their oral teaching, copies of what eventually became written down as scripture, and the true meaning of it as well. 3. Throughout the first centuries there was not the same necessity for preserving the originals, and mere copies of the original inspired writings was good enough. When a more beautiful or correct copy was made, an earlier rough one was allowed to perish. The first Christians had no superstitious or idolatrous veneration for the sacred Scriptures, such as prevails among Protestants. They did not consider it necessary for salvation that the very handwriting of Paul or Matthew should be preserved, inspired by God though these men certainly were. They had the living, divinely guaranteed teaching authority of the church, promised to every generation. The story of translations is a wonderful illustration of the living teaching church, and the futility of the heretical doctrine of Bible Alone.
@@DD-bx8rb great story, too bad it's not how things actually happened. How about this, since everything is dependent upon Apostalic Succession, when was this passed on to Peter?
For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to *all men* *Teaching us* that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, *in this present world* Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of *the great God* and our Saviour *Jesus Christ* {Titus 2:11-12}
Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon *all men* to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon *all men* unto justification of life. {Romans 5:18}
I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: *the judgment was set and the books were opened* {Daniel 7:9-10} And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; *for the hour of his judgment is come* and (Remember the sabbath day) worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. {Revelation 14:6-7} “He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and *I will not blot out his name out of the book of life* but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.” {Revelation 3:5}
White is completely ignorant, or deliberately subversive, of basic history. The Old Testament books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the New Testament books were written by roughly the end of the first century A.D. But the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, illustrating that it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon-or list of books-of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Bible is not a not a self-canonizing collection of books, as there is no table of contents included in any of the books. Although the New Testament canon was not determined until the late 300s, books the Church deemed sacred were early on proclaimed at Mass, and read and preached about otherwise. Early Christian writings outnumbered the 27 books that would become the canon of the New Testament. The shepherds of the Church, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those which only claimed to have these qualities. The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442. Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.
This is the first time I have heard anyone agree that Paul was the author of Hebrews. ( If I heard you right) For me, I recognized his voice, and was very annoyed that I could find no one else who agreed.
When the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. {Ezekiel 18:24} Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? {Ezekiel 33:11}
Islam is a religion recognizing a singular god, but ignoring the trinity of God, as the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Bible says,… “ you cannot come before the Father without the Son.”
@@Toronado2 …. She was chosen & blessed by God the Father to birth & raise His Son by the Holy Spirit. Other than that, she is done with her obligation through obedience. Salvation through the Blood, is a requirement for her as for all. Salvation does NOT come by & through her at all. And to have her in the home as a graven image is an abomination to God…
@@davidwomack5982 How about if that "IMAGE" is NOT Graven but in The Mind? Would that also constitute Abomination? Then you say that, Quote; "Salvation through the Blood, is a requirement for her as for all". Would that be Human Blood? And why would the God Man Jesus resemble the Greek Pantheon, with Thee God Zeus the "Father" Having an Son through an Earthly Human Woman?
@@Toronado2 …. Greek Mythology has been around a very long time as fantasy to some, and to others, true. I personally believe that the beginning of man was not the actual beginning of God’s creation. When God said, “Let” in Genesis, it is a word of permission. A permission to continue. Something catastrophic happened before, and possibly the Greek Mythology happened during that time frame, and up to the flood. Yes, the sacrificial blood of Jesus is the payment for our disobedience. We are bought with a price, and presented with a gift of eternal life. You can refuse that gift, and eternal damnation will be the consequences. It is your choice to believe, or not to believe. And before your next rebuttal, I would like to say,…God is in charge, period. It is His canvass, His painting, His show, His creation, and who are we to say otherwise. The buck stops with Him, because their NO OTHER! He is everything, and you are not, but yet He is mindful of you, and your goings. We are only one of God’s best in His vast enormous creations. Lucifer was also a perfect creation…
White is completely ignorant, or deliberately subversive, of basic history. The Old Testament books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the New Testament books were written by roughly the end of the first century A.D. But the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, illustrating that it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon-or list of books-of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Bible is not a not a self-canonizing collection of books, as there is no table of contents included in any of the books. Although the New Testament canon was not determined until the late 300s, books the Church deemed sacred were early on proclaimed at Mass, and read and preached about otherwise. Early Christian writings outnumbered the 27 books that would become the canon of the New Testament. The shepherds of the Church, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those which only claimed to have these qualities. The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442. Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.
I'll plan to listen to part two but most of this has not made sense to me. Though I feel he does a good job of trying to confuse people about whether or not we can trust God to preserve His Word as He promised. I do believe we can trust the KJV. People confused should listen to the evidence from that side. I can recommend some sources.
1:17 wow, Count Van Tischendorf... If y'all believe James on this guy you should go watch the documentaries A Lamp in the Dark and its sequel Wheat Among Tares. Chris Pinto documentaries. Constantine Simonides claimed that Tischendorf stole and claimed his work. The documentary covers that topic. 1:23:04
Absolutely! It is wonderful and was truly the benchmark of the Bible in the Christan faith People who aren’t truly educated within church history or theology have no idea they think the KJV was the first
Here's a question for Dr. White. How do we know that 2 Timmothy 3:16 proves that the Bible is divinely inspired by presupposing that God wrote the Bible and each verse in it? Quoting that verse to prove divine inspiration is like telling me that we know the Bible is divinely inspired because it says so. That's circular reasoning, isn't it? Who would argue that we know the Bible is divinely inspired because God wrote it? After all, we mean God wrote it when we say it's inspired. When you argue for a statement, you shouldn't use it as evidence for itself. Here's another point to reflect on. St. Paul wrote 2 Timothy because anyone compiled the New Testament canon. That makes it hard to know whether he thought that letter belonged in the Bible. Let me end with a question. How much does the Bible's inerrancy help us interpret that anthology when Christians have splintered into thousands of denominations? It's as though we need more divine revelation to tell us what Bible passages mean. No one comes to know what a passage means by merely memorizing its words. If that happened, I'd know what the Sanskrit translation go Genesis 1:1 when I didn't understand that language. I still don't understand it. My point is that circular reasoning and sola scriptura can make the divine revelation seem absurd. That's a major problem if there's no conclusive way to settle theological disputes.
Are you able to read and distinguish for yourself who wrote the KJV? My self, just by reading and with some understanding can tell that the was not written by human intellect alone! Why would anybody write about a talking serpent, or a talking donkey, and expect anybody to believe it? Especially when we are supposed to be getting smarter as time passes?
@@paulvizer449 What do you mean by wrote when you know the KJV is a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament of the Greek New Testament? Google's translator can translate both testaments. But that doesn't make it their author. Many atheists criticize the Bible because they read about the talking snake in Genesis or the talking donkey in another Old Testament book. So their criticism suggests that they need ancient cultural and linguistic background information to tell the difference between the Bible's literal passages and its figurative ones. 3,000 years from now, when scientists study 21st-century scientific papers, those papers may seem as absurd as many current atheists think the Bible is now. So like today's atheists who critique the Bible, the future scientists will need background information to help them interpret those scientific papers. Some atheistic RU-vidrs sound like chronological snobs when they say sommething like, "The Bible is absurd because superstitious, unscientific morons wrote it. Obviously, we know much more and much better than they did." If you're a scientist who'll ride a time to a lab that'll exist in 3,000 years from now, what will you do if someone there insists that your best peer-reviewed journal article was peened by a backward idiot?
Since you raised the question, I'm going to get technical on you. INSPIRED does not mean God wrote it. INSPIRED means God-breathed, which means God worked through human authors. Man wrote the bible under the Holy Spirit's direction. You are taking a shallow approach to evaluating inspiration and you have a wrong definition of the term. what is the relevance of thousands of denominations to the question of biblical inerrancy?
@@HeLivesForever25 "God-breathed" is a metaphor because God the Father is a spirit, Since a spirit doesn't take up space, he has no mouth. Since he has no mouth and no lungs, he doesn't breathe. Christ is God the son who got an human body and a human soul when he incarnated. Before the incarnation even he had no mouth. There's only one God, the Trinitarian one. So all three divine person's "breathed" what the Bible teache. Catholics believe that God, the Holy Trinity. let the divinely inspired coauthors. The Holy Trinity let them use their prose styles and let St. Luke doe research when he wrote his holy Gospel. But the Triune God ensured that those people wrote exactly what he wanted them to write. Is that technical enough? :)
@@paulvizer449 That question sounds strange to me because it seems to conflate writing and translation. If I translate a book from English to French, my French translation my French must mean what the English means. Or at least it should be as accurate as possible. I don't write the English. I'm not the English book's author. If I said I wrote ithe English, that would be a lie. I don't know whether you're a King James only-it. But I think the KJV is an imperfect translation. For example, in that translation, Matthew 24:24 is ungrammatical. The "if" part of the verse subjunctive when the "then" part is in the future tense. So, the "if" part suggests that the elect can't be fooled. when they "then" part suggests that they can.
A story that was told for YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS, it could have truly happened , but we do not have any record of jt . So when they re write and copy they add a story they had heard in, and the adulteress’s woman would be that one IF It be the case
How can a modern text critic speak of an inerrant Bible, when he himself does not believe such a thing exists? Ask James White what he believes about the book of Revelation. He flat out denies the trustworthiness of the text. Note: I am not KJVO, but I am a Byzantine prioritist. The KJV is the most trustworthy text in the English language.
@montanaperkins9418 Two different manuscript traditions. They can not be compared, where word for word accuracy is concerned. The modern critical text is based on Codex Sinaiaticus. It is their "oldest and most reliable" manuscript. Why would any thinking Christian place their trust in a translation that is an Islamic interpolation? Codex Sinaiaticus is the source of the greatest division in the history of the church. It is filled with pseudepigrapha, the Gospel of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas. It is missing 13 Old Testament books. If Modern Critical text scholars would be consistent, they would have to remove these 13 OT books from their translations. My only problem with modern critical text scholars is in their removing whole texts of scripture. I once loved the NASB. Lockman used both manuscript traditions in their translation work. LSB also used both Alexandrian and Byzantine texts. I found absolute evidence in support of the comma Johaneeum, but James White rejects it based on Codex Sinaiaticus. The Saint Catherine's monastery has been protected by Islam for more than 1,000 years. That manuscript was written/manipulated by Muslim scholars. There is a mosque in the center of the monastery. At this point, you should be thinking about Paul's words to the Corinthian church (2 Cor. 6:14-18) is a clear command to abstain from working together with unbelievers. I summarily reject Codex Sinaiaticus as pseudepigrapha and therefore conclude all modern critical text translations to be untrustworthy. I hope this helps. God's best to you in your studies.
@paulvizer449 The version is for us to choose; just as he gave Adam a choice, so we (English speakers) have a choice. NASB was my preferred translation for more than a year, but the differences between the Byzantine and Modern Critical Text are diametrically opposed. I trust those translations taken from the Byzantine text, of which the KJV is my choice for most consistent source of truth. Thanks for your comment.
How can a defender of the faith propagate an inerrant text, then show us (supposed) errors in the text? He possesses the most trustworthy Greek text we know of, yet he refuses to trust it as inerrant. Stephanus 1550 is my choice for the most trustworthy Greek text. Dr. White has a Greek NT that he uses, but it is the NA 28th, which is the most up to date Greek NT taken from the Codex Sinaiaticus. How any thinking Christian can trust an Islamic interpolation is beyond my ability to comprehend, but most critical text scholars believe Sinaiaticus to be trustworthy. The document itself is full of pseudepigrapha; gospel of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas and of course the Apocrypha. At this point, Modern scholarship has to reject these claims if they are to continue on with their defense of the text, but it is historically impossible to reject. It is a fact that the St. Catherine's Monastery has been protected by Islam for over 1,000 years. The monastery has a Quarter Moon symbol of Islam on a pillar outside the wall, while a Muslim Mosque resides in the center of the monastery courtyard. See 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 and ask yourself how believers can be so easily duped to disobey this text, while trusting the Codex Sinaiaticus? Knowing that Islam is diametrically opposed to the true Gospel of Christ, and that the Muslim is always on the attack where the text of the NT is concerned, what kind of a defense should the believer present? When ministering to a Muslim, I always use the KJV, as it is the most stable English translation we have. James White believes that our defense is "indefensible" in such an arena. There is no confusion for those who trust it! The Muslim always claims that the NT can not be trusted. Modern scholarship makes such a claim believable. James White uses the LSB?NASB as his English text. That one version has 12 revisions. When will the Modern Critical Text be complete? Too much human thought involved in modern textual criticism, and not an ounce of faith. Bart Ehrman is a perfect example of what happens to a person when they abandon faith in leu of critical thought. See Prov. 3:5-6 It is our prayer that Dr. White would answer these claims concerning the modern critical text which he holds so dear, but we also pray that he would return to the faith that he once held dear and trust in the text that saved him from his sin. I hope this opens eyes and ears...in Jesus name.
White is completely ignorant, or deliberately subversive, of basic history. The Old Testament books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the New Testament books were written by roughly the end of the first century A.D. But the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, illustrating that it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon-or list of books-of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Bible is not a not a self-canonizing collection of books, as there is no table of contents included in any of the books. Although the New Testament canon was not determined until the late 300s, books the Church deemed sacred were early on proclaimed at Mass, and read and preached about otherwise. Early Christian writings outnumbered the 27 books that would become the canon of the New Testament. The shepherds of the Church, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those which only claimed to have these qualities. The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442. Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.
White is completely ignorant, or deliberately subversive, of basic history. The Old Testament books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the New Testament books were written by roughly the end of the first century A.D. But the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, illustrating that it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon-or list of books-of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Bible is not a not a self-canonizing collection of books, as there is no table of contents included in any of the books. Although the New Testament canon was not determined until the late 300s, books the Church deemed sacred were early on proclaimed at Mass, and read and preached about otherwise. Early Christian writings outnumbered the 27 books that would become the canon of the New Testament. The shepherds of the Church, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those which only claimed to have these qualities. The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442. Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.
If I may correct you my friend on your assertion that "The Orthodox Church is the one true church". In fact, there is not one Orthodox Church, but rather there are various seprate Orthodox churches. That aside, your assertion that the Orthodox churches constitute the true church is rejected by the 22 different Eastern Churches who have returned to the Rock of Peter over the centuries. Likewise, the early Eastern Fathers are on record as recognising and obeying the office of Pope as successor of Peter as Chief Apostle.
@@alt-monarchist These are the facts. It's not about feelings as you try to assert. The various Orthodox churches are simply stuck in a time-warp and with no organ of infallible teaching authority to provide truth and unity. They have not not held to the Apostolic Deposit in it's fullness, and there is no gaurantee that it will not slip further into heresy in the future. Various Orthodox patriarchs and leaders have not historically been in communion with each other, a reality that continues in the present day. "Orthodoxy", "Protestantism", etc... singular discriptions of general religious principles do not denote or demonstrate unity of the groups within those singular general descriptions. PAX
White is completely ignorant, or deliberately subversive, of basic history. The Old Testament books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the New Testament books were written by roughly the end of the first century A.D. But the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, illustrating that it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon-or list of books-of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Bible is not a not a self-canonizing collection of books, as there is no table of contents included in any of the books. Although the New Testament canon was not determined until the late 300s, books the Church deemed sacred were early on proclaimed at Mass, and read and preached about otherwise. Early Christian writings outnumbered the 27 books that would become the canon of the New Testament. The shepherds of the Church, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those which only claimed to have these qualities. The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442. Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.
There are no originals. They are long gone. Moses had to do some writing, the kings of Israel wrote out the law, the early Christians were on the run due to persecution... People had to make copies.
@@TracyZdelar Where did you get that idea from. Bibles exist, written in the original Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew. And yes, the original manuscripts still do exist to this day. The dead sea scrolls are among them.
@@QuikRay no the originals would be the very first writing by the men God inspired. They are not under a glass top somewhere. Whatever papyri pieces around are likely not the originals.
@@TracyZdelar Yes Tracy, we know of no manuscripts of the NT existing now that is written on papyrus, only fragments. The originals, as they came from the hand of apostle and evangelist, have totally disappeared. And this is a key reason why the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is flawed: 1. ALL apostolic teaching was oral and was the truth which Christ would bring to every generation. Some of that was eventually written down as scripture. And so we do not profess to rest our revealed truth on the "Bible- alone" and we would be just as we are, and what we are, if there were no Bibles at all. Christ promised "He who hears you, hears me" and that "His church would never fail". He said nothing about preserving copies of the written Tradition. 2. The first Christians, like us now, have the living, infallible Church to teach and guide us through the mouth of St Peter and the Apostles and their succcessors; their oral teaching, copies of what eventually became written down as scripture, and the true meaning of it as well. 3. Throughout the first centuries there was not the same necessity for preserving the originals, and mere copies of the original inspired writings was good enough. When a more beautiful or correct copy was made, an earlier rough one was allowed to perish. The first Christians had no superstitious or idolatrous veneration for the sacred Scriptures, such as prevails among Protestants. They did not consider it necessary for salvation that the very handwriting of Paul or Matthew should be preserved, inspired by God though these men certainly were. They had the living, divinely guaranteed teaching authority of the church, promised to every generation. The story of translations is a wonderful illustration of the living teaching church, and the futility of the heretical doctrine of Bible Alone.
I agree! The man looks seventeen months pregnant! He shouldn't be teaching anything until he gets rid of the pride involved! We are all Biblical Scholars at one point or another!
@@paulvizer449 White is completely ignorant, or deliberately subversive, of basic history. The Old Testament books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the New Testament books were written by roughly the end of the first century A.D. But the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, illustrating that it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon-or list of books-of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Bible is not a not a self-canonizing collection of books, as there is no table of contents included in any of the books. Although the New Testament canon was not determined until the late 300s, books the Church deemed sacred were early on proclaimed at Mass, and read and preached about otherwise. Early Christian writings outnumbered the 27 books that would become the canon of the New Testament. The shepherds of the Church, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those which only claimed to have these qualities. The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442. Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.
Who are you going to believe? God? Or textual critics? “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” {Matthew 24:35} The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. {Isaiah 40:8}
What do you say about all the words Jesus spoke and the things he did that weren't recorded? How do you reconcile every single word Jesus spoke, which is the word of God, that we do not have - and John tells us we don't have?
@@aaronman3352 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, *which are able to make thee wise unto salvation* through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, *throughly furnished unto all good works* {2 Timothy 3:15-17} Jesus did not forget to tell us anything we need for salvation and has not left it up to mans tradition to throughly twist his intentions for us.
This man acts as if, but for Bart Ehrman the world would be safe for the children who live in the Bible Belt. But... the secularization of knowledge is now an old process beginning with the Renaissance and pretty much concluding with Darwin. So no college of any worth or merit will modify its science programs because of the Bible. Sorry but that died long before Bart Ehrman.
Compare Ezra 2:5 ("The children of Arah, seven hundred seventy and five.", KJV), with Nehemiah 7:10 ("The children of Arah, six hundred fifty and two.", KJV) and you will see exactly how "inerrant" the Bible is. If you continue to compare the lists given in the two chapters you'll see exactly how deluded the inerrant Bible scholars are.
