Відео

Great lecture!

Wow!

The King James version is THE HOLY BIBLE for English speaking people.

Muratorian fragment is way later in date then usually asserted.

The obsession with Jesus date of birth/death sees to be a throwback to the gospel of Augustus.

Gathercole - People don't live and die by Plato.

Theophilus is a highly suspicious title.

Who gave these people the authority to determine what is included and excluded in the Sacred Scriptures!

Go to chick publications he has demonstrated that the critical text is a fraud which is the text that’s causing all this confusion. God is not the author of confusion.

This was informative, mostly because of the ability to hear how the challengers received and questioned the content. What do you think regarding the challengers? Do you think they were genuinely engaging, or more plain "knee-jerk" reacting with the same standard arguments? It seemed to me that there was literally nothing new here in terms of the response, just the same tired rehearsed backwards and fowrwards.

Thank you for this presentation. May I ask; What happened to Faith? Where is faith and the Holy Ghost in all of this textual critical analyses? Do we still walk by faith? I am reminded of Prov. 3:5-6. “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him and he shall direct thy paths.” Please tell me where this textual critical argument aligns with the passage quoted? I have studied textual criticism for more than 30 years, yet the deeper I dive into the Modern Critical Text (Alexandrian), the more my spirit cries out for consistency in the text of scripture. Textual criticism causes doubt and confusion for the lay people. I want a Bible that I can trust and knowingly defend as truth. While I have never been, nor will ever be KJVO, the 1611 translation of the Bible is the most consistent text we possess today. The MCT will never be complete! I use the Robinson/Pierpont text in my studies, yet I trust as θεοπνευστος that text which comes from the Byzantine tradition. For me, the text of the Stephanus 1550 NT is the most accurate Greek text I have ever used. I am reminded of these words; 50 years from now, the text of the KJV will be the same. It never changes, yet it has changed the lives of countless souls who have surrendered to God thru it’s timeless consistency. Thanks be to God for his unspeakable gift!

The PA is real and bibles that omit or cast doubt on it are fake. If you don't believe this then go ahead and throw that first rock at the woman because you must think you're the righteous one in the group.

The Christian Protestant faith is forever reforming. Thus, then is it possible that , to be true to the biblical text, the Christian can and should have confidence in the Byzantine text - as there Canicol historical value in the text- most of the refuted texts , do not come in conflict in doctrine . However, Often critical text is historically subjective subjective in translational decisions that often disavows certain biblical passages and causes more harm than good. Say you have on hand, 5000 consistent maps leading us through a treacherous river passage, and 2 older maps that lead up down a tributary, which map does one use?

I think it would be good if there is not yet one, to add a course of formal and factual sciences in the theology studies, because it gives the impression that they confuse the scientific procedure with a procedure that gives variable conclusions depending on who applies them. , and a process that has such a failure, for another type of discipline that is considered scientific, would be totally unfeasible. Can't it be said that 85% represents consensus? Can't you say that a text that only appears in a geographical area is local? I wonder, are they really taking scientific criteria?

Thank you, Pastor Dwayne, for posting this interesting discussion! It would be interesting to determine which of the three "versions" of the PA was regarded as canonical by those church fathers who actually adopted the canon in the Fifth Century. To me, that would carry more weight than the learned doubts of the "academy". In that respect, perhaps the Greek Orthodox GNT text opens the window to the past?

The idea that they think there has to be footnotes in a bible is ridicules. It was footnotes bibles that made King Jame commission and Authorized the Bible we all have used since. Completely nuts to have a “Holy Bible” on the cover and footnotes full of doubt and confusion throughout.

He based his exaggerated conclusion at the end not from science and basic text criticism, but from long history, divine providence, and such things. A good and fair presentation at the beginning, but his own conclusion - strange and not based on strict text critical evaluation.

Another point is that on that view you would have to regard the accounts of the Man as being legends. Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing. They are not artistic enough to be legends. From an imaginative point of view they are clumsy, they don’t work up to things properly. Most of the life of Jesus is totally unknown to us, as is the life of anyone else who lived at that time, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so. Apart from bits of the Platonic dialogues, there are no conversations that I know of in ancient literature like the Fourth Gospel. There is nothing, even in modern literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence. In the story of the woman taken in adultery we are told Christ bent down and scribbled in the dust with His finger. Nothing comes of this. No one has ever based any doctrine on it. And the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art. Surely the only explanation of this passage is that the thing really happened? The author put it in simply because he had seen it. C.S. Lewis, "What Are We to Make of Jesus Christ?" (1950)