Colombo!! 😂. Good stuff as always Dwayne. I am amazed at all the knowledge that just comes pouring out from Dr. Riddle. You are very knowledgeable yourself.
A lot of people don't realize this, but while the World English Bible is a "language update" of the American Standard Version, during the update process the text was made to conform to the Majority Text.
@@Dwayne_Green That's interesting, especially in light of the fact that Bible Hub is responsible for the four-translation Berean Bible "eco-system." Last I looked they had not actually completed the work on those translations so I'm surprised they've decided to take it on themselves to do a fifth. It's a shame that more publishers aren't interested in producing new translations from the TR. But I know that the Modern English Version came out and seems to have more or less been dead on arrival. (I use it and know that some others do as well, but it seems that the sales were low and even the publisher has lost interest in it.) Personally, I'm very impressed with the World English Bible. It's public domain status makes it very unique and, while the renderings are occasionally a little awkward, I've found it to be a great formal equivalence translation.
Pastor Jeff Riddle presents the strongest argument I have ever heard in defense of the Byzantine/KJV text. Thank you Pastor Dwayne for standing your ground on this most important topic. Note: I did watch the entire debate between Pastor Riddle and James White.
Honestly i found the discussion/critique of James White’s “God did it” rather shortsighted/ignorant seeming-which rather surprised me, bc overall you’re very reasonable, Dwayne😊. But while God does a lot!, i resist the notion that it’s reasonable to think God did something He never promised to do (when you look at the passages in context) and which there’s no evidence He did
The EOB New Testament is a new translation of the official Greek Orthodox text called the Patriarchal Text of 1904. It is a scholarly, fully Orthodox, and easy to read version that aims at being the text of reference for personal study, devotions, and even liturgical use within among English-speaking Orthodox Christians. This translation features: - extensive footnotes to variants from other manuscripts and alternative translations - information introductions to the books - over 80 pages of appendices that explore keys texts and theological concepts important to Orthodox readers - many illustrations and tables Unlike the OSB (Orthodox Study Bible New Testament) which is actually the New King James version, the EOB is a fresh and accessible translation created within the Orthodox community. The EOB team of contributors consisted of about 20 individuals, mostly based in the United States.
Thanks James! I've actually heard of this one from James Snapp Jr. From what I understand its a new translation from the Antoniadis text. I don't know the full range of differences between the other Byzantine editions, but I THINK this one is much closer to a Majority text than the TR is.
What is missing is an Old Testament that follows the Septuagint in its readings versus the Masoretic. The Orthodox Study Bible was a half-hearted effort.
I know nothing about that bible in particular but, what I know for a fact is that if it gives a justification for the tremendous idolatry in the OC then it is most certainly a bad bible. It would also be nice to stop charging 200$ for a baptism and in general stop charging money for your sacraments. Do that, no Mary worship, no worship of images in general, and put a stop to greed and you will be on the right path, and I would take you seriously and call you brothers and sisters. The only way to see your own error is by reading a believing the pure line of manuscripts perfectly translated on the KJV. Other bibles will give an excuse to those unholy practices at some point, and contradict itself on other verses. As always happens with counterfeit bibles from the counter reformation era that we live in.
Cyprian of Carthage (c. 250 A.D.) -- ***“The Lord says ‘I and the Father are one’ and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one’”*** (De Unitate Ecclesiae, [On The Unity of the Church] The Earliest evidence of Acts 20:28 is from Saint Irenaeus, "Take heed, therefore, both to yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit has placed you as bishops, to rule the Church of the Lord, which He has acquired for Himself through His own blood." (Book III, 14).
I'm presuming because he couldn't find it any Greek manuscripts, for the his later editions, he was presented a manuscript that contained it, so he included it after that.
For information in France one of the most promoted Bible translations, the " Segond 21", is a majority text based translation. It's even the translation that is used by the french Gedeon
@@Dwayne_Green Here is info on the base text of the Segond 21 version: Old Testament Segond 21 economic edition: The basic text is the traditional Hebrew text, the Masoretic text of the Codex of Leningrad (1008 AD). It is only in the event of hesitation about the meaning, corruption or even incomprehensible formulation of the Masoretic text that we have recourse to other Hebrew manuscripts, or even to the Septuagint (Greek translation of the 3rd-2nd centuries BC). .-C.) Or to another old version, but privileging as much as possible the Masoretic text and avoiding conjectures, that is to say, reconstructions of the text which are not based on any text at our disposal. The New Testament Most modern French versions are based on the relatively similar text of two manuscripts from the 4th century AD. AD (Sinaiticus codex and Vaticanus codex); this text, reflected in the Greek New Testament known as of Nestlé-Aland, was of course used by the Segond 21 team. But there is also a whole series of so-called majority manuscripts, which are generally ignored by the French versions modern. Segond 21 introduces, when it seems relevant, the text of these majority manuscripts. If a text appears in one handwritten tradition but not in the other, it is put in square brackets. www.universdelabible.net/segond-21/
I am not anti-Critical Text, not anti-Received Text nor anti-Majority Text. I watch James White, I have watched other scholars and teachers, pastors talk on these issues. I think there is too much tribalism whether in translations or Greek manuscripts. When they all agree 94 to 99 percent of the time, why all the debates. Most Critical Text translations still contain 1 John 5:7 in the body or in the footnote. The Comma Johanneum is either in the marginal notes or in the body of only about 8 Greek manuscripts. It basically was transfered over from the Latin. With or without 1 John 5:7, there is an overwhelming amount of Scripture confirming the Trinity of God.
The issue here isn't preference. James White and Maurice Robinson might disagree on the textual selection methods of that less than 2%. They have a high degree of respect for one another and both understand what Textual Criticism is. And that every version uses it. Riddle is a TR onlyist. A nicer and dressed up version of King James Onlyism. The TR being cited is the Trinitarian Bible Society one that in the preface has altered the Greek to match the KJV. That might be an interesting academic exercise. But, Dr. Riddle argues that is functionally equal or superior to the original autographs. I have listened to several of his talks and the debate w/ White. I have seen this movie before. You are right if it were just a matter of the preference. Like the little old lady with her King James. No one would care. This onlyism business is the issue. If you read a TR, either of the Majority Texts or any of the Nestle-Aland/UBS or similar you aren't going to come away with a different set of beliefs. This stuff has caused split churches, all kinds of attacks on good people and folks to just walk away esp. confronted by followers of Bart Erhman etc. I am shocked that Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists are going along w/ this stuff.
I purchased one recently, and like it very much! I'm not a GNT scholar, but it appears that the MEV renders the Greek very well in most instances. This version is easy to read, with much of the feel of the KJV, but lacking the antiquated vocabulary and grammar found in the KJV. It also includes the verses removed or seemingly questioned in other modern versions, tho it does have many of those notes regarding the controversies related to those readings. The MEV is available in a handful of editions at reasonable cost.
If I may question you when you said (paraphrasing) “We have divine intervention per day, when it comes to generating the text- the Holy Spirit moved these men to write scripture and he did so perfectly” Your whole world view is dependent upon this truth claim. So, 1. Why do you think God moved these men? What evidence led you to this conclusion? 2. Why do you think God moved these men to write ‘perfectly’? What evidence led you to this conclusion?
@@yahrescues8993 I appreciate the conversation. I never just pick up one book or go to a library and just automatically assume every single thing in that book or that library is true. I do research and investigate each section or redaction or addition and encompass that with the variations that exist, the textual criticism, the text reception history, and then I’ll come to conclusion -so if you have a specific section within the library called Bible I would love to comment if I think that section is true or not
@@MakeChangeNow Well, firstly I want to mention that for me, evidence doesn’t determine if something is true. I believe truth is absolute and something which is true today has always been true regardless of what evidence, or lack of evidence there was to support it. Just like the flat earth conspiracy theory. The earth didn’t stop being flat until there was evidence found that it wasn’t. Now the bible. I believe there is archeological evidence which proves certain things which the bible records really did happen. I believe the resurrection of Jesus is the most logical interpretation of the empty tomb. I believe early manuscripts point to the New Testament being written early. I do not entirely dismiss evidence. But in my understanding I believe in the bible because God has given me faith in it. I know this sounds like circular reasoning, but if it is true then it doesn’t matter if you go round in a circle as long as you arrive at the truth. Somebody might have had circular reasoning about earth not being flat but that didn’t mean what they believed wasn’t true. My experience doesn’t mean you must believe what I believe, but your question of why do “I” believe wasn’t because of evidence it was an experience which happened in my life which I can only explain by the bible really being true.
4:19 - Although I consider myself to be TR Preferred, rather than TR only, this argument that Dr Riddle gives here against the Majority Text preferred position strikes me as fundamentally fatal to that position. Though it is still vastly superior to the Critical Text preferred position.
My pushback would be that the Byzantine text has been used in the church far earlier than the TR... Just because the TR was used during the reformation, it does not mean the Byzantine textform disappeared.
In defense of Dr. White He does believe that God is at work today and he believes in the providence of God and in the Preservation of Holy Scripture. I thought Dr. riddle lacked charity in the debate
@@Dwayne_Green I like your channel and I find it informative and I am learning things so thank you brother. Well in the debate Dr. White kept calling him Dr. Riddle and Dr. Riddle would never returned that favor. There was no kindness or a charity extended from Dr. Riddle
@@Dwayne_Green Keep up the good work. Personally I am a King James preferred Person and I use the old one. I feel it has the best fruit. However I stop short of being KJV only.
I talk a little bit about this in Dr Riddles challange to majority text advocates, You can see that here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_yJD678a2HE.html There's more to it than simply being in the EOB.
If the ESV is the result sum of scholarship using modern methods and standards, then everything they say to justify their methodology sound like blah blah blah. I happen to know who killed Goliath and it wasn’t Elhanan. I know Isaiah didn’t write Malachi and them putting footnotes IN THE TEXT and I know how to count and modern scholars do not, removing verses so that the numbering sounds like a two year old laid out the bible. If that is smart scholarship, then we see why biblical Christianity isn’t biblical. These people are the first teachers who are making the material for others to teach. Horribly dangerous
Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism. I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin, but not the Greek so out it goes. Good will towards men Doxology in Matthew Without cause God manifest in the flesh Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin, so out they go The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek and Latin so out they go. Even the “not yet” found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8 some throw out. If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem, what would you see as a problem?
