The critical text idea was built on that supposed 4th century recension and now that it is gone they don't have a foundation to stand on. Why does this not bother critical text advocates? Where is the fervent effectual search for a new foundation to support their theories?
The graph showing so many more Alexandrian texts prior to the 9th century, and then the Byzantine text "explode" in number can be explained by the impact of the Moslem conquest. The area around Constantinople was still Christian. Not so Egypt and the Holy Land and eventually Antioch.
Would love if the next time you interview Dr. Robinson, if you get a status update on what he's working on. Not sure how much is under an NDA, but any details he would be willing to share would be of interest and appreciated.
Im really enjoying these conversations Stephen. Thank you to you and Dr Robinson for doing this. I hope this isnt a silly question, but do you know which English translation he prefers considering that there hasnt been a majority text based English version in wide use. Thinking through what version I'd want to preach from when im finished my ministey training
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews There’s already a Majority Standard Bible available for free in digital form, which is from Berean Bible society (berean.bible) and based on the Byzantine text form for NT. Haven’t looked it for comparison for details, please do a review on this version if you can, thanks!
Dr. Robinson once recommended the English Majority Text Version to me when I asked the same question. It's available online, and in a softcover printed edition.
The reason why the Alexandrian text type is few in number was due to Diocletian's vicious persecution of Christians in this region of the faltering empire and where he decreed that biblical manuscripts were to be confiscated and destroyed! This decree was extensive, and God only knows how many ancient manuscripts and NTs in their entirety were lost. Then, we have to take into account the Islamic conquests, which certainly limited the production and progress of the Christian scriptures, which no doubt were to be prohibited under the rule and dominion of the Islamic empire and Caliphate. This accounts for the vast majority of manuscripts that testify and represt the Byzantine text type. The late Christian scholar Harry Sturz book The Byzantine Text Type and The New Testament deals with this historical facet of the preservation of biblical manuscripts. There are definite historical reasons as to why the Byzantine manuscripts are so numerous and represent a text of a later date. Their value is indisputable, but we need to understand why their number is what it is.
The older uncials would have been worn out from hundreds of years of use too. The two sacks of Constantinople didn't help either. Very hard for the best manuscripts from antiquity to survive, presumably we only have ones that weren't used much.
Dr. Robinson's theory is very consistent, but one detail remains unclear: why did the byzantine scribes destroy their uncial manuscripts after copying their texts to minuscule copies, instead of just erasing their text so that they may find another use to the manuscripts? I don't think they were exactly cheap at that time? One solution may be that the uncial manuscripts which were copied into minuscule successors, were so old that their parchment deteriorated so much that the scribes could not see any use to them, leading to they're disposing. If that's really the case, then it's a huge backup for the antiquity of the byzantine text, unlike what Dr. Wallace claimed. But could it have been the case for every single one of the uncials predecessor of the minuscule manuscripts we currently possess?
The discovery of Codex Sinaiticus in St Catherine's Orthodox Monastery disproves the claim that the older manuscripts were destroyed once they had been copied.
You are not asking the right question. The question is how many early Alexandrian text type manuscripts are found in the area between Jerusalem and Rome? It is in fact this area the New Testament was both originally authored from and specifically sent to. It is from this area we see the Traditional Christian scripture represented by an overwhelmingly consistent Byzantine Majority text that is both publicly preached by the church and proclaimed to the world as the Word of God.
@@toddrosvold9233 And your question is ill-conceived. There is a very good reason for there being so few manuscripts of the Alexandrian text-type - Islam. Guess what Moslems did when they seized church property all over Israel, Egypt and northern Africa more generally.
I think that there is a very simple and obvious explanation of how the Byzantine Text became the Majority Text. We know that the Byzantine Text was used by John Chrysostom at Constantinople at the end of the 4th century. But where did it come from? Here is the obvious explanation. We know that at about AD 331 the Emperor Constantine asked Eusebius of Caesarea to produce 50 parchment manuscripts for some new churches that Constantine was planning on building in Constantinople. If I am not mistaken,, Eusebius used a manuscript he found in the library of Pamphylius of Caesarea, which had one of the best manuscript collections of the time. The Byzantine Text, then, would have become the standard Greek text for the Greek Orthodox Church.
It is a real pleasure to learn with you, Dr. Robibson, and Mr. Hackett thank you for these valuable interviews that contribute to such an elementary topic as it is to discern which is the best and most faithful edition of the Word of our good God and Savior. God bless yours
We now know Paul was correct in Galatians 4:25 about the real Mount Sinai being in Arabia. Jethro, who was the father-in-law of Moses, was a priest of Midian. On older maps Midian is located in the Northwest corner of Saudi Arabia. The other Mount Sinai at Saint Catherine's Monastery in Egypt is a counterfeit. The texts that came from this place are also a counterfeit.
Some food for thought…Paul said that Mount Sinai was ‘in Arabia’ Galatians 4:25. However, we must remember that Paul did not use a 21st century map…he was a child of the Roman age, holding Roman citizenship and he used Roman names to record locations. The informal name which the Romans used to refer to what we now call the Sinai Peninsula was Arabia; and when Rome finally wrestled control of the Sinai Peninsula from the Nabataean Kingdom (of Petra) in the second century, they named their new province according to their traditional names - Arabia Petrea or Arabia for short. The Bible itself seems to indicate that Mount Sinai is located in what we now call the Sinai Peninsula (formerly Arabia) and not in Saudi Arabia. In Exodus chapter 18, Moses' father-in-law leaves Midian to visit Moses at Mount Sinai and the Bible says, ‘Then Moses let his father-in-law depart (from Mount Sinai), to his own land (Midian)’ Exodus 18:27. Also, the story of Moses' meeting with Aaron on Mount Sinai, suggest that the location of the mountain is in what we call the Sinai Peninsula…Now the Lord said to Moses in Midian, "Go return to Egypt" and it came to pass on the way that the Lord met him, Exodus 4:19. Therefore Moses left Median, which is in Saudi Arabia and heads towards Egypt. And the Lord said to Aaron (who was in Egypt), "Go into the wilderness to meet Moses." So he went and met him on the mountain of God, Exodus 4:27. This passage shows that Mount Sinai must be in the Sinai Peninsula, because Moses found the mountain on the way to speak to pharaoh in Egypt, not on his way south in Saudi Arabia. Aaron and Moses met at Sinai at some point between Midian (in Saudi Arabia) and Egypt.
@@jonathan711 The modern archeological evidence in Saudi Arabia is overwhelming. The Saudis have even put up a fence to keep people away from the mountain. Even the local illiterate Bedouins say it is the mountain of Moses. Jim and Penny Caldwell were two of the first amateur Bible explorers to explore this location in Arabia. Since that time many others have been to this mountain. How could the children of Israel have left Egypt, if there were ancient Egyptian Copper mines in the "Sinai" peninsula during the time of Moses? There was also a garrison of Egyptian soldiers located in this area during the time of Moses. How could the children of Israel have wandered for 40 years in the "Sinai" peninsula? Were they just going in circles for 40 years? On the other hand, the huge landmass of Arabia would have been a different story. Can you show us an ancient map which labels the "Sinai" peninsula as "Midian"?
@@jonathan711false. I personally know of people who’ve been at the REAL Sinai which IS in Arabia or Saudi Arabia both of which are the same country today. Everything there aligns with the biblical description even places where they got water, made an altar etc. stones with ancient carvings in them and they even found Elijah’s cave. The top of the mountain is VISUALLY darker as if it was burned. Do yourself a favor and research this better before spouting out fictional nonsense.
I have seen those “scholarly” You Tube videos as well 😂 Ron Wyatt was one of the first to make these claims: red flag. In any event, they are entertaining, but little substance. It makes sense that the Saudi’s would install protective fencing: projects an image of importance. A lot of those mountains are blackened at the top. Anyone could scribble things onto a boulder and align rocks at the foot of a mountain. Trust me, I have probably done more research into this issue than I care to admit. Take a serious look at the gulf of Aqaba; look at the drop off at the “land bridge” especially on the other side where they would have had to walk uphill. Ask yourself if this is an logical crossing.
Furthermore, the Bible says that Moses left Egypt and went to Midian (Exodus 2:11). Just a few verses later in Exodus 3:1 we read how Moses took Jethro’s flock to the mountain of God. So clearly the mountain of God is somewhat in the vicinity of Midian. Ask yourself this: if the mountain of God isn’t that far away from Midian as described above, and the mountain of God is Jabel Al Lawz…when Moses fled Egypt the first time and “went to Midian,” did he cross the Red Sea at Nuweiba beach to get there, or did he flee Egypt and travel to the northern tip of the gulf of Aqaba and then make the long trek south on the west side of the gulf to take a seat by the well? There is no positive outcome to these questions. If he did in fact travel across the Sinai peninsula to the top of the gulf and then way south to Midian: why would Moses think he had to go into Forrest Gump mode to leave Egypt? But even if he did, then why not lead the Israelites that same way decades later when fleeing Egypt again? If he took the short cut and crossed at the Red Sea why isn’t that miracle recorded? Calculate the amount of people that would have left Egypt. When you get that number, consider how fast they could travel over open desert. It’s laughable to think that such an incredible amount of people were able to cross such terrain during the period of time they are said to do so. We just have to think logically here. I know it feels neat to see gold plated chariot wheels glistening on the ocean floor, but in the end we have to think with our heads.
The methodology used was different from modern CT advocates. I compared Bibles from 10th century and it aligns heavily with the TR while the 10th century Bibles differ a lot from modern CT.
Yes, the TR was and is a Critical Text of its day and there are several versions of the TR. Some of the comments made on this video are mind boggling in their complete lack of knowledge.
But Maurice Robinson is not part of the 99%. I have much respect for the man and his work, just like Peter Gurry does. Now I have tried to come around to their point of view (TR advocates). Contrary to popular belief we were NOT taught that the Byzantine mss. were inferior, and the Nestle Aland was the only way. We were taught to consider the other point view. So I bought their books and respect their work. And in a small way I am adopting more Byzantine readings, because of Harry Sturz's work (The Byz. Text Type & NT Textual Criticism) and James R. Royce's work (1086 pgs. Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri). One thing I'm thinking about: Before the TR was finished say they found all the papyri and early mss. that we discovered up to this point today. I can't see those Greek experts saying that this whole mess of uncials and papyri are junk.
@@mrtdiver, Have you read anything about Erasmus making the first TR (wasn’t called the TR at the time. Not until much later). Erasmus used the few manuscripts he had. He had a dozen or less. He would’ve gladly used others but didn’t have access to them. He didn’t even have any manuscript that contained the entire book of Revelation and had to translate it backwards from Latin to Gree by using a commentary by someone. That’s why, to this day, The TR, and the King James Bible, contains readings that do not appear in ANY Greek manuscript. He also didn’t include 1 John 5:7 in his first 2 versions. Because he had no manuscript containing it. You can read his writings telling that he was basically forced to. Because it was in the Latin Vulgate. They produced a Greek manuscript to him that contained it..That manuscript dates to the exact time Erasmus was writing the TR..I’m glad God gave us other lines of the New Testament manuscripts. So that we can see what was added by the Latin Vulgate and those controlling it.
I know this is off topic, but this is the only way I can contact you with interesting biblical stuff. This Greek to English pronoun issue might be interesting to you. This is from a mid 1800s book concerning the pronoun "we" in 1Cor 15:51 and 1Thess 4:15&17. You may agree or not, it is entirely up to you. But it is an interesting small study on this usage. A friend of mine found this and sent this to me. Concerning the Pronoun "WE" in 1 Cor. 15:51 & 1 The. 4:15 by Alpheus Crosby in his 1850 book "The Second Advent" (pp. 55-56) In relation to people claiming Paul was using this pronoun loosely to refer to whoever may still be around at some distant future return of Christ, Mr. Crosby penned the following points: 1. [To hold to such] is at variance with the natural interpretation of the passages. If a pastor, in addressing his people, either from the pulpit or by letter, should use such expressions as "We shall not all die," "We who are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord," etc., would he not be understood as believing in the speedy coming of Christ? And had the Corinthians or Thessalonians any reason for understanding the apostle differently? 2. It greatly diminishes the force and significance of these passages. *3. It isn't consistent with the emphasis belonging to "we" in those clauses in which it has been printed [in the Greek] in small capitals. In these clauses, the pronoun is expressed in the original so that, according to a familiar law of the Greek language, it must be emphatic and used in marked contradistinction. The form of expression in 1 The. 4:15 & 17 is peculiarly strong: "We who are living, who are surviving." And... *4. The loose view makes the apostle's consolation to the Thessalonians little more than mere mockery, because they were sorrowing for their departed friends. He attempted therefore to comfort them by saying, "We who are living, who are surviving till the coming of the Lord, shall not precede or have any advantage in point of time over those who are asleep." What peculiar mode of consolation, to say the least, if the apostle and those whom he was addressing supposed that they might all lie in their graves beside their friends thousands of years before the coming of the Christ! But if they were looking for the speedy appearance, triumph, and reign of their Savior..., while some were fearing that their friends who had died too soon would not be present to take part in the glories and joys of these events, then how natural, appropriate, and forcible does every word of the apostle become!
Why not many fragments of manuscripts before 4th century? Answer, try the almost continues persecutions and martyrdoms of Christians including the death penalty for possessing any scriptures until Constantine's edict. On top of that the autographs were considered "sacred " and hidden, lost or still kept in monasteries. Worse still used as fire to keep warm. Check out what Constanteen Chikendorth found in 1844 at St Catherins's Sinai monastry.
the Nestle Allen text is no older than I am. it was created in the 1960’s and never existed in history in any form. It’s not text that is “old” but a compilation invented by artifacts found in trash cans, holes in the ground and the worst place on earth, the Vatican discovered in the late 1800’s. It’s truly a sloppy unreliable mess. I’m KJBO because once I looked into the missing verses, the brackets and down right crazy footnotes, I didn’t was to read modern bibles and say I’m hearing the words of God in a english translation. too many people went along with this mess and I wouldn’t know what runs a fowl in any modern bible now. it would like calling me to mask up for a new virus. I would just dismiss it straight up now. there is a reason ps 118:6 is the middle of the bible.
@@pekde I don’t read other languages but I ran into a spanish speaking pastor on an airplane warning me the same thing was happening to the spanish bibles.
Well, if you're concerned about scribes changing God's word, you should be thankful that all the changes that they made over the centuries to the manuscripts that ended up being used to produce the critical editions from which the KJV was produced and, later, the Textus Receptus are now being scraped away so that we're now able to enjoy God's word in the purest form we've possessed it for close to two millenia.
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 “not 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?
I found many old Bibles, some 900-1000 years old and some 200 years old and they all closely follow the TR in 99% cases. In my opinion, TR is the safest bet to base any Bible translation upon. I found a french translation of the Bible and it seems to be almost perfect and I am planning to translate that into english. I have some doubts about some variants though, could you give me more details about the variants? It would help
@@Wanttoknowabout Well, the opposite turns out to be true. I looked at older manuscripts with my own eyes and I was shocked To be honest, I wasn't expecting the older manuscripts to match to a high degree with the TR. I did find some minor variants though but it is of no significance. The language is very difficult to read on older manuscripts so I'm planning to start a project to give a side by side view of the manuscripts along with it's translation into modern English. Is all the hardwork gonna be worth it? I don't know because people don't seem to be interested in textual criticism and the amazing history of the word of God.
@@Wanttoknowabout Manuscripts used by the Apostolic Churches being used for hundreds of years wore out and copies had to be made, while sects disappeared over time enabling some of their manuscripts to survive.
Thanks! I think that’s a good reminder to us. It definitely shouldn’t replace spreading the gospel. I think that spreading the gospel is more important in some ways. On the other hand, if you have a very high view of scripture and affirm inerrancy, then knowing the precise wording of the document God has given us isn’t a trivial matter. He has exalted his word above even his name. And I don’t think it’s wrong to have hobbies and interests besides spreading the gospel. Some people like to ride bikes. Nothing wrong with that. It’s a good thing. Some people like to discuss what the precise wording of scripture is. But I mean no disrespect to those who hold other views than mine. Daniel Wallace is a great scholar and I have a lot of respect for him. I have invited him on the channel as well and he would be welcome any time. Blessings!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviewsexactly. People that claim this are hilarious. Like you’re not allowed to even TALK about the entirety of the rest of the Bible except the 4 gospels and that’s it, like nothing else of it even matters apparently.. Well seeing how you NEED the Old Testament to even UNDERSTAND half of the New Testament; that is just a stupid idea. ALL of scripture is God breathed. Not just Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John. Like I don’t get what many don’t get about that. And second; to GET somebody to ACCEPT said gospel, if you can show them WHY it’s all true, then they will be far more open TO accepting said gospel in the first place.
The critical text idea was built on that supposed 4th century recension and now that it is gone they don't have a foundation to stand on. Why does this not bother critical text advocates? Where is the fervent effectual search for a new foundation to support their theories?
Just make up a new theory. e.g., Klaus Wachtel's process theory
Exactly!
Great post
The graph showing so many more Alexandrian texts prior to the 9th century, and then the Byzantine text "explode" in number can be explained by the impact of the Moslem conquest. The area around Constantinople was still Christian. Not so Egypt and the Holy Land and eventually Antioch.
Watching from Australia. Love these interviews with Dr Robinson; as well as all your other content
Bravo once again! Another 🎯 from Dr. Robinson! Thanks once more for this series!
😎👍🙏📖
Would love if the next time you interview Dr. Robinson, if you get a status update on what he's working on. Not sure how much is under an NDA, but any details he would be willing to share would be of interest and appreciated.
Been enjoying these videos with Dr. Robinson alot Stephen, keep up the good work!
Im really enjoying these conversations Stephen. Thank you to you and Dr Robinson for doing this.
I hope this isnt a silly question, but do you know which English translation he prefers considering that there hasnt been a majority text based English version in wide use. Thinking through what version I'd want to preach from when im finished my ministey training
I will ask him
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews There’s already a Majority Standard Bible available for free in digital form, which is from Berean Bible society (berean.bible) and based on the Byzantine text form for NT. Haven’t looked it for comparison for details, please do a review on this version if you can, thanks!
Dr. Robinson once recommended the English Majority Text Version to me when I asked the same question. It's available online, and in a softcover printed edition.
The reason why the Alexandrian text type is few in number was due to Diocletian's vicious persecution of Christians in this region of the faltering empire and where he decreed that biblical manuscripts were to be confiscated and destroyed! This decree was extensive, and God only knows how many ancient manuscripts and NTs in their entirety were lost. Then, we have to take into account the Islamic conquests, which certainly limited the production and progress of the Christian scriptures, which no doubt were to be prohibited under the rule and dominion of the Islamic empire and Caliphate. This accounts for the vast majority of manuscripts that testify and represt the Byzantine text type.
The late Christian scholar Harry Sturz book The Byzantine Text Type and The New Testament deals with this historical facet of the preservation of biblical manuscripts. There are definite historical reasons as to why the Byzantine manuscripts are so numerous and represent a text of a later date. Their value is indisputable, but we need to understand why their number is what it is.
Sturz book is very important
I’d like to se you interview Dr James White. So, please. Thank you
@uwekonnigsstaddt524 Interview Jim White? Why? You can't speak and think for yourself?
The older uncials would have been worn out from hundreds of years of use too. The two sacks of Constantinople didn't help either. Very hard for the best manuscripts from antiquity to survive, presumably we only have ones that weren't used much.
Dr. Robinson's theory is very consistent, but one detail remains unclear: why did the byzantine scribes destroy their uncial manuscripts after copying their texts to minuscule copies, instead of just erasing their text so that they may find another use to the manuscripts? I don't think they were exactly cheap at that time?
One solution may be that the uncial manuscripts which were copied into minuscule successors, were so old that their parchment deteriorated so much that the scribes could not see any use to them, leading to they're disposing.
If that's really the case, then it's a huge backup for the antiquity of the byzantine text, unlike what Dr. Wallace claimed.
But could it have been the case for every single one of the uncials predecessor of the minuscule manuscripts we currently possess?
The discovery of Codex Sinaiticus in St Catherine's Orthodox Monastery disproves the claim that the older manuscripts were destroyed once they had been copied.
You are not asking the right question. The question is how many early Alexandrian text type manuscripts are found in the area between Jerusalem and Rome? It is in fact this area the New Testament was both originally authored from and specifically sent to. It is from this area we see the Traditional Christian scripture represented by an overwhelmingly consistent Byzantine Majority text that is both publicly preached by the church and proclaimed to the world as the Word of God.
@@toddrosvold9233 And your question is ill-conceived.
There is a very good reason for there being so few manuscripts of the Alexandrian text-type - Islam. Guess what Moslems did when they seized church property all over Israel, Egypt and northern Africa more generally.
Should also refer to Wilbur Pickering, Dean Burgon and Herman Hoskier
I think that there is a very simple and obvious explanation of how the Byzantine Text became the Majority Text. We know that the Byzantine Text was used by John Chrysostom at Constantinople at the end of the 4th century. But where did it come from? Here is the obvious explanation. We know that at about AD 331 the Emperor Constantine asked Eusebius of Caesarea to produce 50 parchment manuscripts for some new churches that Constantine was planning on building in Constantinople. If I am not mistaken,, Eusebius used a manuscript he found in the library of Pamphylius of Caesarea, which had one of the best manuscript collections of the time. The Byzantine Text, then, would have become the standard Greek text for the Greek Orthodox Church.
It is a real pleasure to learn with you, Dr. Robibson, and Mr. Hackett thank you for these valuable interviews that contribute to such an elementary topic as it is to discern which is the best and most faithful edition of the Word of our good God and Savior. God bless yours
We now know Paul was correct in Galatians 4:25 about the real Mount Sinai being in Arabia. Jethro, who was the father-in-law of Moses, was a priest of Midian. On older maps Midian is located in the Northwest corner of Saudi Arabia.
The other Mount Sinai at Saint Catherine's Monastery in Egypt is a counterfeit. The texts that came from this place are also a counterfeit.
Some food for thought…Paul said that Mount Sinai was ‘in Arabia’ Galatians 4:25. However, we must remember that Paul did not use a 21st century map…he was a child of the Roman age, holding Roman citizenship and he used Roman names to record locations. The informal name which the Romans used to refer to what we now call the Sinai Peninsula was Arabia; and when Rome finally wrestled control of the Sinai Peninsula from the Nabataean Kingdom (of Petra) in the second century, they named their new province according to their traditional names - Arabia Petrea or Arabia for short.
The Bible itself seems to indicate that Mount Sinai is located in what we now call the Sinai Peninsula (formerly Arabia) and not in Saudi Arabia. In Exodus chapter 18, Moses' father-in-law leaves Midian to visit Moses at Mount Sinai and the Bible says, ‘Then Moses let his father-in-law depart (from Mount Sinai), to his own land (Midian)’ Exodus 18:27.
Also, the story of Moses' meeting with Aaron on Mount Sinai, suggest that the location of the mountain is in what we call the Sinai Peninsula…Now the Lord said to Moses in Midian, "Go return to Egypt" and it came to pass on the way that the Lord met him, Exodus 4:19. Therefore Moses left Median, which is in Saudi Arabia and heads towards Egypt. And the Lord said to Aaron (who was in Egypt), "Go into the wilderness to meet Moses." So he went and met him on the mountain of God, Exodus 4:27.
This passage shows that Mount Sinai must be in the Sinai Peninsula, because Moses found the mountain on the way to speak to pharaoh in Egypt, not on his way south in Saudi Arabia. Aaron and Moses met at Sinai at some point between Midian (in Saudi Arabia) and Egypt.
@@jonathan711 The modern archeological evidence in Saudi Arabia is overwhelming. The Saudis have even put up a fence to keep people away from the mountain. Even the local illiterate Bedouins say it is the mountain of Moses. Jim and Penny Caldwell were two of the first amateur Bible explorers to explore this location in Arabia. Since that time many others have been to this mountain. How could the children of Israel have left Egypt, if there were ancient Egyptian Copper mines in the "Sinai" peninsula during the time of Moses? There was also a garrison of Egyptian soldiers located in this area during the time of Moses. How could the children of Israel have wandered for 40 years in the "Sinai" peninsula? Were they just going in circles for 40 years? On the other hand, the huge landmass of Arabia would have been a different story.
Can you show us an ancient map which labels the "Sinai" peninsula as "Midian"?
@@jonathan711false. I personally know of people who’ve been at the REAL Sinai which IS in Arabia or Saudi Arabia both of which are the same country today. Everything there aligns with the biblical description even places where they got water, made an altar etc. stones with ancient carvings in them and they even found Elijah’s cave. The top of the mountain is VISUALLY darker as if it was burned. Do yourself a favor and research this better before spouting out fictional nonsense.
I have seen those “scholarly” You Tube videos as well 😂 Ron Wyatt was one of the first to make these claims: red flag. In any event, they are entertaining, but little substance. It makes sense that the Saudi’s would install protective fencing: projects an image of importance. A lot of those mountains are blackened at the top. Anyone could scribble things onto a boulder and align rocks at the foot of a mountain. Trust me, I have probably done more research into this issue than I care to admit. Take a serious look at the gulf of Aqaba; look at the drop off at the “land bridge” especially on the other side where they would have had to walk uphill. Ask yourself if this is an logical crossing.
Furthermore, the Bible says that Moses left Egypt and went to Midian (Exodus 2:11). Just a few verses later in Exodus 3:1 we read how Moses took Jethro’s flock to the mountain of God. So clearly the mountain of God is somewhat in the vicinity of Midian.
Ask yourself this: if the mountain of God isn’t that far away from Midian as described above, and the mountain of God is Jabel Al Lawz…when Moses fled Egypt the first time and “went to Midian,” did he cross the Red Sea at Nuweiba beach to get there, or did he flee Egypt and travel to the northern tip of the gulf of Aqaba and then make the long trek south on the west side of the gulf to take a seat by the well?
There is no positive outcome to these questions. If he did in fact travel across the Sinai peninsula to the top of the gulf and then way south to Midian: why would Moses think he had to go into Forrest Gump mode to leave Egypt? But even if he did, then why not lead the Israelites that same way decades later when fleeing Egypt again? If he took the short cut and crossed at the Red Sea why isn’t that miracle recorded?
Calculate the amount of people that would have left Egypt. When you get that number, consider how fast they could travel over open desert. It’s laughable to think that such an incredible amount of people were able to cross such terrain during the period of time they are said to do so. We just have to think logically here. I know it feels neat to see gold plated chariot wheels glistening on the ocean floor, but in the end we have to think with our heads.
A “devastating “ argument against the linear preservation of God’s word, you mean!
“ learned men that crept in unawares”.
Bunk!! Totally supposition w/o support!
Isn’t the TR a critical text (CT)? It’s a CT, just an older version.
The methodology used was different from modern CT advocates. I compared Bibles from 10th century and it aligns heavily with the TR while the 10th century Bibles differ a lot from modern CT.
Yes, the TR was and is a Critical Text of its day and there are several versions of the TR. Some of the comments made on this video are mind boggling in their complete lack of knowledge.
When someone says “The TR” make them tell you which TR. 99% of them have no idea that there are several versions.
But Maurice Robinson is not part of the 99%. I have much respect for the man and his work, just like Peter Gurry does. Now I have tried to come around to their point of view (TR advocates). Contrary to popular belief we were NOT taught that the Byzantine mss. were inferior, and the Nestle Aland was the only way. We were taught to consider the other point view. So I bought their books and respect their work. And in a small way I am adopting more Byzantine readings, because of Harry Sturz's work (The Byz. Text Type & NT Textual Criticism) and James R. Royce's work (1086 pgs. Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri).
One thing I'm thinking about:
Before the TR was finished say they found all the papyri and early mss. that we discovered up to this point today. I can't see those Greek experts saying that this whole mess of uncials and papyri are junk.
@@mrtdiver, Have you read anything about Erasmus making the first TR (wasn’t called the TR at the time. Not until much later). Erasmus used the few manuscripts he had. He had a dozen or less. He would’ve gladly used others but didn’t have access to them. He didn’t even have any manuscript that contained the entire book of Revelation and had to translate it backwards from Latin to Gree by using a commentary by someone. That’s why, to this day, The TR, and the King James Bible, contains readings that do not appear in ANY Greek manuscript. He also didn’t include 1 John 5:7 in his first 2 versions. Because he had no manuscript containing it. You can read his writings telling that he was basically forced to. Because it was in the Latin Vulgate. They produced a Greek manuscript to him that contained it..That manuscript dates to the exact time Erasmus was writing the TR..I’m glad God gave us other lines of the New Testament manuscripts. So that we can see what was added by the Latin Vulgate and those controlling it.
I know this is off topic, but this is the only way I can contact you with interesting biblical stuff. This Greek to English pronoun issue might be interesting to you. This is from a mid 1800s book concerning the pronoun "we" in 1Cor 15:51 and 1Thess 4:15&17. You may agree or not, it is entirely up to you. But it is an interesting small study on this usage. A friend of mine found this and sent this to me.
Concerning the Pronoun "WE" in 1 Cor. 15:51 & 1 The. 4:15 by Alpheus Crosby in his 1850 book "The Second Advent" (pp. 55-56)
In relation to people claiming Paul was using this pronoun loosely to refer to whoever may still be around at some distant future return of Christ, Mr. Crosby penned the following points:
1. [To hold to such] is at variance with the natural interpretation of the passages. If a pastor, in addressing his people, either from the pulpit or by letter, should use such expressions as "We shall not all die," "We who are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord," etc., would he not be understood as believing in the speedy coming of Christ? And had the Corinthians or Thessalonians any reason for understanding the apostle differently?
2. It greatly diminishes the force and significance of these passages.
*3. It isn't consistent with the emphasis belonging to "we" in those clauses in which it has been printed [in the Greek] in small capitals. In these clauses, the pronoun is expressed in the original so that, according to a familiar law of the Greek language, it must be emphatic and used in marked contradistinction. The form of expression in 1 The. 4:15 & 17 is peculiarly strong: "We who are living, who are surviving." And...
*4. The loose view makes the apostle's consolation to the Thessalonians little more than mere mockery, because they were sorrowing for their departed friends. He attempted therefore to comfort them by saying, "We who are living, who are surviving till the coming of the Lord, shall not precede or have any advantage in point of time over those who are asleep." What peculiar mode of consolation, to say the least, if the apostle and those whom he was addressing supposed that they might all lie in their graves beside their friends thousands of years before the coming of the Christ! But if they were looking for the speedy appearance, triumph, and reign of their Savior..., while some were fearing that their friends who had died too soon would not be present to take part in the glories and joys of these events, then how natural, appropriate, and forcible does every word of the apostle become!
Someone mind breaking this down in laymen's terms?
I’ll try to make a video simplifying.
Why not many fragments of manuscripts before 4th century? Answer, try the almost continues persecutions and martyrdoms of Christians including the death penalty for possessing any scriptures until Constantine's edict. On top of that the autographs were considered "sacred " and hidden, lost or still kept in monasteries. Worse still used as fire to keep warm. Check out what Constanteen Chikendorth found in 1844 at St Catherins's Sinai monastry.
the Nestle Allen text is no older than I am. it was created in the 1960’s and never existed in history in any form. It’s not text that is “old” but a compilation invented by artifacts found in trash cans, holes in the ground and the worst place on earth, the Vatican discovered in the late 1800’s. It’s truly a sloppy unreliable mess.
I’m KJBO because once I looked into the missing verses, the brackets and down right crazy footnotes, I didn’t was to read modern bibles and say I’m hearing the words of God in a english translation.
too many people went along with this mess and I wouldn’t know what runs a fowl in any modern bible now. it would like calling me to mask up for a new virus. I would just dismiss it straight up now.
there is a reason ps 118:6 is the middle of the bible.
What about other countries than English?
@@pekde I don’t read other languages but I ran into a spanish speaking pastor on an airplane warning me the same thing was happening to the spanish bibles.
Why do you consider this to be the middle of the Bible? Please explain. Thank you.
Well, if you're concerned about scribes changing God's word, you should be thankful that all the changes that they made over the centuries to the manuscripts that ended up being used to produce the critical editions from which the KJV was produced and, later, the Textus Receptus are now being scraped away so that we're now able to enjoy God's word in the purest form we've possessed it for close to two millenia.
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 “not 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?
I found many old Bibles, some 900-1000 years old and some 200 years old and they all closely follow the TR in 99% cases.
In my opinion, TR is the safest bet to base any Bible translation upon.
I found a french translation of the Bible and it seems to be almost perfect and I am planning to translate that into english.
I have some doubts about some variants though, could you give me more details about the variants? It would help
@@nsptech9773 Isn't the problem that if you look at manuscripts older than those, then you find several issues with the TR?
@@Wanttoknowabout Well, the opposite turns out to be true. I looked at older manuscripts with my own eyes and I was shocked
To be honest, I wasn't expecting the older manuscripts to match to a high degree with the TR.
I did find some minor variants though but it is of no significance.
The language is very difficult to read on older manuscripts so I'm planning to start a project to give a side by side view of the manuscripts along with it's translation into modern English.
Is all the hardwork gonna be worth it? I don't know because people don't seem to be interested in textual criticism and the amazing history of the word of God.
@@Wanttoknowabout Manuscripts used by the Apostolic Churches being used for hundreds of years wore out and copies had to be made, while sects disappeared over time enabling some of their manuscripts to survive.
@@nsptech9773 On variants I find knowing the political situations in the ancient churches to be helpful.
You guys need to go spread the Gospel and stop arguing over this kind of stuff. Time is short.
Thanks! I think that’s a good reminder to us. It definitely shouldn’t replace spreading the gospel. I think that spreading the gospel is more important in some ways. On the other hand, if you have a very high view of scripture and affirm inerrancy, then knowing the precise wording of the document God has given us isn’t a trivial matter. He has exalted his word above even his name. And I don’t think it’s wrong to have hobbies and interests besides spreading the gospel. Some people like to ride bikes. Nothing wrong with that. It’s a good thing. Some people like to discuss what the precise wording of scripture is. But I mean no disrespect to those who hold other views than mine. Daniel Wallace is a great scholar and I have a lot of respect for him. I have invited him on the channel as well and he would be welcome any time.
Blessings!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviewsexactly. People that claim this are hilarious. Like you’re not allowed to even TALK about the entirety of the rest of the Bible except the 4 gospels and that’s it, like nothing else of it even matters apparently.. Well seeing how you NEED the Old Testament to even UNDERSTAND half of the New Testament; that is just a stupid idea. ALL of scripture is God breathed. Not just Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John. Like I don’t get what many don’t get about that. And second; to GET somebody to ACCEPT said gospel, if you can show them WHY it’s all true, then they will be far more open TO accepting said gospel in the first place.
KJV has sone really bad errors as the comma johannum. It is not the words from God.
@@pekdethere are no mistakes in the KJV, there are lot’s in the westcott and hort
If you are reading a corrupted bible to witness, is it going to work?