Maurice Robinson vs. KJV-Onlyism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 лют 2024
- • Is Dr. Robinson KJV-Only?
• Are the Majority Text, the Byzantine Text, and the Textus Receptus the same thing?
• Is Acts 8:37 part of the majority?
• Does the KJV stick with 99% of the manuscripts?
• Is it theologically possible for a one-time majority reading in the NT to be lost?
• Is it acceptable to make conjectural emendations in the text of the GNT?
• Does Matt 5:18 promise perfect textual preservation of the GNT?
• Does Dr. Robinson hold a textual absolutist view?
• Why does he call his viewpoint "Byzantine" and no longer "Majority"?
• Why didn't the Lord give us a perfect text and tell us which one it is?
• If Dean Burgon edited a text of the GNT, would it look more like Scrivener or the Byzantine text?
🎁 Help Mark Ward bring the Bible to the plow boy in his own English!
✅ / @markwardonwords
✅ / mlward
✅ buymeacoffee.com/mlward
👏 Many, many thanks to the UA-cam channel members and Patreon supporters who make this work possible!
▶ UA-cam:
Larry Castle, Sarah Leslie, Christopher Scaparo, Drane Pipes, David H, Jesse and Leigh Davenport, Meghan Brown, Justin Bellars, Lynn Hartter, Alan Milnes, Rich Smith, Lynn Stewart, Matt Stidham, Karen Duncan, Gregory Brown, Brad Ullner, David Podesta, Frank Hartmann, Andrew Brady, Tricia Maddox Behncke, Caleb Richardson, PAClassic87 95, James Duly, Deep Dive Discipleship, Todd Bryant, M.A. Moreno, whubertx, Joel Richardson, Orlando Vergel Jr, OSchrock, Eric Couture, Bryon Self, Average Gun Guy, Brad Dixon, Derek Ralston, Brent Zenthoefer, Reid Ferguson, Dale Buchanan, James Goering, David Saxon, Travis Manhart, Josiah Dennis, judy couchman, Kimberly Miller, Jonathan Clemens, Robert Daniels, Tiny Bibles, ThatLittleBrownDog, Gregory Chase, Robert Gifford, GEN_Lee_Accepted, Lanny Faulkner, Benjamin Randolph
▶ PATREON:
Paul Gibson, gnomax, Nathan Hall, D. H. Wallenstein, Keith Martin, Beth Benoit, Cody Hughes, Arvid D, Frank Hartmann, Thomas Jacobs, David Stein, Andy B, Deborah Reinhardt, Desert Cross Tortoise Fox, Robert Daniels, Rick Erickson, Lanny M Faulkner, Lucas Key, Dave Thawley, William McAuliff, Razgriz, James Goering, Edward Woods, Thomas Balzamo, Brent M Zenthoefer, Tyler Rolfe, Ruth Lammert, Gregory Nelson Chase, Caleb Farris, Jess English, Aaron Spence, John Day, Brent Karding, Steve McDowell, Adam Avaritt, James Allman, Steven McDougal, Henry Jordan, Nathan Howard, Rich Weatherly, Joshua Witt, Matthew Lindquist, Luc + Eileen Shannon, Easy_Peasy , Jeremy Steinhart, Steve Groom, Corey Henley, Luke Burgess, Joel, Joshua Bolch, Tyler Harrison, Angela Ruckman, Nathan N, Bryan Wilson, David Peterson, Eric Mossman, Jeremiah Mays, Caleb Dugan, Donna Ward, James D Leeper, Nate Patterson, Dennis Kendall, Michelle Lewis, Lewis Kiger, Dustin Burlet, Michael Butera, Miguel Lopez, CRB, Dean C Brown, MICHAEL L DUNAVANT, Jess Mainous, Brownfell, Joshua Barzon, Benjamin Randolph
▶ BUY ME A COFFEE:
Stephen, Joshua, Cody, Evan, Robert, Joel, Brian, Michael, Stacey, Justin, Jason, Jimmy, Nathan, Kim, Carl, Tom, Zach, Frank, Jenna, DH, Robert, Papa D, Ben, Anirudh, John, Alan, Ben, Phil, Cody, Adam, Kayla, Sarah, Darlene, Caleb, Scott, Anonymous (18x)
I ran across a young man whom the Lord told me to sit with. He was talking to some ladies and I asked are you a KJV only fellow?
He responded yes and we started talking. The ladies were shocked that I knew all the twists he would take. KJV is the oldest Bible, he said, and I responded, what about the Geneva Bible? He literally started having a fit and I had to calm him down. He then stated you could lose your salvation and I realized he had deeper issues.
I took him to Romans 10 13 and Acts 2 21 and walked him through the promise that Jesus would never leave him, ever.
Pray for this man if you would,please. 🙏
Getting Maurice Robinson on here for KJV Onlyism is HUGE! Robinson puts to rest so many of the arguments from the KJV Only crowd. This video needs to be widely circulated. 😊
It won't change anything for KJV only crowd, whatever that actually means because it's actually really vague even though you and Mark Ward probably don't think so. People can be KJV only and claim that every single word is the actual perfect intent of 'God'.. Which is 100% irrational. Some people can be KJV only and not want to dig deeply so they know the corruption and disputes that have come up with ALL the other versions including the NKJV so they just use what they have. There are also TR and Masoretic text only people who believe that from those comes the most accurate Word and since the NKJV plus ALL the other ones differ in many places they use the KJV. Yes the NKJV claims to be based on the TR and Masoretic text which it is mostly but it footnotes so much that it makes it hard to say it's true to the original. People don't get the intent of the footnotes and the diversions that say things like "the majority of texts say or the critical texts say" and for someone common who's not going to put the effort forth to deep dive, it's simple. The truth is this isn't about KJV onlyism, this is about you guys. Mark Ward is clearly getting paid to undertake this endeavor because according to him it's not that big of a difference for it to matter. So why has he spent 4 years exclusively talking about it? It's actually quite insane. Money, money, money.... there is no other reason. I was going to lay it all out but I just realized it doesn't matter to you or anyone following this for 4 years. Good tidings.
@@chuckdeuces911 So:
1. Right, there are different groups, but I think Mark Ward has been quite clear to make the appropriate distinctions. It's not like it's something he isn't aware of from everything I've seen and read from him.
2. Also, whether or not you like it, or whether or not you even agree with it, the fact of the matter is that Ward's work on the issue (which is only a little part of his overall ministry) is indeed changing lives given all the testimonies from former so-called "KJV Only" advocates. You can even read some of the comments on some of his videos from people who have said so. I think he has even interviewed a couple of them.
3. "Money" isn't necessarily an evil thing (e.g. 1 Tim 5:18). The worker deserves his wages after all. Of course, the love of money can be a root of evil, but that's more about untoward desire than money as such. But anyway, more to the point, it's easy to try and smear people than it is to prove those smears.
@@pattubeHe's not making appropriate distinctions at all but my comment was to you. You're completely ra ra ra, yeah KJV Onlyism needs to hear this because....because why? Mark says that there is no difference between the bibles, only if you can't understand the text of KJV. So why spend 4 years bashing it? Think about it... it's illogical and irrational to say there's no difference but spend 4 years attacking it? If he'd just say I get paid to prefer one over another then it's whatever but he'll never admit it. Check his affiliation, who he works for and where he went to school and at the top of that pyramid are publishing companies like HarperCollins. KJV only people only worry about sticking to their text. They aren't on a crusade. I respect them. Most of them. They have to listen to the mainstream society with the 'scholars' rag on them 24/7. Make it make sense other than you want to believe your bible is best or money.
@@chuckdeuces911 1. Hm, well, I think Ward is indeed making appropriate distinctions. He has a long record of all this if you follow his work. It's not hidden. It's quite obvious.
2. Ward doesn't say there's "no distinction" between the Bibles. You'd have to quote where he says that exactly.
3. It sounds more like you're unfamiliar with his work. I think you'd do a lot better if you tried to familiarize yourself with his work and only then critique him. That'd be fair. Not critique him without appropriately understanding him. Otherwise you'd just be setting up a strawman to burn.
4. He doesn't work for HarperCollins as far as I know. Rather he just signed a job Crossway, which is actually quite a respectable Christian publishing company. They're famous for publishing the ESV. Prior to this, I believe Ward worked for Logos Bible Software.Granted, Logos might be owned by HarperCollins, or it might not be, I don't know, but even if it was, Logos seemed fairly able to independently run things. Besides, even if he worked for HarperCollins, that doesn't necessarily mean he's an evil or greedy person. For example, I know of Christians who work for secular places, including Twitter and Google, both of which in the past have done things which are arguably quite immoral, yet that doesn't mean the Christians there are anything less than godly people. So even if Ward worked for HarperCollins, that doesn't mean he's trying to argue against KJV purely for "money". And in fact it's arguably quite sinful for a professing Christian to accuse another Christian of such a thing without appropriate evidence.
5. Actually I respect a lot of the KJV Only proponents too. Indeed, I'm respecting you right now by replying to you in a generally polite and respectful manner. Anyway, I don't have an issue with anyone reading or even preferring the KJV. It's odd you seem to think otherwise. I just don't think the KJV is the only Bible people should read. Again, I suspect the issue isn't so much me or Ward, but your own false assumptions about people like us. Again, brother, and at this point I don't doubt you are a genuine Christian, I'd recommend you fairly represent Ward by really honestly studying his work before you criticize him. Obviously I think you can and should criticize him if you think he has erred, but again I'd recommend only doing so after you fairly understand him. Otherwise, again, you're just burning a strawman. Indeed, if you can, you should steelman his position, not strawman it. Attack Ward's position AFTER making his case even BETTER than Ward can make it. Steelman, not strawman.
@@chuckdeuces911
Ward has been exceedingly clear that he isn't against people reading or using the KJB; he's against people spreading unbiblical ideas such as the KJB is the only correct Bible or that people can't be saved if they or the congregation they're a part of uses any other translation, or that the KJB is a uniquely inspired text, or the twisting of truth of some KJB-exclusive proponents regarding the history of the transmission of the Bible.
It's because of these aspects of the discussion that he's spent so long working on understanding and communicating to the general public the history of the Bible, its preservation, and its inerrancy.
I would love to listen to Dr. Maurice for hours. He is so clear in his thoughts and his voice is mild yet enthusiastic and loving. Wish I could study under him in person.
Anyways thanks Dr. Ward for this.
Studying under Maurice Robinson would be the thrill of thrills .
When I spoke with a prominent KJVO defender in New England, as scholarly as he is, his best argument in favor of the inclusion of 1 John 5:7 was “I hear my Shepherds voice…” In other words, it is a confessional position. He was at least honest enough to admit the lack of manuscript evidence.
1 John 5:7 belongs there, it upsets nothing scripturally or doctrinally in fact doctrinally it is essential point. Nor will I ever look into the evidence one way or the other, do not care really and trust He has preserved His word in he KJV.
@@Obediah002 I can answer this easily with truth and documentation. I'm not going to attach it but Jerome's preface to the canonical epistles literally says they took it out and admits it
Tertullian 200 a.d roughly speaks about it in his apology against Praxeas. Nonetheless, I agree with you. It's correct and Gregory of Nazianzus noticed it in the 4th century. I wouldn't even bother with a channel like this one. Ward is either completely sold out or has been completely souled out. I'm sure he makes a lot of money being attached too Lexham Press and Logos 'too expensive' bible software. Lexham press which is Faithlife which is owned by Cove Hill founded by Andrew Balson who was a stock market manager who now hawks failing companies to make them profitable. I'm 99% sure if you dig deep enough they own bible publishers or publishing rights to the Westcott and Hort NT that turned into Nestle Aland and so on. Just like HarperCollins is part of the same group that Lexham press is in and HarperCollins was run by a Jesuit educated guy when asked what made him so successful he said "devils, demons, I have an intellect and been blessed with an intellectual curiosity that I accredit to being trained by the Jesuits..." it may have been intermedia right before they sold to HarperCollins who is owned by Newscorp Rupert Murdoch who sold the other half to Disney... but HarperCollins is who produces the Satan's bible by Anton Levay. This guy might think he's doing the right thing.
You two 😂😂😂😂
Mark, thank you for this discussion. I appreciate how men with distinct preferences and textual philosophies can get along and bolster one another without rancour. Your work is valuable! May the Lord continue to bless and use you in service to the church.
That was one of the best videos. I needed this. Thank you so much for doing this.
You are so welcome!
Can we get at least one major English translation revised to match the majority text?
Thank you for this interview Dr Mark Ward. This clears up a lot of arguments.
Thank you for continuing this very important series.
Our pleasure!
Great series✨ Great teamwork. Thank you,Mark.✨🌞✨🌹⭐🌹
Thank you for this video.
The comments on arguing from silence reminded me of a discussion i was having with someone a year or so back. I can't recall the exact context, but I found myself saying that I like starting with what's on the page.
This is excellent! Where I went to college, "TR" and "Majority Text" were treated as synonymous terms. I wish I would've known this information back then!
What an excellent interview! Thanks for this!!
Fantastic discussion and I'm really glad you found a way to slip this this season. Dr. Robinson is such a humble man and really knowledgeable. Thank Dr. Ward for doing this interview and sharing it with us. Keep up the good work.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Love and respect Dr. Robinson! The World English Bible uses the RP Byzantine Text and is public domain.
I really enjoyed this video, and it's always a privilege to learn with Dr. Robinson. Thanks for encouraging the Byzantine text and may God bless you. From Barcelona.
26:30 Similarly, in the Synoptics there are differences and we can’t say with absolute certainty if the voice said ‘you are’ or ‘this is’ my beloved son. (Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11) And since we know the original reading at this point we can see that God has not chosen to give us a dogmatic way of saying this is exactly how it was. And by saying you don’t know the exact reading at one point, that is not saying the reading could be absolutely anything. It is either reading A or reading B. This is how anybody with a view of preservation before the printing press would have viewed the manuscript tradition
Great interview. Very informative. I could listen to this for hours.
Wow, thank you!
Hey, Mark. This was a great interview. I really enjoyed it. Since you said that you prefer the critical text over the TR, I'm wondering if you would do an in-depth video explaining why you hold to that position? That would be valuable and informative for us to know why.
Fantastic listen.
The KJVO debate is such a shallow debate. It’s so unproductive. Some of the most historical fundamental churches I’ve seen aren’t even KJVO. I’m just not sure why the most popular denomination of the 1950s has decided to hold on to it.
Gods word isn’t limited to scripture. It’s so much more than that. It’s God himself. It’s his laws. His judgments. His perfection and his holiness. That’s his word. And God chose to preserve it largely verbally for centuries until enough men gained the intellectual capacity where reading and writing was a bit more common, and then copies of manuscripts simply exploded and Christianity quickly spread. This was the 4th century. Historically, that was what happened. Gods word was preserved by word of mouth, and it hurts knowing that there’s believers out there that just don’t seem to believe that.
Not true. Literacy declined after the 4th century, not increased. 1st and 2nd century would have had more literate people not less. The earlier manuscripts simply didn’t survive the longer time period until now or just haven’t been found yet.
@@talisikid1618 Less than 10% of the populations of Greece, Egypt, and Italy could read or write by the 3rd century.
That number decreases to below 1% if you include Spain and Germania.
Nobody could read or write except those of power, wealth, or some other form of higher status. Reading and writing was not common for the vulgar class until late into the medieval era. That’s why the KJV Bible was produced. Because the “Vulgar Tongue” had struggled with the Geneva. The Tyndale. The bishop. The LV.
Great video. So much discussion, I could have listened for another hour. Thank you so much
For the “average” Bible reader this discussion is deeper than most are able to comprehend!
Awesome! Something to listen to on my way to work.
What translations does Dr. Robinson recommend? I couldn’t find video on this topic?
Wow! I had no idea the Gideons did that. That is facinating! 🤯
Nice! Which hotel was this, the Marriot?
Hi do you have a video or link on 2 kings 23:29 KJV against NKJV aid? Thanks Trying to move from the KJV with our church but this is an issue.
I don't think Dr. Ward has done a video on this.
According to the Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon, the Hebrew word could mean either "come to the aid of" or "to attack". The NKJV includes this information in a translation footnote.
The commentator Wiseman explains that "come to the aid" is likely the correct translation for two reasons:
1) It fits the parallel passage of this story in II Chronicles 35 well
2) Some archeological discoveries indicate that Megiddo appears to have been an Egyptian, not Assyrian, base at the time.
English translations I checked before the RSV go with the "against/attack" sense, but modern translations after the RSV either choose "come to the aid" or keep an ambiguous sense like "to" or "to meet". The only exception I found is the MEV which has "against".
Very interesting discussion. I wish I had not had to sell my copy of the Robinson Greek NT a few years ago.
What are your thoughts on the TNIV and the Good News Translation?
Considering that he endorses the 2011 edition of the NIV, I think it's safe to assume that he endorses the TNIV (which is practically the same thing). As for the Good News Bible (also known as Today's English Version), it falls outside his definition of recommended "major modern evangelical translations" for two reasons:
1. Since the 1966 Good News for Modern Man was translated by one person, it would fall slightly outside his idea of "major" (which seems to imply not just popularity, but also the participation of a sizeable committee). The TEV Old Testament was made by more than one person, and the whole translation has since received a minor revision in 1992, but it's still largely Robert Bratcher's work.
2. Speaking of Bratcher, he was a Southern Baptist, but he was critical of conservative evangelical approaches to bibliology. Thus, his work is not "evangelical" in the sense of presupposing inerrancy. And the translation shows this (lack of?) bias in various places. And since the 1992 revision was nowhere near as significant as, say, the changes made to Kenneth Taylor's Living Bible over the various editions of the New Living Translation, Bratcher's perspective still influences the current edition.
@@MAMoreno I appreciate your response and insight, but I was curious about his thoughts, regardless if he endorses them or not.
@@JannahPursuit Unfortunately, I cannot guarantee that you will get a response from him any time soon. (He's certainly not ignoring you in particular, but he may not be responding to comments much at all in March.)
I can tell you that his opinions on the (T)NIV have developed over time. You can see a softening to it from 2008 to 2021 if you read these two posts from his blog:
byfaithweunderstand.com/2008/01/19/tniv-and-blogging-protocol/
byfaithweunderstand.com/2021/05/09/review-the-inclusive-language-debate-by-d-a-carson/
You can also check out Ward's video on the NIV 2011: ua-cam.com/video/8KaRpnhkViY/v-deo.html
And here's a recent interview he held with an NIV translator: ua-cam.com/video/q1B5G_1fsmw/v-deo.html
@@MAMoreno I appreciate the links and resources. I'll take a look at them
brilliant . this man has made a huge contribution to mankind. the audiobook version of his greek text is on here free and even read by him too
brilliant !!
Loved this!
Thank you, Josiah! I sure had fun!
Do we have an English translation that resembles the RP text? What would be the closest?
Adam Boyd did the text critical English New Testament.
The World English Bible is probably the best-known, and even it is obscure.
Fantastic discussion. Mark, how would you respond to someone stating they reject all of the critical text translations because the critical text didn't exist or wasn't available to the church for 1800 years until Westcott and Hort put it forward. Seems like a mischaracterisation but couldn't the same be said of the TR?
It’s such an obvious misunderstanding that I don’t answer it. I say this: My friend, the New King James Version and the Modern English Version both use the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the King James. And they translate those texts into fully intelligible contemporary English, which means they meet the principle of 1 Corinthians 14, edification requires intelligibility. I recommend the NKJV and MEV to you.
@markwardonwords I appreciate your response. That is helpful. After years of researching this subject and listening to excellent teaching such as this video, the aforementioned argument sounds ridiculous and uninformed. Your focus on intelligibility is a much more profitable endeavor. Thanks again
what do you think about “the expositor’s study” by Jimmy swaggart
Learning so much.
Thanks!
Wonderful discussion! See, I'm not the only one that doesn't like the term "Majority Text" :P
Which term do you prefer or use instead?
We should be more precise, @@nervestriker5798. Call the underlying respective Greek manuscript what it truly is -- F35, 1516 TR, 2005 Byzantine, Scrivener's, Majority Text, 1550 TR, 2010 Byzantine, etc.
They point is that there are dozens ... and we just need to be up front with which Greek set of manuscripts are being used in a given translation.
@@IndianaJoe0321 check outvmy other comments in the main section. Let me know what you think? Let's get the conversation going, shall we?
@@nervestriker5798 I prefer "Byzantine Priority", I did a video on the "Majority Text" that shares some of the difficulties with the term. I don't believe Mark would have an issue if I shared that here:
ua-cam.com/video/OwY2gtuAWQM/v-deo.html
Which version is based on byzantine text?
Thank you for this.
Outstanding.
I understand your focus is on kjv stuff, but I'd like to hear him speak more in the specific differences, if there are any, between his Byzantine text and the Majority Text of Hodges and Farstad, not just the philosophical differences but of the actual text.
Dr. Robinson has done a number of interviews over the last couple of years -- and they've been uploaded to UA-cam. You may want to do a quick search and see what pops up. He is very informative.
Wow, Mark and Tim look like twins! 😮
Outstanding video!
Thank you very much!
@markwardonwords l love how you and the crew really try to act according to Biblical ethics, and I am inclined to agree with your stance on most topics, because where l don't know, l will go with what an honest and godly person thinks! This was such a valuable discussion, but it's missing the part where you weren't in furious agreement 😅. Why does Prof Robinson favour Byzantine priority while you do not? Why does he think the differences are important while you do not? Eventually my reading will answer those questions for me, but boy I'm a slow reader and it would be nice to hear it sooner 😊.
Thank you
I completely agree with Maurice! KJV-only believers have a real problem when they commit to the majority of MSS. It's a popular argument and it sells well. Funny how we don't want a minority text, but are okay with minority readings. Something for us all to think about. 🤔 Thank you for this video! 😊
Very good point. As Dr. Robinson points out, Hodges & Farstad -- at times -- went with a minority (as opposed to a "majority") reading or, even, included an Alexandrian reading.
Yet, most Byzantine advocates are quick to point out a reading in the Alexandrian text form that is only supported/attested by one or two manuscripts, rather than the "majority" of extant material.
This is a misnomer. We give credence to a majority text because it represents what the church has been led by God to accept as God’s words.
God allows for flexibility in his words and uses the Holy Spirit guiding his church to confirm them.
I've long said that the CT and MT are closer in the theory of how to create them, even if the MT and the TR are closer in output.
And this is how I feel about Scrivener, from what I can discern. His preferred text would be closer to the Byzantine or to the TR than to the CT, but his methods are not those of the TR defenders of today.
@@markwardonwords that's because KJVO and TRO have no real text critical methodology. They are simply bound by presuppositions to defend each and every reading. It's really not a very helpful comparison. Practically speaking, it should inform us that a more fitting battle is between the texts and methodologies of the CT and BYZ positions respectively - as opposed to a like-minded collaboration against KJV/TR defense.
What I don't understand is that every KJVO church I have been to "corrupts" the KJV by explaining difficult words and passages. A good translation does the same thing.
Thank you so much for this wonderful conversation and "bonus" to the series. God bless you all.
Excellent interview.
Mark Ward questioning at 26:47 - 27:19: "Dr. Robinson, sometimes when I have watched divisions in the Christian Church over textual criticism and also translation, I have thrown up my hands to the Lord and asked in my sort of Job-like moments, 'God, why did you do it this way?' Could you answer that question, having spent so much of your life as an inerrantist, as someone who believes the Gospel and the Bible, who loves the Lord, why do you think the Lord didn't just give us a perfect text and tell us which one it is?"
Dr. Robinson answering at 27:20 - 29:28: "Who has known the mind of the Lord, you know? That's the question. Who has known? He did things the way He did. He chose to do it. It's not for us to say, well, you could have done it differently. I mean this was ... you brought up Job ... that's his complaint. (right) Why did this all happen to me, you know? And why did God preserve the manscripts this way. He chose fallible human beings to act as scribes to copy the manuscripts, to preserve the word. And the truth is the word has been preserved...It's not like everything has been lost because by my own calculation between the Byzantine Text edition and say the current critical text, the Nestle Aland Edition, they are running approximately 94% identical already. And if you only dealt with that 94%, you've already got a solid preservational basis that will be allowing to establish all basic doctrines, faith and practice. They're all there and with the 6% that's left, some of these variant readings are so small as to be a difference between and and but ... just minor little variants that really don't change very much of the meaning. The ones that are important are the ones where they either omit or add a lengthy portion, but even then the lengthy portions are not that lengthy. Some are whole verse lengths. Yes, I would much rather have the long ones with the whole verses put back in. This is what happened with the ESV, they left them out. The Gideons wanted them back in. They made an arrangement with Crossway and so the Gideons have now put all the verses back in that were left out. And these are what were footnotes in the ESV. They're now just in the main text of the Gideons. My only complaint there is that they didn't go far enough, so ..."
Response: Maybe the Lord did not give a perfect, agreed upon text because there is something greater than words on a page, even if they are sacred words. These divisions over textual criticism and translation are between Christians whose churches follow the principle of 'Sola Scriptura.' Even with the 94% agreement on the texts that Dr. Robinson refers to, there still is no 94% agreement on basic doctrines, faith and practice due to the individual interpretative basis rooted in 'Sola Scriptura.' Even if there was 100% agreement on the texts, there still would not be 100% agreement on basic doctrines, faith and practice. But if your goal is to achieve 100% agreement with everyone on the texts, may God go with you.
Job 42:4-6 (KJV): "Hear, I beseech Thee, and I will speak: I will demand of Thee, and declare Thou unto me. I have heard of Thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth Thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes."
This is a good point, one that my professor Randy Leedy made in reverse. Our main doctrinal divisions in Christianity effectively never trace back to textual variants.
Well then, continuing Randy's reverse engineering, would doctrinal divisions be traced to an authority exterior to the Bible?
As significant examples in Protestantism:
1. Lutheranism: The 1580 Book of Concord that includes Martin Luther's 1537 Smalcald Articles
2. Reformed: John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion as interpreted by
A. various regional/national confessions
- and -
B. 20th century theologian Dr. Loraine Boettner's extraction and distillation of the Institutes into the 5-point TULIP acrostic
3. Anglican: Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Cranmer's 39 Articles of Religion in the Book of Common Prayer
4. Presbyterian: The 1647 Westminster Confession of Faith* adopted as subordinate doctrine in The Church of Scotland founded by John Knox, the student of John Calvin
(*"In May 1986 the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland passed the Declaratory Act, in which the Church disassociates itself with certain statements in the Westminster Confession of Faith"; quoting from The Church of Scotland UK webpage /about-us/our-faith/statements-of-the-churchs-faith)
5. Reformed Baptist: The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith
6. Methodism: Originating in Anglicanism, John Wesley's Arminian variation on Calvin
7. Seventh Day Adventism: The visions, prophecies and teachings of foundress Ellen G. White
8. Independent Fundamental Baptist: The King James Bible only, Scofield Reference edition?
However, I'm pretty sure all eight examples listed above, at least in their origins, were in agreement about and united in three doctrines:
1. Justification by faith alone, following Martin Luther who inserted the word 'alone' (Allein) into Romans 3:28 in his 1522 German translation of the New Testament
2. The Catholic Mass is a blasphemous offense against God
3. The Pope, the Catholic Bishop of Rome, is:
A. the Antichrist
- and -
B. 2 Thessalonians 2:3-8's (NKJV) "man of sin", "son of perdition" and "the lawless one" whom Jesus Christ will destroy at His Second Coming,
- thereby -
C. effectively branding the Papacy as a demonic institution spreading out over many centuries.
In fact, Martin Luther's last work, published one year before his death in 1546, was Against the Roman Papacy, An Institution Of The Devil, that contains the following passage where he personally addresses the Pope:
"I would not dream of judging or punishing you, except to say that you were born from the behind of the devil, are full of devils, lies, blasphemy, and idolatry; are the instigator of these things, God’s enemy, Antichrist, desolater of Christendom, and steward of Sodom."
[From Against the Roman Papacy, an Institution of the Devil, pg. 363 of Luther’s Works, Vol. 41]
Heresy arises from interpretation, not criticism.
Who determines what is heresy? Benny Andersson of ABBA?
So here is my theory as to why variants are providentially allowed, the Bible is written in a way to promote thought and meditation. God didn't give us a perfectly inspired systematic treatment, theology is necessary, and yes there are differences of opinion, however during all of this we are thinking, meditating and growing in grace. (This is my response to will there be Roman Catholics in heaven, salvation by grace through faith doesn't imply there will be no errors in theology you may make along the way). The need to work between readings provides the same meditative time and process.
Thanks! The clarification of Burgon's position was the high point for me. Blessings!
🙏📖😊
I wish Burgon's work was available on Logos Bible software.
@@IndianaJoe0321 they're available for free online.
I’m trying to learn the difference of these texts. Lol! It’s all “Greek” to me. I can’t grasp it all because I’ve never been taught it. I go to a KJVO church but I’m not KJVO and I have to keep it to myself. Lol!
Doesn’t God want us to worship Him, not a translation?
Ruckmanite here - we don’t worship a translation. We just treat it the same as you would treat the original autograph.
I love that, you can't tell God how to preserve the text (😂He doesn't use the KJV 😂)
God does use the KJV. God uses his word wherever it is. Even on a plaque or in a meme.
27:14 if God would have made a "perfect text", people would worship the text as God. As it is now, well, anyways...
I agree.
Did God ever give anyone a perfect text? Did they worship it as God?
Do you mean… an autograph? People treating it as a relic with an elevated, unique place among physical artifacts? That’s exactly how the original autographs are treated.
Ruckmanites reverence God’s words, we don’t worship them as God himself. But Ward’s crowd gives a special elevated place to a single physical document - the autograph - as evidenced by the very question you reference.
Whew... Great discussion. I am spending some time within the halls of discussions on textual issues and bible versions in light of the astounding multiplications of obvious errors and incorrect verses across translations, original texts, languages, concordances and dictionaries. Much is being revealed now by God Almighty and those who are teachable, merciful, abiding in Christ in humility will be shown much more in this season. Those who are puffed up, far from *The Truth* , ignorant of their dilemna will need to repent, for we are clearly living in perilous times now.
Here are just 2 examples of nonsense verses from the popular kjv;
And he said, Swear unto me. And he sware unto him. And Israel bowed himself upon the bed's head. -Genesis 47:31
12 If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No. -Haggai 2:12
The answer is found in Jesus, hearing His voice and believing The Holy Spirit. Blessings, - an earthen vessel.
Ruckmanites just seething when watching your videos. Great work Mark.
I’d rather they be persuaded. That’s my prayer! But yes, some are very angry.
@@markwardonwords in my experience it’s nearly impossible. Ruckman is biblically disqualified from being an Elder. Therefore they’re following a cult of personality
@@markwardonwords there are some who are false teachers, others are simply misled sheep. You do a great job of reaching the latter, the former, well that will require the work of the spirit if not regeneration.
Biggest issue I have is that Dr. Ruckman’s stance is misrepresented by Ward. He’s attacking a straw man.
Scrivener:
The design of the science of Textual criticism, as applied to the Greek New Testament, will now be readily understood. By collecting and comparing and weighing the variations of the text to which we have access, it aims at bringing back that text, so far as may be, to the condition in which it stood in the sacred autographs; at removing all spurious additions, if such be found in our present printed copies; at restoring whatsoever may have been lost or corrupted or accidentally changed in the lapse of eighteen hundred years. We need spend no time in proving the value of such a science, if it affords us a fair prospect of appreciable results, resting on grounds of satisfactory evidence. Those who believe the study of the Scriptures to be alike their duty and privilege, will surely grudge no pains when called upon to separate the pure gold of God's word from the dross which has mingled with it through the accretions of so many centuries. Though the criticism of the sacred volume is inferior to its right interpretation in point of dignity and practical results, yet it must take precedence in order of time: for how can we reasonably proceed to investigate the sense of holy writ, till we have done our utmost to ascertain its precise language?
This is so key. It reveals that even if Scrivener disagreed with Westcott and Hort over many individual passages, he agreed with them at the key point where textual absolutists today divide from the rest of evangelicals.
@@markwardonwords Yes! And more than that he says ‘as far as may be’ this sounds exactly like modern scholars are saying, as close as we can get to the originals. He even said textual critics haven’t created the uncertainty of certain passages, they have only discovered them.
Can you explain in a video about that the "Geneva Study Bible" is and if it's a good translation? I know it's said to be long before the KJV, I've just never heard of it before.
The KJV is very, very similar to the Geneva Bible. Think about how similar the MEV is to the NKJV, or even how similar the ESV is to the NASB '95. It's because of their shared heritage.
The main distinctive of the Geneva Bible is that it contains Calvinist commentary in the margin of the text. King James did not permit the committee to include any commentary in the KJV--only basic translation notes.
@@MAMoreno thanks for some insight, I do know that the Geneva Bible was Banned by King James during the release of the KJV which is why the Geneva hasn't been around much. I'd just love an in depth history of it
@@he_will_be_back Well, here's the short version of it for now: library.hds.harvard.edu/exhibits/incomparable-treasure/geneva-bible
@@MAMoreno thank you sir🙏
Regarding Matt. 5:18, it is notable that Jesus' statement can only refer to the Aramaic script adopted in Ezra's reforms. In the (so-called) Phoenician script that Moses used, the ἰῶτα was a large character, and there were no κεραία at all. Therefore Jesus could not possibly be referring to textual variants, but to the Law itself, regardless of what variants were or were not involved in its transmission.
If the TR advocates really wanted to take this passage literally, they would be forced to apply it to the actual letter forms, but they cannot because they know full well about the change in the script of the Old Testament. Therefore they rightly consider Jesus' statement to be a trope, but arbitrarily make it deny transmitted textual variants.
This is especially rich, given that there are many places where the KJV translators ignored the Hebrew text and translated LXX variants. Even Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the LXX in places where it differs from the Masoretic text.
This is true and elegantly stated.
“Present in the extant manuscripts” where was the the modern readings before the mid 1800s? When new”oldest” manuscripts are discovered tomorrow is there anything in the current readings that you would be unwilling to change?
What modern reading?
He seems to be saying that any new manuscripts would match up with one of the extant 5000+ manuscripts, thus proving that the autographs are preserved within the manuscripts.
The problem is this is too generic, also many of the "modern readings" were discussed and known, just not in the west. There is a bit of eurocentricism to the TR only argument.
Age is a factor, it isn't the only one. If an extremely old manuscript were discovered with the oddities of a P45, I'd take it with a grain of salt. A new reading on a passage with a great deal of difficulty attached will be more persuasive then a new reading in a place where there are few questions.
Maurice Robinson is king !
KJ Only-ism: shaping* the truth to fit the narrative*.
Any one care to venture what fairly recent unrelated “idea” that* parallels?
Great discussion.
I've been pointing out how awful the text of Revelation is for variants for many years! So funny to hear Maurice say that, too! 😂
Have you read Robert Adam Boyd's "The Text-Critical English New Testament, Byzantine Text Version?" Boyd's translation is based on Robinson & Pierpont's "Byzantine Text form 2018."
I can’t stand the AI effect 😢
I know! It’s hardest in those who know what they’re doing.
It sad that you could not have some TR advocate as part of the discussion as well.
I know TR proponents don’t see it this way, but I just don’t see anyone engaging seriously with my critiques of their viewpoint. Bryan Ross has come up with the only serious response, the only advance in this debate since I entered it. But he hasn’t developed it in detail and no one else has picked it up.
Weeeeee
Wow Mark thank you again sir!! You disarmed another advocate the KJV ONLYism crowd and made a false witness because the lied Lol. Like you said sir you are the textual critic and thanks for showing us who really want to spoudazo the WoRD but not just KJVONLY LOL.
🚩 21:55 - 22:12 🚩 Mark, are you implying that YOU are willing to judge among differences among the different modern translations? Oh, let me guess... you don't have to because you never claimed perfect preservation of the modern translations, right?
Well, you do claim that modern translations are more accurate and superior to the KJV. If that's the case, why not put the differences to the test? For starters, how about kicking off with Colossians 3:16?
Let's start with criteria, shall we, since the standard TR/KJO claims require begging the question, which is logically fallacious.
@@kevinshort2230 Is that a question, statement or opinion?
@nervestriker5798 do you mean that TRO advocates beg the question when comparing translations? That is a fact. That begging the question is a fallacy, well some coherentists will make thst claim, but I'll treat that as a fact as well. That we should Starr with Criteria, call it the opinion of someone who has spent some time dealing with the logic involved in the question.
Whats funny though is that Dr. Robinson's arguments destroy the Critical text just as it can for the KJV onlyists
eg. the PA
@@mrsamurangx3030 The Nestle-Aland 28th edition places the Pericope Adulterae in double-brackets, but it leaves the passage in the main text block rather than shoving it in a footnote. So it's fair to say that the Critical Text includes the PA (as Robinson would want), even if it holds the passage at arm's length due to its absence from some major ancient witnesses.
Put brackets around "thou shalt" in the Ten Commandments and tell me if it makes a difference. It is a diminishing of the Word. It sets doubt upon the Word. It is confusing for Christians and unbelievers. Muslims love that we do this to the Bible as an example. @@MAMoreno
I wouldn't even bother with a channel like this one. Ward is either completely sold out or has been completely souled out. I'm sure he makes a lot of money being attached too Lexham Press and Logos 'too expensive' bible software. Lexham press which is Faithlife which is owned by Cove Hill founded by Andrew Balson who was a stock market manager who now hawks failing companies to make them profitable. I'm 99% sure if you dig deep enough they own bible publishers or publishing rights to the Westcott and Hort NT that turned into Nestle Aland and so on. Just like HarperCollins is part of the same group that Lexham press is in and HarperCollins was run by a Jesuit educated guy when asked what made him so successful he said "devils, demons, I have an intellect and been blessed with an intellectual curiosity that I accredit to being trained by the Jesuits..." it may have been intermedia right before they sold to HarperCollins who is owned by Newscorp Rupert Murdoch who sold the other half to Disney... but HarperCollins is who produces the Satan's bible by Anton Levay. This guy might think he's doing the right thing but you have to really turn your head when seeing some things and pretending they are "conspiracy theories" as Ward loves to say. The way he loves to bring on lesser arguments or argumenters and attack it all with fresh and funny quips and one liners. The type of guy who okays marijuana because of technicalities in his estimation. God made it and it's legal so alcohol right? Yeah, like oxycodone, adderall, xanax, and vegetable oil. Mark should think about where his life is and ask himself if he's happy in his money and notoriety because he's really taken a rough turn in his appearance and I truly mean it as an observation that's not a shot. He looks worn out. He doesn't look like he did just 2 years ago let alone 4 and he's not that old to have changed so much in 2 years. Well, one can hope someone gets off this white knighting for money issue. He says there's really no difference between bibles, just more modern words so why spend 4 years attacking it? It's sad really.
What's the perfect recipe for a bad argument? Just ad hominem.
Small point of clarification: what is wrong with vegetable oil?
And yet another video on attacking the kjv.
John, I let people comment in disagreement unless they get positively nasty and sinful. You haven't gotten there. But you're also not making any constructive comments whatsoever. I don't see any evidence that you've listened before responding.
So can I ask you: is it possible, in your mind as it is in mine, to attack KJV-Onlyism without attacking the KJV? Do you think those two things can be distinguished?
Man corrupted the text. Don't blame God.
I bet Maurice wouldn’t have this discussion with a KJV onlyist he’d get schooled!
I mean what on earth is he talking about in regards to the Ethiopian eunuch 🤦🏽♂️
Robinson says that why would he ask about baptism this is just stupid with clearly says in the verse before That phillip preached and to him Jesus, do you honestly think he’s not gonna talk about baptism?????? Unbelievable
Acts 8: 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
Ya not swallowing your poisoned concepts... give me a KJV
🤔 MARK WARD 🤔 As a TR only and listened to many of Robinson's interviews, I knew I'm going to hear things I'm not going to like despite enjoying listening to him. How did I know this?
The fact that he was interviewed by YOU! You would never ever dare appear in presense of those you know would make you look ignorant, misinformed and... well I'll refrain from using more profound adjectives.
Congratulations to you for having the talent to know which battles to avoid. Frankly, Bryan Ross, Jeff Riddle etc would really make you appear as just a rebellious little boy...
Yeah, someone claiming Mark Ward is ignorant on the issues should be viewed with some suspicion. He understates rather than overstates his qualifications. But aside from legitimate questions of expertise (I would level this the other way, where did Jeff Riddle study, how good is his Greek and Hebrew, etc) the basic claim here is the ad him fallacy. Argue to the point not the man.
@@kevinshort2230 Please show me FROM THE KJV (or any other modern translation) that your level of understanding and interpretation of Scripture depends on your level of proficiency of Greek?
@nervestriker5798 well the doctrine of inspiration indicates strongly that the final court of appeals is to the Hebrew and Greek text, Matthew 5 implies this a bit more strongly.
However, a case for a textual position cannot be made from the Bible with good technique (which is why the TRO and KJO proponents rely on so many fallacies, a sort of European chauvanism, or false facts). In the case of text crit., from the very practical standpoint, you cannot actually do the work without knowing the languages, (how do you collate a manuscript you can't read, after all)? Trying to claim expertise in an area like this without reading Greek is like trying to be a doctor without studying chemistry or becoming a physicist without learning Calculus.
@@kevinshort2230 If God wanted us all to know Greek, He would've given us the the KGV and not the KJV. So please let me know if there's a King Greek Version out there, ok?
@nervestriker5798 On what grounds is this required for the Greek to be the final standard, as required by say the standard Baptist confessions of faith? Nothing I have stated requires every believer to know Greek, so if you are going to make that claim you have a duty to make a case for why it is true. I can attack this proposition in a few ways, but the best is merely to say you haven't supported it adequately (nor have you responded in an adequate way to the argument proferred, which is that passages like 2 Ti 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:21 reference the writing of Scripture, this being the case the original languages would appear to be the court of final appeals in doctrinal disputes and Matthew 5 appeals more directly to the original languages. This means to be KJO one must wither postulate that God didn't preserve His Word, which for the KJO or TRO is self-defeating or one must postulate that God didn't do it right the first time, which is heresy).
Why should I view your response as a valid one? Why should I believe the criteria you are raising, God would have done X (always a problematic claim, without a reference directly from His Word, since we would by definition not know what an omniscient being knows)? In this particular debate the KJO/TRO advocate is making a very specific truth claim, that God's word is to be found in a specific subset of the Mss data, and the burden of proof is on you to prove it, not on me to deny it, a fact your post seems to miss.