Another thing about the WEB I noticed on the Youversion Bible App that’s very cool is that there’s an audio recording included! This is great for when you want to listen to God’s Word while you’re on the road, working out, doing chores, or going to sleep!
Fascinating! This is the first I’ve heard anything about the WEB. I like what I’ve read so far and REALLY like the translation notes, but it’s an adjustment to see so many abbreviations in conversations. I really DO understand and can appreciate why a translator would want to make the people in the Scriptures talk like real people and not ChatGPT!
I had only briefly seen a mention of it hear and there, but then a bunch of people in the comments were asking about the WEB. So glad Michael agreed to come on the channel :)
Hear! Hear! and Bravo! Yea Robinson-Pierpont! Intellectual effort without consulting God in prayer is not wise. I see the WEB as adhering to the KJV 1611 translators ideals, but with a better textual basis. (For example, correcting Beza's conjectural reading of Revelation 16: 5.) This series on the WEB is a great blessing! Thank you so much!😊🙏📖 12:55 Amen! The Bible is already relevant!😎👍
I believe Beza's conjectural reading is correct. But that does not mean much here, as I am just happy to see people talking about prayer. It is incredible the difference in how much consideration and time praying about translation that translators from the era shortly after the reformation did in comparison to people working with text nowadays. It should be talked about more
Thank you brother for bringing such good brothers and dealing with such a beautiful subject as this. Personally for academic (intellectual) reasons I saw that the Byzantine text (whose best representation is that of Robinson and Pierpont) is the genuine text of the NT inspired by God. But the greatest confirmation (and most important for me) comes from the Word of God itself. In Luke 1:1-4 we see how Lucas consulted "everything" just as he had been "transmitted: from the "beginning". This confirmed to me that God is pleased in the textual way that He Himself (providentially) has favored throughout all the centuries, the Byzantine/Majority text. I am very happy about this fact, because God has kept his Word pure (beyond small variations that are easily solved), which is why we must give and acknowledge the Glory to the Lord In Spanish there is a version according to the Byzantine text, it is called NTBIZ (in the YouVersion app) by Dr. Tyler Thank you and blessings from Barcelona, Spain.
I think the textual basis is the biggest gripe I've got. The RP text for the NT is great, but the Masoretic is not enough by itself. I know they modified it in Is 7.14, but it really needs more fixing up than that. Fortunately, his site also has an updated version of Brenton in the LXX2012 that brings a lot of this out.
Basing the Old Testament translation on the Masoretic Text also rules out the Deuterocanon (also called the Apocrypha), which was canonized and accepted by the Church in numerous of her councils since the Synod of Hippo in 393 and the Synod of Carthage in 397, which are the earliest I know about off the top of my head).
@@kainech Agreed. I would like to see an effort of scholars to create an "eclectic" Hebrew Bible, but in conformity with the Septuagint as it has been received by the Church. I do love having "Yahweh" in the text where that name appears in the Scriptures as they were given to the faithful Hebrews.
@@HickoryDickory86 SBL is doing an eclectic Hebrew Bible. I've been meaning to pick up their Proverbs. However, given that the text is more messed up than the NT, and that the texts vary more, I imagine it must be based on the MT or it will be far too speculative. It's quite possible it will be both...but it's too early to say that for sure.
I don’t like the TR verses are missing from the WEB. They should still be in the text block itself and you can put brackets around if you want with a foot note on manuscript disputes. This is why I use the LSB. I think the only missing passage in the LSB is the Johannine Comma.
This interview was terrifying. 13:10 he said he used the “original text”, where did he get those? Sorry but I have hyper spiritualist in my family, I can barely have a theological or practical conversation with any of them that involves the bible. you did well.
It's an alternate New Testament text-critical methodology which favors a reading with a majority of witnesses rather than relying on the oldest but fewest.
The MT approach seems reasonable but don't you think the fact that it doesn't take into consideration texts of other languages except the greek make it weak? What's your opinion on Equitable Eclecticism approach on textual criticism like used by James Snapp? It also takes into consideration of other factors.
It boils down, at least to me, about God's promise of preservation, if we don't have it in the original language, can it be considered preserved? I appreciate Snapp's view, it marks a return to a more conservative type of textual criticism which is a welcomed addition to the discussion :)
@@Dwayne_Greeni appreciate that view but i'm curious. how would you approach Acts 8:37? do you think it's authentic? I'm analyzing this one because i consider myself a MT proponent. since it's not in MT text either. James Snapp accepts it as original, but as for you, how would you approach it? Thanks
@@Aryane09531 Acts 8:37 is original and there's plenty of evidence for that. There's another variant in Matthew 27:35 and I examined 990 AD Anglo-Saxon Bible for this verse and it reads like the TR. Furthermore there's plenty of early evidence for the inclusion of Matthew 27:35 as well. These variants in my opinion demonstrates the current MT methodology needs to be modified.
@@Dwayne_Green Didn't translations began to be made very early on from the original greek? Would God just preserve the original in majority of manuscripts of 1 specific language only? Isn't God also able to preserve the original in majority of manuscripts of other languages as well? I recently began checking on other languages and in many of them I don't find 1 john 5:7 yet I do find Acts 8:37. I believe it's also crucial to check for quotations of early church fathers and many more things as james suggested then we may be able to obtain 100% perfect text, I believe.
So Willian Tyndall is the only translator martyred. Which in my view shows the work of the Holy Spirit. Coverdale and the Great Bible and the 1611 seem to recognize this thus it appears to me God gave us the 1611. And if it's good enough for God it's good enough for me
Anyone telling you that we have prophets or apostles today are false teachers. Read Gal ch1. No new revelation is coming. Acts 20:27 confirms this too. Gods providence is real and active not there is NO further inspiration.
Another thing about the WEB I noticed on the Youversion Bible App that’s very cool is that there’s an audio recording included! This is great for when you want to listen to God’s Word while you’re on the road, working out, doing chores, or going to sleep!
Fascinating! This is the first I’ve heard anything about the WEB. I like what I’ve read so far and REALLY like the translation notes, but it’s an adjustment to see so many abbreviations in conversations. I really DO understand and can appreciate why a translator would want to make the people in the Scriptures talk like real people and not ChatGPT!
I had only briefly seen a mention of it hear and there, but then a bunch of people in the comments were asking about the WEB. So glad Michael agreed to come on the channel :)
Hear! Hear! and Bravo! Yea Robinson-Pierpont!
Intellectual effort without consulting God in prayer is not wise. I see the WEB as adhering to the KJV 1611 translators ideals, but with a better textual basis. (For example, correcting Beza's conjectural reading of Revelation 16: 5.) This series on the WEB is a great blessing!
Thank you so much!😊🙏📖
12:55 Amen! The Bible is already relevant!😎👍
I believe Beza's conjectural reading is correct. But that does not mean much here, as I am just happy to see people talking about prayer. It is incredible the difference in how much consideration and time praying about translation that translators from the era shortly after the reformation did in comparison to people working with text nowadays. It should be talked about more
Light-hearted and cheerful. It's a relief to hear and to hear the truth.
Thank you brother for bringing such good brothers and dealing with such a beautiful subject as this. Personally for academic (intellectual) reasons I saw that the Byzantine text (whose best representation is that of Robinson and Pierpont) is the genuine text of the NT inspired by God. But the greatest confirmation (and most important for me) comes from the Word of God itself. In Luke 1:1-4 we see how Lucas consulted "everything" just as he had been "transmitted: from the "beginning". This confirmed to me that God is pleased in the textual way that He Himself (providentially) has favored throughout all the centuries, the Byzantine/Majority text. I am very happy about this fact, because God has kept his Word pure (beyond small variations that are easily solved), which is why we must give and acknowledge the Glory to the Lord In Spanish there is a version according to the Byzantine text, it is called NTBIZ (in the YouVersion app) by Dr. Tyler Thank you and blessings from Barcelona, Spain.
Thank you, Gentlemen 🌹⭐🌹
Wonderful video. Thank you for making it.
Outstanding interview Dwayne. Really enjoyed the, "hearing from God," discussion. Very well done handling what can be a tough topic
I think the textual basis is the biggest gripe I've got. The RP text for the NT is great, but the Masoretic is not enough by itself. I know they modified it in Is 7.14, but it really needs more fixing up than that. Fortunately, his site also has an updated version of Brenton in the LXX2012 that brings a lot of this out.
Basing the Old Testament translation on the Masoretic Text also rules out the Deuterocanon (also called the Apocrypha), which was canonized and accepted by the Church in numerous of her councils since the Synod of Hippo in 393 and the Synod of Carthage in 397, which are the earliest I know about off the top of my head).
After checking it out, I see that they do offer a version of the WEB with the Deuterocanon, and I very much appreciate that.
@@HickoryDickory86 Yes they do. That still leaves several weaknesses in the text where the MT falls short, but it shores up that hole.
@@kainech Agreed. I would like to see an effort of scholars to create an "eclectic" Hebrew Bible, but in conformity with the Septuagint as it has been received by the Church. I do love having "Yahweh" in the text where that name appears in the Scriptures as they were given to the faithful Hebrews.
@@HickoryDickory86 SBL is doing an eclectic Hebrew Bible. I've been meaning to pick up their Proverbs. However, given that the text is more messed up than the NT, and that the texts vary more, I imagine it must be based on the MT or it will be far too speculative. It's quite possible it will be both...but it's too early to say that for sure.
I don’t like the TR verses are missing from the WEB. They should still be in the text block itself and you can put brackets around if you want with a foot note on manuscript disputes. This is why I use the LSB. I think the only missing passage in the LSB is the Johannine Comma.
This interview was terrifying. 13:10 he said he used the “original
text”, where did he get those?
Sorry but I have hyper spiritualist in my family, I can barely have a theological or practical conversation with any of them that involves the bible. you did well.
What is a majority text?
It's an alternate New Testament text-critical methodology which favors a reading with a majority of witnesses rather than relying on the oldest but fewest.
Which is a key reason the majority text is a good text.@@Dwayne_Green
The MT approach seems reasonable but don't you think the fact that it doesn't take into consideration texts of other languages except the greek make it weak?
What's your opinion on Equitable Eclecticism approach on textual criticism like used by James Snapp? It also takes into consideration of other factors.
It boils down, at least to me, about God's promise of preservation, if we don't have it in the original language, can it be considered preserved? I appreciate Snapp's view, it marks a return to a more conservative type of textual criticism which is a welcomed addition to the discussion :)
@@Dwayne_Greeni appreciate that view but i'm curious. how would you approach Acts 8:37? do you think it's authentic?
I'm analyzing this one because i consider myself a MT proponent. since it's not in MT text either. James Snapp accepts it as original, but as for you, how would you approach it? Thanks
@@Aryane09531 I haven't really looked into this variant, so I don't really have an informed opinion. I'll put this one on the list to take a look at!
@@Aryane09531 Acts 8:37 is original and there's plenty of evidence for that. There's another variant in Matthew 27:35 and I examined 990 AD Anglo-Saxon Bible for this verse and it reads like the TR.
Furthermore there's plenty of early evidence for the inclusion of Matthew 27:35 as well.
These variants in my opinion demonstrates the current MT methodology needs to be modified.
@@Dwayne_Green Didn't translations began to be made very early on from the original greek?
Would God just preserve the original in majority of manuscripts of 1 specific language only? Isn't God also able to preserve the original in majority of manuscripts of other languages as well?
I recently began checking on other languages and in many of them I don't find 1 john 5:7 yet I do find Acts 8:37.
I believe it's also crucial to check for quotations of early church fathers and many more things as james suggested then we may be able to obtain 100% perfect text, I believe.
So Willian Tyndall is the only translator martyred. Which in my view shows the work of the Holy Spirit. Coverdale and the Great Bible and the 1611 seem to recognize this thus it appears to me God gave us the 1611. And if it's good enough for God it's good enough for me
Wycliffe was martyred before Tyndale
And Tyndale wasn't martyred for the translation like Wycliffe, but because he called out Henry VIII’s infidelity.
I think I’ll stick with my KJV.
I will stick with my NET, ESV, NIV, CSb and NASb.
The Baptist faith is based on acts 8:37 and deleting it will definitely send you to hell under the revelations condemnation
Anyone telling you that we have prophets or apostles today are false teachers. Read Gal ch1. No new revelation is coming. Acts 20:27 confirms this too. Gods providence is real and active not there is NO further inspiration.
God save the church from KJV onlyism
The problem with you being so young the majority text was invented and published in 1982. So literally my jacket is older than it. Textus Receptius.
Appalling.