Again Dwayne - really enjoyed this part 2, sorry I missed the debut : ( But it was great hearing Bryan again and his well thought out answers to your questions (some of them loaded). Again - so glad you had Bryan on! you are trending high still!
@@Dwayne_Green Sorry Dwayne, but the KJVO is an absurd position, even without all the textual criticism... Consider only ~17% of the world's population are native english speakers, so that means all the rest have false Bibles? I speak 2 other languages besides english, and they both have their own TR translation and neither are 'jot and tittle' like the KJV. If you consider the history and textual criticism, then it's absurdity on another dimension! I respect both the TC and MT positions, based upon different points of view of the same evidence, but KJVO isn't based upon evidence, but only on wishful thinking and a twisting of history to fit a very narrow narrative.
@@G.D.9 True enough, but by reasonable, I don't mean I agree with their conclusions, but rather that they can talk about things without becoming uncharitable!
Thanks for another great video. I would love to hear a discussion on inerrancy. Knowing that it is impossible to translate any language word for word perfect, which translation/revision is the perfect one? Most modern scholars will say the originals, but we don't have them, so it is impossible to prove that claim. I define inerrancy as the perfect preservation of the message. It is the message that is perfectly preserved! Thanks again brother. God's best to you and yours.
While CT Only folk claim that they are just doing the same text criticism that was always done in the church, in fact, they begin with German Rationalists circa 1780 A.D. e.g., Johann Jakob Griesbach (4 January 1745 - 24 March 1812) who claim the church texts are corrupt and prioritize texts of unknown provenance e.g., Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Blessings.
Amen brothers, I have never fully bought the claims of the critical text methodology. After almost a year of careful study, I selected the NKJV (with marginal notes showing all of the critical and majority text variants) as my primary version for study, devotion, and occasional preaching. It's 28 years later and I have never regretted the decision.
"I also cannot discount the Latin..." THANK YOU For a long time I was unaware how early the Johanan Comma was in Latin translations of the Bible until I read a TBS article about it. I whole heartedly agree with Mr. Ross that there is no reason God could not have preserved an original reading through a different language the text was translated into. That and given the vast Latin history of the church, it would be a mistake to ignore that textual tradition.
I respect that Bryan is a TR guy with reasonable arguments for why he's a TR guy. While those of us in the Byzantine camp can agree on rejection of the Critical Text, I still think we have something better than the TR in the various Greek Majority Texts (Hodges/Farstad, Robinson/Pierpoint, Pickering). I think the Old Latin texts are valuable in understanding what the Greek text may have looked like when they were translated into Latin, with the caveat that the Old Latin texts have also been copied and variants may have been introduced. Same goes for the Syriac Peshitta. The more data points the merrier!
Even using the common sense God gave us can give you a sense of skepticism about how a passage has been translated. For example, where it says "Hell" in the NT, it should've been translated "Gehenna". In the OT, "Sheol."
Indeed. Who knew that the Norse word ‘hel’ was actually in the original Greek manuscripts? Fascinating! (Sarcasm intended) Look, the KJV is a fine translation, but if the translators cannot get an absolutely crucial eschatological word(s) right for those suffering “damnation” then one needs to re-examine the translation process and texts used. The implications of Gehenna, Hades, and Tartarus being lumped together as one singular concept using a pagan Norse concept breaks the entire foundation of the gospel the KJV is supposedly transmitting to the humanity. There’s no pussyfooting around it.
@@christianuniversalist Further research even reveals that "Satan" is not even a literal being! It's an archetypal metaphor / personification. We can thank Persian Zoroastrianism for that. It was handed down to the Pharisees, starting with King Cyrus' defeat of Babylon and through the Parsees. Zoroastrianism has it's roots in the ancient Hindu religion, which has a plethora of "gods", which a literal Satan, by definition, would be. So much for Monotheism, eh? Lolz...
'In the absence of the original manuscripts, God has divinely preserved his work in many faithful copies....", We Believe: The Baptist Affirmation of Faith 1966, London: Grace Publications Trust, p. 16. I would personally understand that as applying to the majority Greek tradition.
I'm a majority text guy as well, and I think we should use other witnesses to add upon the majority. Quotations from church fathers should have a weight. The ethiopian eunuch passages for instance is not supported by the majority text nor the Critical text. But it is obvious it belongs by witness of salvantion elsewhere in the NT. It is also quoted very early in the Church history along with being in the Latin Vulgate. I think we should take a more majority text with the OT as well. The Greek Septuagint is what was quoted in the NT so that should have some weight. There is not alot of difference in the MT and the LXX but especially where we have the New Testament as a witness as well we should take a closer look.
Do you have a video that separates your position from the TR position, Dwayne? I'm trying to understand what is the distinction here. Are you more of a "majority text" guy rather than received?
Yes, I've been stuck between the TR and Byzantine position for a while, but have relatively recently come to the Byzantine position. You can see the video here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-O8bA3Ab3z6Y.html :)
@Dwayne Green have you ever considered the kj3 Literal Translation Memorial Edition by Jay P Greene? It's based off of the Textus Receptus and Masoretic same as kjv
Is it at all possible that when John wrote his gospel Or any of his letters that there was also someone nearby also writing what he spoke out loud in Latin?
I don't think based on my reading/watching of Bryan Ross that he is really open to the NKJV. He might be open to the idea (which most reasoned KJVO people I think are) but when it comes to specifics in the translation I just don't think Mr. Ross is going to agree to a majority of the changes the NKJV made. As to the footnotes in the NKJV, my assumption is he would reject a majority of them related to the critical text. Personally, my KJVO stance has become much firmer after watching Bryan Ross. I have found a lot of Critical Text arguments to be very disingenuous after seeing the information Mr. Ross provides.
The Geneva is inspired because it has life(Heb 4:12). Some want to negate that translations are inspired making them dead. The NIV, for example, is a dead translation, has no life, it is NOT inspired then. The KJB and Geneva are inspired, they have life in them. They want to confuse you by associating inspiration with perfection, but inspiration is about life. Heb 4:12, 1Pet 1:23; Job 32:8, Job 33:4, 2Tim 3:16. You simply know this when you read a translation, by letting the Spirit communicate with you which one(translation) has life in them, therefore a translation can be inspired too. Hope it wasn't confusing.
Bryan, don't waste your time examining the NKJV. (Which I use). Keep doing the stuff you are working on and have been working on. There are other modernizations of the KJV to consider and such a project should include them but what would the payout be? One could produce a modernized version with that much effort or if one wanted to be real conservative, one could produce a KJV language guide of which there are already several or a more refined "Defined KJV" etc. I don't know that your time as a historian would be well utilized on such a project.
When the NKJV was planned, they were going to use the majority text, but switched to the TR in the NT. It was a good idea to switch because Thomas Nelson owned both and no one had heard of the Majority Text at that time :) I did check every difference between the KJV and NKJV and both use the same TR in the NT, unlike many false reports to the contrary. They both use the Mas Heb. Txt in the OT. Actually the NKJV is closer to the Mas. text. One Example: the KJV sometimes follows the Targum instead of Hebrew. The NKJV follows the Hebrew Mas. Text in both passages below. Scripture Mas. Text Targum KJV 1 Sam. 2:25 God Judge Judge (1769 judge) Job 22:25 gold defense defense Even DA Waite demanded that no translation should ever follow the Targum over the Mas. Text.
Love this conversation. Bryan Ross, it appears to me, stands more in line with Burgon, Hoskier, Hills, and Letis. He's not afraid of the small problems with the TR, but quite reasonably defends it. And, well. Hoskier dealt a devastating blow to the Hortian theory, which left the new critics the only option of an eclectic text.
Hi Dwayne. A question that may be too much to answer here, and a comment. First the question. If the CT is older, shouldn't we go with that rather than texts that seem to have added to the original? My comment is, I wish the NKJV could be updated to include the thees and thous which I really like, and *only* make changes where words that we know we don't know *and* false friends occur. Seems to me that would be the best KJV update. Thanks...even if you don't answer. : )
the CT is actually newer as far as Greek texts are concerned, though it relies on what some consider the 'oldest and best' manuscripts. the real question is, are the oldest manuscripts the best? And there's no real way to know, its simply assumed. In fact a comparison between Vaticanus and Sanaiticus reveals more than 6000 differences in the Gospels, and these are supposed to be the best. My position is that the majority of Byzantine manuscripts, which represent close to 95% of our extant greek witnesses contain a better text.
@@Dwayne_Green Thanks. The CT greek texts are newer!? Then how come everyone says the reason they are older is because they come from the dry climate of Egypt and were thus better preserved? And btw, I used to be hard core CT, but I am leaning more to the Byzantine/Majority texts now.
@@kirbysmith4135 The CT *uses* older manuscripts, but don't align with any single manuscript or even family... It's one of the major criticisms of the eclectic methods: The resultant text doesn't resemble a single manuscript even over short spans of text.
Kirby, I too wish the NKJV would have retained the "thee's" & "thou's", but sadly they didn't. There is Noah Webster's 1833 Common Version that is very close the KJV. I have it and really like it. I wish someone would take Webster's Bible and clean it up a bit more like "ass" etc. Blessings to you in Christ. And blessings in Christ to you also Dwayne.
I see where some that like the NKJV says they should have retained thous and thees. I find it ridiculous. No American talks that way anymore and its an American English update of a British translation. To retain older English for tradition is not a benefit to anyone.
It is not the retention of older English "for tradition." The older second-person pronouns are actually _more_ helpful, as they tell us whether the writer is using singular or plural, and whether he is using it as a subject or object. Contemporary English no longer makes these distinctions. Today, the second-person singular and plural, whether subject or object, is simply "you."
@@TaylorLSexton yes and I like the you better than the thees and thous because zero people talk that way and everyday Americans don't even recognize that type of English and especially people who have English as a second language. Totally unnecessary English.
I disagree. A NKJV preserving everything in the KJV except the words we know we don't know and false friends (see Mark Ward), retains the majesty of the KJV while making it understandable. There are plenty of translations that use you and yours. There is nothing wrong with having a variety.
@@kirbysmith4135 then you can read the KJV, Geneva and the older ASV if that is what you want. There is nothing majestic about thous and thees except being outdated in my view. Love the NKJV just as it is.
yeah but... Isn't your appeal to history? the Godly men that were used in the 1600s to bring about the KJV, and how, historically, it served the church for 100s of years in the past? You're statement is self refuting!
@@Dwayne_Green it’s not self refuting. The only history that can be considered is that which aligns with the scriptures, as only the scriptures were given by inspiration of God, not man’s idea of what took place. Moses would be the perfect example, as he wrote of the fall of man and the curses that follow, which are still being experienced by man to this day. Therefore, the Genesis account found in the 1611 is a credible source with no other historical sources needed, that is, sources outside of the Holy Scriptures.
Dwayne, the Old Latin (italic) is traced back to 157 AD north and west of Rome to future reformation locales along with making its way west from Syria. Shoot me your email and I will send you what I got on it. Blessings…
Yes, I couldn’t imagine how modern scholarship could screw up an update of the KJV. Then there is the copyright, an updated version wouldn’t be 15.99 at walmart.
@@treybarnes5549 You need to drop the old copyright myth. The KJV has been copyrighted since 1611 and still is. After 1776, the Americans did not honor the British copyright. But the KJV is still just as much copyrighted as any modern Bible translation.
@@ronminton3827 it open and available, anyone can and do publish it. not a myth like the oldest and most accurate manuscript was found in a trash bin in Egypt. The Gideons had to jump through 12 going through hoops to put a ESV hybrid in the hotels. In fact, a CSV is a version, created by the Southern Baptist, just to keep from paying copyright charges to the council of churches. The whole copyright is certainly an issue that should never be put aside because you don’t like it.
@@treybarnes5549 Thanks for the note, but continual repeating of false information does not make it true. You did not show anything wrong with what I posted. It is a fact that the KJV has always been under copyright. You are right, I do not like the copyright argument, but what you or I like is irrelevant. Get the facts. At all cost, get facts. Put truth above political correctness and peer-pressure. When people don't tell the truth about a text or translation (as KJVOs are frequently guilty of), they actually do more damage to their cause because the truth will soon be shown by others. The KJV still works, but KJVOs have all but destroyed the KJV itself by driving people away. The Pope lied about the Bible for 1,000 years. We do not need to. Even your trash can illustration is not accurate and meaningless. If you want to discredit the WH text and their text, here is how you can do it: Stop using emotional arguments and show where W & H actually changed words or letters of Greek manuscripts that they used when they published their Greek NT. Show where they made the text say what they wanted. That would be a serious demonstration of error on their part. BTW, I do not think the CR is the best NT text and I know that Sinaiticus is not the oldest and best.
@@ronminton3827 sure and King James was a homosexual, the Byzantine text were created fraudulently, the modern bibles are just made solely for the sake of being easier to read, and they change no doctrine and only the original manuscripts are inspired. And the end of Mark, woman caught in adultery, and perhaps even Revelation is uninspired. There’s enough hyperbole to go around.
Simple message to Christians- study Greek and learn to read Sacred Book. NOT "translations" - all faulty/arguable/tendentious/dated/inaccurate/silly(KJV)...
