Formatting the Word of God with Dan Wallace 

Just a priceless man of God. And his work.

I never get tired of listening to Dan. I've never given a lot of thought to how they determined book order. Brilliant. One correction though. Constantine did legalize Christianity, but it did not become the state religion until 380. The edict.of Thessaloniki under emperor theodocius.

Great stuff here! I especially appreciate Dr. Wallace's treatment of the nomina sacra/divina, and most notably his comments about the early believers regarding the deity of Christ 54:25 Thank you so much for this lecture!😊👍🙏📖

Another fantastic lecture by Dr. Wallace. Thank you so much!

Amen

First and second Hebrews! Ha, wow that is fascinating to me. What I would love to know if both scribes wrote out them out exactly same

Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion. That was Theodosius.

45:20

Somebody who was involved in numbering those leaves probably had a long night nippin' on a bottle of Sweet Red Blend.

I will ignore the traditions and false doctrines of the Catholic church

"Word of God" wow 100% scientific definition

Dear Daniel Wallace. I note that you argue that Gods name is Jahve, and that you (51:43 -49) say that «…so Jehovah’s witness don’t really exist because there is no one known as Jehovah.» After having heard some of the lectures of Nehemia Gordon - a hebrew professor who strongly agues and explains that Gods name is and is to be pronounced «Jehovah», I came to think that it would be interesting to listen to a discussion between you and him. I assume that since you have a strong opinion that «Jehovah» is wrong, you surely must have some arguments that you think could teach this hebrew professor something as important as this? In case you also think so, I guess we both look forward to that discussion. Also he seems like a nice guy, so how could it hurt to ask - both of you being honest, brave hearted, humble truth seekers, I am sure. But in case you don’t really feel that you are able to argue against Nehemiah Gordon on this topic, I guess you won’t. If wanting to have a head start, take a look at «Nehemia´s wall» (Yehovah Research) where he have several talks about Gods name, Jehovah - according him. I thought slipped my mind. I came to think about Saul, later known as Paul. First he was an enemy of the christians, but in his defense, he was always an honest man. When he changed his way of looking at realities, he still kept on being honest. Based on this. Just a thought experiment, but imagine just for a second that Jehovah’s Witnesses have found the Truth, that they in fact are the true Christians. - Would you then want to be one of Jehovah’s witnesses? - Another ting. In another RU-vid discussion I note that you argue that Jehovah’s Witnesses are wrong about the doctrine of trinity. At «Special Event - Conversation with Bill Mounce and Dan Wallace: Mark Lanier, 04/24/22 (at 34:52), you mention that «Jehovah´s witnesses get this wrong because they take something that somebody after three or four weeks of Greek would get right.» If I understand you correct, you here assume or might even claim that Jehovah’s Witnesses must have less than three or four weeks of Greek. Further, I guess that all those during history who have translated the Bible in the same untrinitarian way as they do, in you opinion must be in the same category. That those who don’t agree are not taught by the theologians. Just a thought, on general basis. If knowing a language by heart results in understanding things right, how come the theologians of that time, the Pharisees on the one side, and the theological school uneducated first Christians on the other side had different view on the Scriptures? I guess that the Pharisees problem was not that they did not know their mother tongue well enough. - Agree? From what you say during the discussion, I get the impression that you claim that the doctrine of the trinity is a Biblical teaching - and that you insist that the Bible must be translated according that view. As I see it, what comes first - step one should be to prove that a view, the doctrine of the trinity in this case - is a biblical teaching. As I see it, it would seems illogical to take step two before step one - and then «forget» to do step one. If to translate according an unproven idea, and then «prove» this idea by pointing to what is translated according this unproven idea, people will easily think that the Bible teach what such a translator thinks it should be, not knowing that step one never happened. During several years, I have been speaking to a number of people that say they believe in the doctrine of trinity, and asked them if they please can show step by step - sentence by sentence - how «the Athanasian Creed»- aka «the doctrine of the trinity» is based on the Bible. Chapter and verse. So far, nobody have been willing (n)or able. Therefore a challenge to you, and/or others who feel able and who have blood suger above knee level: Show step by step - sentence by sentence how «the Athanasian Creed»- aka «the doctrine of the trinity» is based on the Bible. Chapter and verse, if you please. - - In advance thank you very much :)

Formatting the word of god ? does this mean changing the bible so it does not contradict itself anymore. You would have to change a lot as there are so many mistakes.