The Latest Textual Discoveries of the Bible (ft. Dan Wallace) 

Thank you for sharing. I just commented i had a similar area of doubt and this area is misunderstood among Christians I've heard personally on forums. I was in tears of gratefulness listening, as my knowledge is expanding im in awe of His hand in preserving His word.

Would you mind going into a little detail? Maybe one or two of your concerns and his answers. I would love to hear it.

Justin, comparing your testimony to my opinion of how approachable he is, shows me that he is probably the best guy to send people to.

@@eugenetswong He's the real deal. I asked him, straight up, if he REALLY believed in Jesus. He paused, and I could hear the emotion in his voice as he finally said 'Yes, Jesus is my life'

@@justinkruse6467That's amazing.

Michael, I agree that it is interesting. I love the detective work that goes into it. He seems to be a humble and approachable person.

Yes, and Amen! & Truth Be Tellin!

Agreed!

Agreed 👍

Agreed!

@@SeanMcDowellThank you for bringing him on the show! I really appreciate how he isn't intimidating. I find that some people are so stubborn that it's hard to trust them.

NT manuscripts Are the Best for information.

❤

Yes, and Amen! & Truth Be Tellin!

Yes, Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words by no means will pass away( Mathew 24:35 )

Perhaps; but how many books do you imagine are in the KLV ... I'll be impressed if you get this right.

In the 1611 authorized version, authorized by King James. The total is 66 books. Just as there is today. If you want to start playing that Ezra and Nehemiah were one book at the time. Go ahead and play your game.@@russellmiles2861

I also bring this up to people all the time about the authorized/king James version. It is just a Latinist Bible. It was a work that was built upon by those that already been translating the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English.

Yes and King James made it a capital offense to publish a bible without the Apocrypha, @@mrwentland1 Still, even the RCC leaves out Enoch that the Ethiopian church includes. The kids would love the rock monster tales.

You got it

May God bless you

May God bless you

Enjoy!

Wow, cool!

Oh, what's that?

Was that the KJV vs. Modern translations debate? That's another fascinating series of shows.

You bet!

Greetings, enjoy!

See my reply after this. It actually doesn't matter. There's plenty to question without textual variants.

You learned a false doctrine.

@@alamahony Enlighten me on what is the true doctrine! I look forward with great anticipation on what you think is the true doctrine!😁

First off this guy said that the Niv is the most accurate english translation,so clearly he knows absolutely nothing or he is pushing an agenda. ​@someone6162

me too

You got it!

Me too!

But the truth is the originals manuscript of the Bible doesn't exist anymore.

​@@darapdiengdoh2179 Wallace (and many others) have demonstrated that the original reading of the first manuscripts is preserved --that is, when you compare all of the thousands of manuscripts, and find this astounding 99.98% agreement in the entirety of the them (with all major doctrines of Christianity preserved), and when you look at the motive of the writers the motive of the copiers in light of their context (a time of persecution and yet intense devotion to Christ, with heresy quickly dealt with before it consumed the church, as even followers of the apostles and their students were alive in the time of our earliest manuscripts' scribes), and look at the early Christian writings a century or so later by those who knew one or more of the writers or their disciples----(e.g., Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD) quoted from several New Testament books in his letter to the Corinthians, including Romans, 1 Corinthians, and James. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 AD) quoted from several New Testament books in his letters, including Matthew, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians; Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD) referred to the New Testament as "the memoirs of the apostles." This is important because it implies that he recognized that New Testament information came from eyewitnesses of Jesus, not just random stories from unknown people. Irenaeus (c. 180 AD)-the disciple of Polycarp (a disciple of John the Apostle)-listed the four Gospels, Acts, the thirteen letters of Paul, 1 Peter, and 1 John as the authoritative books of the New Testament. He also mentioned other New Testament books in his writings, such as James, 2 Peter, and Jude.)----when you look at all this, you can be confident that we have the original reading, as is found by comparing the texts and using the words that the most ancient and contextually-reliable manuscripts agree on. Is this a scientific experiment? No. You can't prove this in a lab. Faith is involved here. But it's reasonable.

@@darapdiengdoh2179 well of course they don't. They were written on the cheapest paper most likely. And were also probably the first ones thrown away as their usefulness was no longer needed. This would be true of any written material. But if you can see that from the years 250 through 2024 the text has not been meaningfully changed (also see in the history of christian artwork), then you can assume that the closer you get to the source the less and less variants there would be. And if between 250 and 2024 it was preserved than it was even more probable that the first 200 years they were preserved.

You got it!

In other interviews he talks about taking great quality pictures.

Perhaps a recorder?