Daniel Wallace - The Basics of New Testament Textual Criticism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 кві 2018
- Dr. Daniel Wallace’s highly recommended video course on New Testament textual criticism-there's really no better resource for learning about textual criticism. Textual Criticism remains today as one of the most overlooked disciplines in Biblical studies. In this collection, Dr. Daniel B. Wallace of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM) teaches people from the lay to the scholarly level about the basic principles and practices of New Testament Textual Criticism (NTTC). Dr. Wallace defines New Testament Textual Criticism and discusses topics like identifying textual variants, categorizing manuscripts, and interpreting the available evidence.
• What is New Testament Textual Criticism
• An Embarrassment of Riches
• The Practice of NT Textual Criticism Pt. 1 External Evidence
• The Practice of NT Textual Criticism Pt. 2 Internal Evidence
• External & Internal Evidence Combined Revelation 1:4
• External & Internal Evidence Matthew 27:16-17
• Another Textual Problem Romans 5:1
• Defining a Textual Variant
• The Number of Textual Variants
• The Nature of Textual Variants
• The Classification of NT Manuscripts by their Contents
• Categories of Greek NT Manuscripts
• Categories of Non-Greek Witnesses to the NT
• The Value and Problems with the Versions
• The Value and Problems of Church Fathers
• Update on the First-Century Manuscript of the Gospel of Mark-
It’s Not First-Century (May 23, 2018). Dan Wallace responds on
(formerly) ‘First-Century Mark’ manuscript: evangelicaltextualcriticism.bl...
Please help support Houseform Apologetics Ministry @
paypal.me/houseform
venmo.com/houseform
cash.me/$HouseformApologetics
Dr. Wallace is a blessing to the modern church. For those who don't know, he is heavily involved in the creation of the NET Bible, which is free online. While I prefer the NASB95 or ESV in the text itself over the NET Bible's text, the translation notes are what really make the NET Bible shine. He talks about specific variants in detail. Really great resource to check out and it's free.
*postmodern church.
@@ZeroESG.goopootoob *Modern
My admiration for Dr Wallace just keeps growing. My first exposure was the John Ankerberg Show as he & others debated the KJVO crowd. Impressive. I've listened to several lectures here on UA-cam & have enjoyed them all.
EXCELLENT. This is weeks of training packed into just over two hours of very important and very useful comprehensive, VALUABLE knowledge.
This is a wonderful series of videos. It should become mandatory for anyone who claims to be Christian.
Love and respect for Mr Wallace work . Must get to Plano to take him and staff.
I recieve a personal phone every month to thank us for the small amount we are blessed to donate.
It all belongs to our Father anyway
Love and prayers always!
Big fan of yours Mr. Wallace, God bless your work. It helps defend the faith more than you may recognize.
You should add time stamps to description
This information is very important. I appreciate all of the work that Dr. Wallace does.
What a blessing this man is... I love how God always gives us someone like Daniel here. That special individual that will help the unbelieving to know we are not a bunch of idiots... There are so many reasons to love and follow Jesus. Christians get more outspoken when they start to see how involved God is in our lives. How involved? as involved as we will let Him... :)
God bless you Sir n use you as he used Paul to preach the Good News.
Thank you, Dr. Wallace for your service to the continuation of the Gospel. Very thorough!
0:57 - What is New Testament Textual Criticism
9:18 - An Embarrassment of Riches
26:14 - The Practice of NT Textual Criticism Pt. 1 External Evidence
38:04 - The Practice of NT Textual Criticism Pt. 2 Internal Evidence
56:23 - External & Internal Evidence Combined Revelation 1:4
Are you saying that out of the less than 2 % of variants from the whole NT less than 1% of those are both meaningful and viable? If that is the case than we are in a very great position indeed!
That is really good news to me , thank you Dr Wallace.
Thank you so much! Will you post Dr Wallace's other videos from iTunes?
For people (like me) who do not care for the background music, I found that - IF your TV has this functionality - you can go into the sound settings, typically under Advanced Settings, and look for something that says "Enhance Dialog", or the like. Turning that ON will bring Professor Wallace's voice more to the front, and push the background music even further into the background. At least it worked that way on my LG TV.
This is a huge blessings Dr Dan what a wonderful way of passing down knowledge and wisdom to our generation . blessings !!
What a great resource this free video is.
Thank you Dr. Wallace!
Thank you because that is really a blessing for me to get that explanations on Textual criticism
It’s nice that information like this has been made freely available!
Exceptional scholarship in a field of study I had not known. WOW!
Having spent many hours of my life in the Big Blue Book I'm looking forward at my advanced age to watching and listening to this.
Thank you sir. Lots of information.
Thank you so much. Is there any way to remove the music, or find this on a different platform? It is distracting and I would just rather hear the professor. Thank you.
In the early days of text criticism, the idea was to restore the text as it was known to the church fathers. In 1850, Karl Lachmann created a Greek text based on the quotations that are given in writings of the second, third, and fourth centuries.
That was fascinating. Thank you Dr Wallace.
Excellent information! Thank you for posting.
Fantastic. In the video Wallace says the variants are either viable or meaningful or both or neither. Is there a resource that charts these?
6:47 very comprehendable for my! I'm just learning a foreign language, which has it's own script. For this language doesn't exsit a official transciption. I have to decide myself how to spell words. Sometimes I change my mind about the best spelling. In my notes are some words spelled in three different ways! :-)
Agreed. I have relatives in Latin America, and I will frequently see them spell things differently both in their native language, and in the language Europeans brought them
I love this topic.
Thank you so much Dr. Wallace for the videos and the knowledge you provide
God bless you for Posting!
🙏👌🙌💖💪👍😭
Amazing, thank you for posting!
These examples are priceless 40:21
If you are interested in textual criticism of the New Testament, or if you are just looking to add some knowledge to your Christian faith, listening to Daniel Wallace for a couple of hours is not a waste of time.
Great material. I feel like I've been sitting in (an interesting) class session.
Not to sound ungrateful, but is it possible to find a copy of this without the piano music, or is that part of the original production? Thanks.
Daniel Wallace is a great communicator.
Do you have in-depth teachings of the Majority Text vs. the Critical Text? I know you spoke about it at the end of this video.
I have considered the event of the Nicean Council and I always hear that they determined what was scripture, they established the book of the bible etc. This is most loudly proclaimed by Catholics as a reason for church authority and it's pretence of being on par with the authority of God's word. Yet I have always thought about the fact that the Nicean Council didn't establish what was scripture, rather, they came to an agreement and established what wasn't scripture. These are very different things though it is a subtle distinction. Establishing what is vs establishing what isn't, when God's self established word is the subject, are two completely different things. Though establishing what isn't, inevitably leaves what is to be revealed, God's word is self established, and requires no man to identify, or establish it's authenticity as God's word. Yet, it is helpful and necessary that the church put an end to controversies and false claims of divine authorship. But that is not the same as giving the divine text it's legitimacy and establishment as God's word. I've never had the chance to talk to anyone about this and I'd like to see if I'm making an incorrect distinction. I put this thought to the test, but it seems strong. Hopefully someone can help me out here and give me some validation, or correct me if I'm wrong. Cheers!
Hi Josh
My understanding is it wasn't so much nicea as the Carthage hippo and Rome councils that dealt with Canon issues
Though the Catholic Canon as it stands today was not dogmatically defined until Trent
Otherwise your spot on
The church has the wisdom and spiritual insight to recognise scripture not the authority to make something scripture
Scripture is scripture whether we recognise it or not
As Protestants we can't infallibly know we have the right Canon but we can have faith that the spirit led the church to it
We believe people can be wrong about what scripture is (as the early councils were about the apocripha) the scripture cannot be wrong though
Now, Catholics will try to undermine scripture here and say since only they claim infallible knowledge only they can have certainty in the scripture and we can't appeal to scriptural authority without infallibly knowing what scripture is...
This falls down on several counts
Firstly as Dan would say you can have truth without certainty and certainty without truth
Secondly claiming your position has infallible knowledge doesn't make your position superior unless you can substantiate that claim so Catholics must demonstrate the infallibly of the church, Popes and councils otherwise neither side has infallible certainty but at least Protestants are honest about it!
Catholics won't defend an alternative to biblical authority they just attack Protestant views
This is similar to KJV only arguments that state only they have a perfect bible because they claim the KJV is perfect and everyone else does not claim their translation is perfect: claiming something to be perfect does not make it so the truth is no TRANSLATION is perfect but non KJV onlyists are the better position that they can seek ever greater accuracy
Lastly as White argues you have responsibility before to decide where you'll place your confidence in the Bible or in the church
Your decision is a fallible one so neither decision gives infallibly you must seek truth based on evidence not certainty.
I hope that helps...
Philip Todd wow you really do know your stuff, I’m only 14 and just started getting into textual criticism and I don’t know a lot and I have a lot to learn. so it was nice to see your view of the council of Nicea etc and to learn from that. God bless you
@@Michael-uk3pj just to be clear: you're aware that their doctrine of papal infallibility was not recognized until the 19th century?
21:00ish. " The early texts very frequently differ from each other more then the later manuscripts". Can you please offer an example? Thanks.
I'm assuming they are grammatical differences vs. any vast difference in meaning or context.
The story of the woman taken in adultery doesn't appear in any copy of John until the fourth century; it was obviously added in by some anonymous copier.
The last twelve verses of Mark aren't in any manuscripts until much later and they don't fit in with the rest of the book, also obviously added in later.
In the earliest manuscripts of Mark, Jesus is "moved with anger" instead of being "moved with compassion" when the leper asks to be healed. Being "moved with anger" goes against the author's theological understanding of Jesus, so it is far more likely to be true and the "moved with compassion" bit a later alteration.
This is a tiny sampling, needless to say.
@@KurtVogel88 then what else has been changed about the messiah's emotions and nature? Why would he have been moved with anger when asked if he could heal a leper? I thought he healed all the time? This concerns me.. what else has been changed to fit the scribes biased understanding of christ?
Great video. (Music is distracting)
I wish he would have given a summation at the end, about the trustworthiness of the New Testament!
1:01:44 tagged for later
You are blessing to the body of Christ
Wow luv his videos
Great teaching, so important that I didn’t want to lose one word of it. Unfortunately, the beautiful music in background that was often in high notes was very distractive and annoying.
I suggest to person who posted this video to redo the sound mixing.
The background music should not be so interesting to compete with the main story of video.
Awesome presentations. Being a Beethoven fan, I seriously had to stop myself listening to the music and concentrate on the information
Yes, it's Beethoven. Can you identify the piece for me please? Getting older is frustrating. It toys with things you know and are on the tip of your tongue but..... Thanks.
I found it to be rather distracting, but in a good way.
An Embarrassment of Riches, 8:43 - 17:53
At 1:39:40 Irenaeus also had Polycarp as a likely source to confirm that 666 was correct over the 616.
I heard 616 is based on anther language, as this language would have Nero's name equal 616. This is in a study Bible I have someplace.
I love this and Dan Wallace is brilliant but man the music is dreadful. I wish I could cut that out of the audio
Also make sure to cite the music in the description lol !
I noticed Bach's C Major Toccata at 26:00. It should be played by an organ of course!
Awesome. Also,could someone link the piano music of the video?
Dr Wallace,..this kind of study so called textual critism is conducted only in greek manuscripts?.. is there any in aramaic,..or even from aramaic to greek,..is there such ancient manuscript?...thank You.. 🙏
Finding out that the story of the woman caught in adultery was a floating text is something I had never heard before. That certainly puts it in perspective in a way that doesn't make every passage of John subject to excessive scepticism.
I did however see why there's so much divergence among scholars on this stuff though. Around 1:39:00 he's talking about how Paul can't be referring to himself, Silvanus and Timothy as 'horses' but considering Paul is himself speaking humbly in the context it's plausible he could mean that in the sense of an animal of labour. Using modern idioms to disregard this possibility is anachronistic. At best we can say this variant is less likely in that it doesn't pair with the metaphor of being a nursing mother but that's a probabilistic sort of critique, not a categorical one.
Thanks for putting this out. This is what is being attacked right now and you are on the forefront in defense of the gospel. Put on the armor of God my friend.
excellent but drop the uncessary music please
But the NET just for the translators notes.
Who decided to add the music? it ain't like the psalms are involved.
Gin blossoms and all.. I kinda like this guy! 👍🏼
Hello everyone. I am aware that there are between 400,000 and 500,000 textual variants in new testaments manuscripts. But when he says that does he mean in the 25,000 manuscripts or less? How many manuscripts are we talking about? Because if there are 400,000 textual variants in the 25,000 manuscripts that means there are just 16 textual variants in each manuscript. Or have a misunderstood something? 16 doesn't seem like a lot.
I believe it means among the 25,000 texts. Yes, that means the average is somewhere between 16-20 variations. Again, note, this is the AVERAGE. Some will vary more than others. I haven't heard if he does it in this lecture (didn't listen to all of it yet), but in another lecture, he discusses how many variations are possible. Within one simple sentence, "John loves Mary," variations in spelling and word order alone could produce almost 100 different variations. So the variations in the NT manuscripts are less significant by several orders of magnitude.
@@livingpicture Thank you very much for clearing that up for me. Go bless you.
@@livingpicture if there are mistakes and things added that arent in the originals then how is this actually the inspired word of the father guided by the holy spirit?
katlin jones That’s why I believe in a perfectly inspired bible the AV. Old english does better in regards to preterits and second-person and third-person pronouns.
@@JewessChrstnMystic are you content to read scripture in English? Is it acceptable to translate the texts? That alone changes it far more than textual variants. And yet considered perfectly acceptable.
Stick the Textus Receptus and you'll have the preservered Word of God, its simple.
And before the KJV translators came along? What was the preserved word of God before the TR existed?
@Ivette Ivette 🤣🤣🤣
Dear Kyle C,
Not a good idea ! The TR was compiled from some rather poor manuscripts. There are better manuscripts from even the Majority Text Line, if you don't like the Alexandrian line. However the TR is not very faithful the to Majority Text Line with over 1800 variants from the Majority Line. Then there are the textual problems with the TR. Example Rev. 22:19 says "book" of life in the TR, but all other Greek manuscripts agree and say, "tree" of life. We understand how this error in the TR occurred. Erasmus used the Latin Vulgate to backwards translate the Greek from the Latin and made a mistake confusing the Latin and Greek words because they are similar. It may seem simple to you but there is a lot that you seem to be unaware of and I suspect you have been misinformed by reading some materials of low scholarly value.
Be Well
DZ
@@interpretingscripture8068 The TR still existed before the KJV. Duh
@@Silverheart1956 Thank you for your opinions and I understand the TR stands alone in rev 22:19 as "book of life" and not "Tree of life". However, due to the it completing the heptadic rhythm ("book of life" occurs 7 times in the TR in Rev) as the TR is most likely correct. This is no mistake in the TR, the words do not look nor sound similar in the Greek.
The idea of moveable type. The idea was brought back from China with Marco Polo. Moveable print was likely used there for more than 1000 years before Gutenberg.
What's with the gaming music in the background???
BEAUTIFUL TEACHING BUT QUITE DISTRACTING WITH SUCH IMPORTANT INFORMATION BEING TAUGHT TO HAVE BACKGROUND MUSIC GOING ON .😥😢🙏🏽
42:47
56:11
1:51:09
1:40:00 it’s certainly 666 because go read the weight of goliaths armor and Nebuchadnezzar, Solomon, etc... foreshadows of the beast/dragon
Would be better without the background music overlapping. Irritating.
Didn't Westcott and Hort base their revision of scripture from the original text and end up with a polluted revision of the Textus Receptus? Isn't the Textus Receptus the received text or the original text? the text we base today's revisions on?
So you're saying the KJV isn't the perfect word of God???
not since it has been assaulted by black magic.....since when have two men in a bed, one will be taken the other left, two women will be grinding, one will be taken the other left.......originally found in the KJV? How bout the words 'bottles' instead of wineskins, or sergeants the word alone let alone misspelled, or 'banks', or police? so Yes Shawn, the KJV is no longer the perfect word of God.....see EYA
Thats right ! in light of church manuscript history EVIDENCE !
No bible or book of the bible thereof is the word of God, and the bible tells us the bible isnt the word of God.
The WORD (logos) of God is Jesus, who became flesh and dwealt among us.
The Bible is a recording of some of the perfect words of God. Only Jesus, who is God is the perfect eternal word of God because he is God who made himself known by wearing a coat of flesh.
@@1974jrod ...close but no...the bible makes a distiction between scripture and jesus and says they are both the word of God.
@@shawnstephens6795 Really? Book, chapter verse that backs your claim. John 1 says "in the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God,.............and the word became flesh and dwealt among us."
This is saying the immaterial spirit of God was informative and by his Word(s) he created all materials and matter, and then actual indwelled his creation by his spirit residing in the flesh he created. The eternal, came and lived with the finite.
You are failing to make a distinction between Jesus, who is God in the flesh. Jesus who by all things were created. Jesus is the singular Word of God, and spoke words (plural) to create matter.
God became flesh, he did not become a book. The bible is SOME of the words of God, but the bible is not the Word of God. That distinction is for Jesus only.
Jesus was and is the eternal Word and mouthpiece of God. Not a book.
The book is had a beginning and is material. Jesus is God, is immaterial and eternal.
That is the proper distinction my friend.
Please cite book, chapter, and verse that say a book is co eternal with God!
Why don't they do carbon dating or something similar on these mss?
the church fathers quote the textus receptus quite often so its sad to see how codex alpha and B are seen as "older" given that the church fathers were centuries before
Dear Guitaoist,
The fathers quote the Textus Receptus ??????? What ???
The Textus Receptus didn't exist at the time of the Church fathers. The Textus Receptus was edited and compiled from several manuscripts that were from mostly the second millennium (well after the time of the church fathers) and the first version of what we now call the Textus Receptus, was finished around 1516 AD. It didn't exist before that time.
The Textus Receptus is not a good representative of the Majority Text Line and varies from the Majority Text over 1800 times.
It also has some very unique readings that are not found in ANY Greek manuscripts (Ex. Rev. 22:19 - "Book" of life). We are very, very certain God's Word says "tree"of life.
The Church fathers may have said some things that were similar to what later was placed in the Textus Receptus, but this in no way means the Church fathers had a copy of the Textus Receptus and quoted from it.
Dear Guitaoist, I cannot imagine where you got that misinformation from (obviously from some source that is not very bright), and I would conclude that you are not really aware of how bizarre and nonsensical your assertion is.
It's kind of like saying the church fathers quoted from William Shakespeare's play, Hamlet. You need to give your assertion a little more thoughtful, rational consideration and more objective research.
Be Well
DZ
I like chicken and mushroom pot noodle.
I loved watching him destroy Bart Ehrman
1:25:20 whenever it says Jesus Christ it’s speaking of him on earth when it says Christ Jesus is speaking of him in heaven. That rule can help you decipher what they were supposed to write...
Also why does the DSS say the name of the messiah is Yahusha? The messiahs name was never jesus. The Roman's have seriously hacked up the scripture, and I believe it was all on purpose for confusion. Also I find it crazy the bible says not to add to or take away from the book but that seems to have always been taking place, adding and taking away. So much contradiction and I've been left completely confused. I thought God wasnt the author of confusion?
People like you always male me laugh 😂 like where's your brain. It is called a translation. Don't call any Hebrew prophet or king by their name anymore then lol. Fun fact. The Catholics and the Orthodox compiled the bible you are reading en.
Use the key, go inside, the kingdom of God is inside you. Don't drink the tap water.
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 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?
What are you saying?
katlin jones In other words, this person relies on intellect rather than faith. Knowledge puffeth, but love buildeth
@@JewessChrstnMystic You can't argue that the majority of Greek texts don't have the comma of John, but later say BTW the majority of Greek texts are corrupt. Blessings.
The offered • External & Internal Evidence Matthew 27:16-17. concerns the alleged plea by Pilate to a gathered crowd at the news of the trial of Jesus ;Whom shall I release Barabbas or Jesus? he cries! Are we expected to believe that a Roman governor needed advice from the rabble in the streets on the judgements he made? I think not.
This guy trivialises the great works of Tyndale and those scholars who put together the great works from the King James era. The essence of the new testament is the introduction of the rule of law which was retrospectively produced and dated using the date we use presently. These scholars speak as if there is no such thing as progressive civilization and as if there was no ptotestantism against the Catholic church.
These guys do that with lots of things. They conveniently ignore quite a bit and assume quite a bit. They almost never quote any scripture to back up their ideas on the scripture and ignore one certain, quite significant historical being, Satan. Would he have any interest in corrupting or attacking God's words? I have a Bible and have read it and know the answer. These guys never even address the issue. James White says it couldn't be the devil or he would have removed all the references, lol. Like that's how the devil works.
Dan, you spend a lot of time with textual criticism, yet you follow evangelical belief structures, which DO NOT align with early church sources. Rather you follow a method that begin in 1730 in the west. Not to mention the fact that Jesus taught God was One- a distinctly separate One and taught that he was a servant of God. His followers held Unitarian beliefs as did most groups after Jesus left the scene.
Strange that all the church fathers were trinitarian then.
SpitfireMase I don’t know if that’s true at all spitfire
Abdool
1Cor 2:1414 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. This verse tells us that an unsaved person cannot understand scriptures. Maybe the problem is there are unsaved people attempting to do something they can’t do, which is understand Gods word. The first “textual critic” was Satan. Gen 3:1 “Yea, hath God said,” he questioned it, she fell for it, and today we’re the recipients of a perpetual sin nature, that condemns all men unless they trust Christ as their savior. Just because this man probably has more degrees than a thermometer means nothing.
Hi Wade
So no criticism ok
So you have 5500ish manuscripts
Where they differ which one do you go with and why
If you decide reading A not reading B for whatever reason
Is that not an act of textual criticism?
Now I take from your quote that you're a KJV advocate
Erasmus made textual critical choices of compile the TR was he asking "has God said"?
What about stephanus?
What about beza?
If you read their writings they all performed ciritcism in much the same way as Dan expounds...
Where they sinning?
What the KJV translators?
They made decisions between the editions of Erasmus, of stephanus of beza as well as previous translations including Tyndale, the geneva and the bishops as those differed.
So if all these men engaged in forms of criticism i.e. they became judges as to what was and was not the original readings of the word of God then why were they permitted without sin to do so but BELIEVING textual critics today not permitted?
UNBELIEVING textual critics today like Bart erman don't even ask "has God said" they dogmatically assert "He hasn't said because he doesn't exist"!
And, for the record, Dan here has a number of times put himself out there publically defending the scriptures against the assertions of Earman and others. Have you done that?
Philip Todd Yes I am aware that many people can’t stand the KJB and the people that use it. I’m nothing but a Bible believer. You can use what ever bible you want, I won’t be mad at you. We’re responsible for your own volition.
Yes I am aware of the refining process that those men went through to produce the KJB. Is it important to know for sure we have the true word of God, in our language? Yes. And once you've done that stand on it, and move on. The critics goal is to prove that not only do we not have it, but that we cannot have it, even though God said he would preserve them, forever. This is the common denominator with textual critics. You can either believe the verses of preservation or not, it’s your choice. Isa 30:8, Isa 40:8, Psa 12:6-7, Psa 119:160 just to name a few.
For every book I could refer you to that supports the Textus Receptus as the true text of the Bible, I’m sure you could probably quote me ten more that argues against it.
At some point it’s up to you to decide, and it also has to matter, to many it doesn’t.
If you can believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, why is it so hard to believe that God can preserve his word forever?
1Pet 2:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Just because sinful man put pen to paper doesn’t mean we can’t trust the copies.
Agreed
“The god that Christians believe in is amazingly stupid if it wants to actually achieve its goal of spreading this information to humanity by relying on text; by relying on languages that die out; by relying on anecdotal testimony. That's not a pathway to truth! And anything that would qualify for a god should know this, which means either that God doesn’t exist or it doesn't care enough about those people who understand the nature of evidence to actually present it.”
-Matt Dillahunty
Well, that does it! Guess Matt Dillahunty just said something no one has ever thought of or answered. Pack your bags people-Des Gardius 2012 has just enlightened us.
Or this guy and people like him are wrong about how God chose to preserve his words.
Just garbage.. NO ORIGINAL..
You denied the video. Typical from ignorant people.
But they are so certain they have/can come up with the original reading, except when t they can't. He gave an example with 666/616 where they don't know.
1:08:50
Maybe Jesus Barabbas was the criminal Jesus and Jesus Christ was the spiritual Jesus.
So Pilot we simply asking, "How do you want me to release him to you, as a spiritual leader or as a criminal?".
That music behind this talk is inane