I love how Dr White keeps what could easily have been seen as a 'dry and academic' subject (appropriately) humorous, informative, enriching and thoroughly God centred. Thank you to Dr White and G3 for this.
Yeah I love Dr White’s talks on the Bible, he’s the person who brought me out of KJV-onlyism. I prefer the NKJV because it has the other manuscript traditions alternate readings on the footnotes. It’s like having a Majority text Bible, Critical text Bible, and TR all in one. It’s the best lol.
I have handwritten about 1/3 of the Bible. It helps me to read more slowly, and to pick up on finer details that I otherwise would read past. I just started numbers chapter 2 this morning.
@@ThomasCranmer1959 woah, a dead guy responded to me!! How’s Ridley btw? It’s taken over a year to get to here from genesis but working slow and steady. At numbers 7 this morning so you see my pace. And I don’t wanna do it in Hebrew mostly because I’m a bad artist.
52:40 the video does an unexpected, unannounced loop back to around 15 minutes earlier, just so you know. The course of the lecture picks back up at 1:05:08. Would love to see the entire, unadulterated lecture.
G3 Ministries : I can't help pointing out just as others her have mentioned, but confirming in more detail: This video @ 52:38 to 52:39 (I hear a kind of 'thunk' sound there) and all that follows (until about 1:05:08) is a REPEAT of @ 40:14 through 52:38, so the video jumps back and repeats that chunk. FOR EVERYONE ELSE, once you get to 52:38, jump to 1:05:08 to hear the rest of James White's presentation!
I was listening to this at work with my phone in my pocket and suddenly heard it repeat. Thought I must have bumped my phone so I was trying to find where I was at again. Thanks for confirming my suspicions 👍
@@HartyBiker Thank you Harty! My hope is that this will help others pick up at the right time to finish James' lecture and train of thought without much trouble, and I very much hope that some do not just give up and think that the end was erased.
Thirteen minutes of the lecture are repeated. It starts with the story of the manuscript in Ireland. Thank you very much for making this lecture available.
@@5warpotentials258 can you elaborate? I’m not seeing anything in his doctrine that would make him apostate… one can adhere to the doctrines of grace and not be apostate while another can adhere to Arminian theology and not be apostate but follow both their extremes and you’re asking for trouble. Judging someone for their particular bent in doctrine of they aren’t apostate is something Paul, Peter, and other apostles strictly forbade.
Jesus I love you and have trust and confidence in you. I have faith in Jesus . I will never stop trusting in him, even though I’m struggling putting groceries in my refrigerator, and paying bills. Like so many others, I lost my job as a social worker at Forsyth because I declined the vaccine. I declined because of my pre existing health condition (Lupus) and Heart disease. I was denied my medical/religious exemption from Forsyth Hospital. I’m waitressing but not making nearly enough to make ends meet. My husband died years ago. I’m all alone. I’m a single mother with two beautiful children both of my sons are autistic. So I’m overwhelmed at times because they require so much more from me. Sometimes I want to give up. But God keeps me going. Every month is a struggle, to not end up on the streets with my little boys. BUT I have faith God will provide. He HAS so FAR. With God all things are possible.
@@jimjoe9945 Yes! Romans 9 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience (AE)vessels of wrath (AF)prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known (AG)the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he (AH)has prepared beforehand for glory-
@@ThomasCranmer1959 O ghost of the poor author of the Book of Common Prayer, damn your unworthy hand, our big book has only the errors that God allows.
Thank you Dr White for this lecture and thank you for making it available. I thoroughly enjoyed it and learnt so much! All my Christian life this has been a passion of mine, Biblical manuscripts and inerrancy.
People know James White as a Calvinist Theologian, but in my opinion, his greatest contributions to the church are his Biblical manuscript studies. Love it
I appreciate your giving light on his contribution. Right now I'm trying to conduct my own research on manuscripts, and always find James White. We are blessed to have him older than us.
That's because this man is backing a losing side that is very confusing! Repent otherwise you to can lose your voice like Don Wilkins did on the John Ankerberg show
This gives me an idea for memorisation to handwrite the bible. I know for me it helps to write stuff down to remember it and I also have to read things multiple times to copy it (Read a sentence, start writing, forget what I'm copying and read it again lol). Might get onto that soon
@@darkstar92772 it's going well. I've had times where I'm more dedicated and times when I'm less dedicated, but I've found it to be an amazing way to do daily devotions and bible study. It will take me years, but I plan to go through the entire bible
Ok, when you get to 52:38 Please click or tap the next blue section of this comment to skip to 1:05:06 why? Well the video repeats a bit, it’ll save you a lot of trouble.
Looks like there is an error in the video. At the 52:40 mark the video repeats the video starting from 40:13, but then picks up at 1:05:19 to complete.
This is the first time I have ever heard positive remarks about Sinaticus, Vaticanus, Tishendorf, Wescott, Hort etc. I had only heard the stories put out by the KJVO that says these men were evil along with their discoveries.
I would really appreciate Dr. James White discussing the Lutheran perspective on the Lord's Supper. Every rebuttal of literal eating is on Catholic transubstantiation and repropitiation, which I reject. Yet, there hasn't been any address to the patristic sources used by Lutherans, such as Ignatius and Justin Martyr, that still claim literal eating.
ua-cam.com/video/4-yDAvs9Mvg/v-deo.html Paul gets it right, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes." Think about that, any time you break bread or drink wine, it's a proclamation of Christ's atoning work. Eat a sandwich, remember God, go out to fancy dinner and order expensive wine, proclaim Jesus. Or, argue how it works, your choice, 😆
How is it that at about 42 minutes and at about 54 minutes the same exact story about him getting on the ground to read the manuscript and the security guard asks him what he’s doing is being told? When did the video start a loop?
You erred on one thing: 666 v. 616. The difference is in spelling of Neron Kaisar (NRWN QSR) in Greek in Hebrew letters versus spelling of Nero Caesar (NRW QSR) in Latin in Hebrew letters. The "nun" (Hebrew letter for N) was equivalent to 50.
Theodore Letis’ “Ecclesiastical Text”, and David Allen Black’s “intro to Nt criticism” should be read by one another. Getting an understanding of the staggering proportion of translation and liturgical use out of the Byzantine stream, as well as early church quotations that match the Byzantine tradition would helpfully balance a lot of the amazing stuff here.
I think of James White as the greatest theologian alive. Maybe not the best PREACHER... of course I've heard better, but he's so incredibly knowledgeable it's insane. He knows things I didn't know ANYONE could know.
White left out an important bridge between the old and the new. There is a complete copy of The Book of Isaiah in the Israel Museum. My favorite section is Isaiah 9:6. It describes Jesus.
Hebrews is Paul's theology? Paul was a minster to the Gentiles. Hebrews is written to the Circumcision. There are no less than 6 Old Testament quotes before you get out of the first chapter. "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, HEB6:05 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, HEB6:06 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." THAT is not the gospel of Grace. It is a Jewish message to Jews in the last days.
The theology may echo Paul in some respects, but Hebrews introduces multiple ideas not found in Paul (e.g. Christ's priesthood) and is written in an entirely different 'Alexandrian' style from any of Paul's epistles. The author's self description also makes Pauline authorship unlikely. IMHO, Apollos (a native of Alexandria) is the most likely NT saint known to us to have been the author.
23:06 I expect it is likely I'll be in my glorified spiritual body by then. I'm not sure the joke can land with a Christian crowd, if we have fully imbibed our own worldview. Maybe some expect Christ's coming to be later than that: granted.
I appreciate Dr James White very much but baffled why at 35 minutes 40 seconds, when mentioning the earliest variants on John 1:18, p66 and p75, he translates μονογενὴς θεός as "unique God" when it means "only begotten" theos (divine one or " only begotten God"... hence Nicene Creed "God from God"...or "divinity from divinity" or "deity from deity" the Word was and is a divine Spirit that came forth from God the Father, i.e. the begetter.
Brother Whyte, An honest question would be: Does this mean that our Lord spoke LIES? He (who is truth) has said: My WORDS shall not pass away - Period. No. that does not bother me, because the Bible I use has in all his words.
And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor. (Lk20:20) The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. (Luk16:16) And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words. (Mark12:13) Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. (Mat24:35) _ For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him. The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (Psa12:6-7)
The way to end the debate over this stuff is to ask these questions::... 1)... "Can anyone prove conclusively that the Authorized Version is not a verbatim reproduction of the originals?" 2)... List me just one 'reading' we posses today, that the King James translators did not have access to? End of the debate 😁
Do you even understand what the Textus Receptus is? The Textus Receptus as we now know it was first compiled in 1894 (i.e. 283 years after the KJV was first published). The work was done by Scrivener, who looked for _printed editions_ (not actual manuscripts) of the Greek & Hebrew texts supporting the KJV translation, from which he then created the Textus Receptus. Since then, the Textus Receptus has been revised many times and today there are over 100 versions of it. The Textus Receptus also contains supposed Greek readings that have absolutely no manuscript support, especially in Revelation. For example, the reference to "Thou art righteous, O _Lord,_ which art, and wast, _and shalt be_ " in the KJV and Textus Receptus at Revelation 16:5 is not supported by _any_ manuscript evidence. _Every_ known manuscript contains the equivalent of "Righteous art thou, which art and which wast, _thou Holy One_ ". Indeed, there is _no_ Greek manuscript support for the Textus Receptus' last six verses of Revelation - Erasmus simply created his own version of the Greek text by translating the Latin Vulgate's text into Greek. As for your "Has anyone compared" question, the answer is yes. In part, that is how we know the following words/passages in the Textus Receptus aren't authentic: • Matthew 19:9 - _εἰ_ (ei); • Mark 16:9-20; • John 7:8 -_οὔπω_ (oupō) • John 7:53-8:11; • Acts 8:37; and • 1 John 5:7. Plus, as already discussed, • Revelation 16:5; and • Revelation 22:16-21, In the Textus Receptus aren't supported by _any_ manuscripts. There are others, but that should suffice.
Get a book called the text of the new testament . There are at least two good ones written by different people that are good. You will learn much more from the book than from a talk like this. Bruce Metzger is one of the authors. Blessings.
Videos such as this are still useful for those who don't want to buy such books or invest the time and effort it takes to properly understand them. PS, the Metzger book you're referring to is probably _The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission Corruption and Restoration_
A God of love wants love uncoerced in return. Thou shalt not take the name [character] of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. {Exodus 20:7} And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. *God is love* and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. {1 John 4:16}
While I appreciate the scholarly approach to manuscript preservation, I must point out James White's dishonesty regarding Sharp's rule and its application, particularly in passages like 2 Peter 1:1. He presents it as if it definitively proves that Jesus is identified as God in the same sense as the Father. However, Greg Stafford has thoroughly demonstrated that Sharp’s rule, as interpreted by James White and Dr. Wallace, is flawed. There are clear exceptions to the rule, and the context of Scripture always identifies the God of the Christians and Jesus as the Father ( 1 Corinthians 8:6, John 20:17 ) To reinterpret these texts to claim that God and Jesus are the same being is not only a stretch but outright misleading. In John 1:1, the Logos is not identified as Ton Theon (the God) in a definite sense but as Theos without the article, an anarthrous structure that distinguishes Jesus as a separate god. Meanwhile, the God whom Jesus is with is described as ton Theon, the definite God. This distinction is further clarified in John 1:18, where Jesus is referred to as the monogenēs theos (unique god) who is alongside the invisible Almighty God, His Father and God above him. Scripture and early church understanding consistently refer to the sons of God as "gods" without equating them to God Himself. The attempt by James White and others, like Dr. Wallace, to conflate these ideas not only ignores the linguistic and historical context but also misleads people into believing that these texts support the Trinity. This is not just historically inaccurate-it is, quite frankly, deceptive.
You JWs merely ignore Greek Grammar for the sake of your doctrine. If the lack of the article before θεός (theos) is so important, explain who θεός (theos) is in John 3:16. The third clause of John 1:1 in Greek reads καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος (kai theos ēn ho logos), literally meaning "and God was the Word". JWs make much of the lack of the article ὁ (ho) before Θεὸς (theos) in the third clause of the Greek text, saying its absence means the Word was only "a god". But they are inconsistent: John 1:18 & 8:54, Romans 8:33 & 9:5 and 1 Corinthians 8:4 & 8:6, 2 Corinthians 1:3 & 5:19, Galatians 6:7, Ephesians 4:6, 1 Thessalonians 2:5, and Revelation 21:7 all lack the article ὁ (ho) before θεὸς (theos) with exactly the same accenting, but the New World Translation (NWT) has no trouble omitting the indefinite article there and translating θεὸς (theos) there as 'God'. 2 Corinthians 1:3 even has the exact same καὶ θεὸς (kai theos) wording as John 1:1 following ὁ πατὴρ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν (ho patēr tōn oiktirmōn) - an unambiguous reference to God the Father! On the JW's translation 'principle', 2 Corinthians 1:3 in the NWT should be translated as: _Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and a god of all comfort,_ thus differentiating between God as _the Father of mercies_ and Jesus Christ as _a god of all comfort,_ but they failed to do so. Oops! In all, there are 282 instances of the anarthrous θεός (theos) in its various inflections in the Greek New Testament, but the NWT only translates it as 'a god', 'god', 'gods' or 'godly' 16 times, demonstrating a mere 5.7% (1/18) commitment to their translation 'principle'. Unlike English, Greek Grammar lacks the indefinite article and the Greek article functions differently from the English definite article. Plus the Greek article isn't needed for a noun to be definite. Nouns lacking the article are anarthrous. In Greek Grammar, θεός (theos) in the third clause of John 1:1 is what is known as a pre-verbal anarthrous nominative predicate noun. That is, the noun precedes a verb, lacks the article, and is the subject of and qualifies the object of the clause. In the New Testament, this form almost always denotes a quality. What this tells us is that the Word is qualitatively God. Put another way, the Word is distinct from but has the same nature or essence as God. There are very few cases in the New Testament where this form is indefinite. Thus, the onus is those arguing for the indefinite sense to explain why it has to be so here. Had John inserted the article before θεός (theos), that would mean the Word is identical with God (Unitarianism).
@@Berean_with_a_BTh Your response is an unfortunate mix of misrepresentation and arrogance, so let me help you untangle this mess. First, you’ve completely missed the point. The argument isn’t about the lack of the definite article before theos in John 1:1c. It’s about the distinction John explicitly makes between ton theon-the God the Word is with-and theos-what the Word is. This distinction is not accidental. John could have identified the Word as the same God He is with, but he deliberately makes a distinction, showing that the Word is not the Almighty God but a separate divine being. The Word (logos) is a proper noun identifying someone who was in the beginning with another entity, ton theon. This is a clear, unmistakable reference to Almighty God. If you think this refers to the Trinity, then Jesus is no part of it. And if you think this refers to the Father, then Jesus must be identified as the Father. However, you believe neither of these things. Instead, you argue He is a "person of God," a notion that John doesn’t state anywhere. Say what you mean and mean what you say. John describes the Word in a way that aligns with the Jewish understanding of the sons of God, a category Jesus Himself claims to belong to (John 10:34-36). The sons of God are called gods or godlike all over the Scriptures (e.g., Psalm 82:6, Psalm 8:5). Yet Trinitarians completely disassociate from this Biblical understanding, interpreting Scripture not in its historical or linguistic context but through a doctrine developed centuries later under the influence of a pagan emperor. It’s hard to imagine a more ridiculous approach to Biblical interpretation. Have you even read John 1:18? There, Jesus is described as monogenēs theos-a unique god. Once again, John differentiates between the invisible Almighty God and the Word in terms of theos exactly like John 1:1. If John intended to present a Trinitarian understanding, he would have used language that explicitly united the two in one essence. Instead, his choice of words consistently emphasizes their distinctiveness. The Trinity is absent from the Biblical scriptures; it’s a later, false doctrine. Your attempt to equate this with other anarthrous uses of theos elsewhere in Scripture (e.g., 2 Corinthians 1:3, Romans 8:33) is irrelevant. Those examples do not share the same syntactical structure or theological nuance. John 1:1c is unique-it’s the only occurrence of its kind in the Scriptures, and its context demands a careful distinction between the two theos entities. While it’s evident you like to speak on things you clearly don’t understand, your assumption that I’m a Jehovah’s Witness is unfounded and irrelevant. I’m a Christian who prioritizes truth over tradition. While I disagree with Jehovah’s Witnesses on many theological points-especially regarding salvation-I won’t deny when they’re right. Their translation of John 1:1c as "the Word was a god" aligns with the Greek text and context. In fact, the NWT’s rendering of John 1:1c isn’t unique. Many respected translations have rendered it similarly, long before the NWT existed: 1808: “and the word was a god.” 1864: “and a god was the word.” 1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” 1935: “and the Word was divine.” Even Origen, one of the early church’s most respected scholars, recognized the same distinction the NWT highlights. Origen explicitly differentiates between ton theon (the God) and theos (a god or divine being). This isn’t some modern innovation; it’s a well-attested understanding of the text. Your response sidesteps the heart of the issue in John 1:1, which is the clear and deliberate distinction John makes between ton theon and theos. This isn’t something that can be brushed aside or reinterpreted through the lens of Trinitarian dogma-it’s right there in the text for anyone willing to approach it honestly. Proverbs 18:13 reminds us that answering a matter before hearing it is folly and shame. If you want to have a meaningful conversation, stop forcing the text to fit a preconceived theological framework, stop assuming things you cannot know, and start addressing the clear distinctions John makes between ton theon and theos. Until then, your accusations of ignorance would be better directed toward the mirror.
@@Berean_with_a_BTh I have read and read about scriptures and there’s nothing to proof in them, religion is the most destructive force mankind has ever created. You look at the Bible, the Quran, Christianity, Jewish, they are only stories no more than any cult. You cannot prove anything in them, they are manipulated by man though leadership of people wanting to control and enslaved. When you cast hate from one religion to the other saying if don’t believe as I believe and you’re going to hell, there is something wrong. These holy books are nothing but man’s hate. Where is the love? When you say Jesus loves us,and God says if you do not do as I command you’re going to hell, something is wrong! Watch the movie Close Encounters of the Fifth Kind. And look at you contend.
OK, this may or may not get an answer from Dr. White.... but in his discussions on manuscripts... I can accept and do the fact and idea of older may be better and more right! However in making Bibles, WHY are we tied to the Greek New Testament that was created by Wescott & Hort? I can accept a Bible that uses "older" manuscripts, bun NOT any that use that Greek New Testament.... In all that I know, at age 81, is that THEIR WORK is not a TRUE or RIGHT work!! WHY did? WHY do? theologians since then put so much faith into THEIR WORK, and over the number of Greek manuscripts that we NOW HAVE!! A BIBLE that does NOT have their GREEK in it would BE a better, more right, and perhaps a more true Bible!!
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 love how Dr White keeps what could easily have been seen as a 'dry and academic' subject (appropriately) humorous, informative, enriching and thoroughly God centred. Thank you to Dr White and G3 for this.
Well said.
It was fantastic!
Amen, Joseph. Ahmein.
Heretic! Bible's words not mine
Yeah I love Dr White’s talks on the Bible, he’s the person who brought me out of KJV-onlyism. I prefer the NKJV because it has the other manuscript traditions alternate readings on the footnotes. It’s like having a Majority text Bible, Critical text Bible, and TR all in one. It’s the best lol.
I have handwritten about 1/3 of the Bible. It helps me to read more slowly, and to pick up on finer details that I otherwise would read past. I just started numbers chapter 2 this morning.
@matteblak6158 Try that using the original Hebrew. It might take a few years, though.
@@ThomasCranmer1959 woah, a dead guy responded to me!! How’s Ridley btw? It’s taken over a year to get to here from genesis but working slow and steady. At numbers 7 this morning so you see my pace.
And I don’t wanna do it in Hebrew mostly because I’m a bad artist.
@@matteblak6158 At least you're reading the Bible. Try the King James Version. It's more faithful to the Hebrew Masoretic Text.
MT isn't our best hebrew though@@ThomasCranmer1959
52:40 the video does an unexpected, unannounced loop back to around 15 minutes earlier, just so you know. The course of the lecture picks back up at 1:05:08.
Would love to see the entire, unadulterated lecture.
I thought I was crazy. Thank you for this confirmation 😂
Thanks. I came here to make this comment, but didn't see where it picked back up. I appreciate you doing the work for me
Thanks
I will not believe in an entire, unadulterated lecture, unless it has come straight to us, with no history.
Thanks
G3 Ministries : I can't help pointing out just as others her have mentioned, but confirming in more detail: This video @ 52:38 to 52:39 (I hear a kind of 'thunk' sound there) and all that follows (until about 1:05:08) is a REPEAT of @ 40:14 through 52:38, so the video jumps back and repeats that chunk. FOR EVERYONE ELSE, once you get to 52:38, jump to 1:05:08 to hear the rest of James White's presentation!
I was listening to this at work with my phone in my pocket and suddenly heard it repeat. Thought I must have bumped my phone so I was trying to find where I was at again. Thanks for confirming my suspicions 👍
@@HartyBiker Thank you Harty! My hope is that this will help others pick up at the right time to finish James' lecture and train of thought without much trouble, and I very much hope that some do not just give up and think that the end was erased.
Ahh, thank you Dan! I suspected something.
Pin this comment! It needs to be at the top
Thirteen minutes of the lecture are repeated. It starts with the story of the manuscript in Ireland. Thank you very much for making this lecture available.
glad thats not just me. but disappointed because i think we missed out on part of the lecture
Its Fragmented…you are correct! 😃
It appears to get back on track around 1:05:00
I thought it was deja vu lol
Such a love for the Scriptures and their transmission. So grateful for Dr. White and his humor.
What a treasure god has given us in this man
Brilliant expositor Dr White!! 🎉
If only he wasn’t a Calvinist
@@5warpotentials258 can you elaborate? I’m not seeing anything in his doctrine that would make him apostate… one can adhere to the doctrines of grace and not be apostate while another can adhere to Arminian theology and not be apostate but follow both their extremes and you’re asking for trouble.
Judging someone for their particular bent in doctrine of they aren’t apostate is something Paul, Peter, and other apostles strictly forbade.
Here’s the deal it’s the middle both are right C and A are both right.
Gods Ways are Higher than our ways.Who can understand Him?!
@@5warpotentials258 what does that have to do with anything?
Jesus I love you and have trust and confidence in you. I have faith in Jesus . I will never stop trusting in him, even though I’m struggling putting groceries in my refrigerator, and paying bills. Like so many others, I lost my job as a social worker at Forsyth because I declined the vaccine. I declined because of my pre existing health condition (Lupus) and Heart disease. I was denied my medical/religious exemption from Forsyth Hospital. I’m waitressing but not making nearly enough to make ends meet. My husband died years ago. I’m all alone. I’m a single mother with two beautiful children both of my sons are autistic. So I’m overwhelmed at times because they require so much more from me. Sometimes I want to give up. But God keeps me going. Every month is a struggle, to not end up on the streets with my little boys. BUT I have faith God will provide. He HAS so FAR. With God all things are possible.
James White is such a gem to the church
Yes, 53 to 1:05 are repeated, but thanks a lot for this! Praise be to our Lord for Dr White and his ministry 😊
Thank you for pointing out where I should jump to.
It’s worth listening to twice. 🥳
I could watch this type of stuff all day long. Fascinating
Wow!!! I soaked this in!!!!
Loved it!!
I love Christianity I’m glad it’s all real
Are you one of the elect?
@@jimjoe9945 yes!
@@Amilton5Solas do you believe God made souls for destruction?
@@jimjoe9945 Yes!
Romans 9
22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience (AE)vessels of wrath (AF)prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known (AG)the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he (AH)has prepared beforehand for glory-
@@Amilton5Solas are your family members the elect?
This is brother James White at his most resourceful devil defying best!
How do 2,000 errors reconstruct an inerrant text?
@@ThomasCranmer1959 O ghost of the poor author of the Book of Common Prayer, damn your unworthy hand, our big book has only the errors that God allows.
Excellent video! Thank you to James White and to G3!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Well done as always James.
Would be nice to also see Daniel Wallace present on this topic at G3 in the future.
Just an amazing presentation! Wow! I have such gratitude and amazement for how the Lord has preserved the accuracy of His Word.
Thank you Dr White. This was very enlightening indeed.
Well explained. I understand after many years
Good way to start the morning !
Right on Dr. White 👍
OMG! I can't believe Dr. White was in Zambia🇿🇲 and I didn't know. I would have loved to attend his lecture.
Thank you Dr White for this lecture and thank you for making it available. I thoroughly enjoyed it and learnt so much! All my Christian life this has been a passion of mine, Biblical manuscripts and inerrancy.
People know James White as a Calvinist Theologian, but in my opinion, his greatest contributions to the church are his Biblical manuscript studies. Love it
Calvinism is good.
I appreciate your giving light on his contribution. Right now I'm trying to conduct my own research on manuscripts, and always find James White. We are blessed to have him older than us.
Another Home Run!! 👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽👏🏽 Sharing this one too! Thank Youuu!!!
When you get to 52:40 skip forward to 1:05:00 because everything in between is a repeated section and an error in editing :) just a time stamp for ya.
I'm enjoying this video many times and learning so much! Thanks!
Great video. I love his explanations!
Dr White, come to Oklahoma
And we’ll ride motorcycles and let the wind blow through our righteous goatee’s. Glorious
Very informative. Thank you 🙏
I so love this. Thank you
There is repeated portion of the lecture for some reason towards the end.
Reading this comment confirms it does hehe.
Jame White is such a gem ❤
Thank you, this was great
Incredible knowledge and teaching. Thank you Dr. White!!! Has he written a book about this subject??
Wahnsinn!!!!! Υπέροχα!!!!! Great!!!!!
This is fascinating. I would love to go to school/seminary and learn all this.
Loved this! Such an important topic. The video looped at the end though, was really confused at first lol
That's because this man is backing a losing side that is very confusing! Repent otherwise you to can lose your voice like Don Wilkins did on the John Ankerberg show
@@adriansabo198Only he didn't...
This gives me an idea for memorisation to handwrite the bible. I know for me it helps to write stuff down to remember it and I also have to read things multiple times to copy it (Read a sentence, start writing, forget what I'm copying and read it again lol). Might get onto that soon
Do a test a see how many copyist errors you make in your handwritten copy.
@@Migger_29 that would be interesting
That is a pretty good idea. Checking in 11 months later. How did/is your project going?
@@darkstar92772 it's going well. I've had times where I'm more dedicated and times when I'm less dedicated, but I've found it to be an amazing way to do daily devotions and bible study. It will take me years, but I plan to go through the entire bible
Ok, when you get to 52:38 Please click or tap the next blue section of this comment to skip to 1:05:06 why? Well the video repeats a bit, it’ll save you a lot of trouble.
This is so amazing!
Looks like there is an error in the video. At the 52:40 mark the video repeats the video starting from 40:13, but then picks up at 1:05:19 to complete.
Im going to get the paper, to get the paper
@@antoniosilvestrojr. Hey I know you!
Who am I?😃
Sum guy who does evangelism and wrote a book about birds and stuff
Sorry, wrong guy
always appreciate what Dr White brings
Praise God for these available and online while they are
I love this. He’s in rare form in this one. Lol.
Dear Dr. White, please stand still. ☺️
Does this repeat a few times at the end?
Indeed it does. It picks back up around the 50 ish minute mark.
Good, 13 minutes are repeated, but it was good to hear again, thought I was losing it 😂
I wish there was more material like this for us, the typical pew sitter with no seminary background
Another excellent presentation by James White. Pity about the repetition of 10 minutes toward the end! SDG!
This was so dope!
Show Nuff!!!
Very interesting ❤ ty
Awesome video
Thankyou
This is the first time I have ever heard positive remarks about Sinaticus, Vaticanus, Tishendorf, Wescott, Hort etc. I had only heard the stories put out by the KJVO that says these men were evil along with their discoveries.
I would really appreciate Dr. James White discussing the Lutheran perspective on the Lord's Supper. Every rebuttal of literal eating is on Catholic transubstantiation and repropitiation, which I reject. Yet, there hasn't been any address to the patristic sources used by Lutherans, such as Ignatius and Justin Martyr, that still claim literal eating.
ua-cam.com/video/4-yDAvs9Mvg/v-deo.html
Paul gets it right, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes." Think about that, any time you break bread or drink wine, it's a proclamation of Christ's atoning work. Eat a sandwich, remember God, go out to fancy dinner and order expensive wine, proclaim Jesus.
Or, argue how it works, your choice, 😆
No we don’t need anymore Calvinist point of views
@@5warpotentials258 its a shame we cannot ask for dialogue and explanations anymore.
Does Lutheran doctrine follow Transubstantiation or does it resolve down to Consubstantiation?
@@shaneyboy2039 Lutherans believe in consubstantiation in principle, though they prefer the term "corporeal presence."
I was able to get a P52 replica. It’s the crown jewel in my colllection.
How is it that at about 42 minutes and at about 54 minutes the same exact story about him getting on the ground to read the manuscript and the security guard asks him what he’s doing is being told? When did the video start a loop?
At minute 46 and 58 the video is in a loop. Not sure if anything important is excluded. But please fix it.
When he said the Vatican Library has lots of stuffs in it that has nothing to do with Roman Catholicism 💀
You erred on one thing: 666 v. 616. The difference is in spelling of Neron Kaisar (NRWN QSR) in Greek in Hebrew letters versus spelling of Nero Caesar (NRW QSR) in Latin in Hebrew letters. The "nun" (Hebrew letter for N) was equivalent to 50.
I have one question about Papyrus 72. How do we know it was from 200 AD?
So my question is: which Bible is the most accurate from the original version?
Between the ESV and NASB I think.
@@mattcorrickmagic771 😂
Nestle Alland Greek NT 28th/29th edition for NT
was hoping he would introduce P52 very satisfying
Wasn’t Siniaticus being used as trash/for a monk discard pile?
Theodore Letis’ “Ecclesiastical Text”, and David Allen Black’s “intro to Nt criticism” should be read by one another.
Getting an understanding of the staggering proportion of translation and liturgical use out of the Byzantine stream, as well as early church quotations that match the Byzantine tradition would helpfully balance a lot of the amazing stuff here.
This is so interesting and well done. However, is extremely annoying to have advertisements ,especially non-Christian, in the middle of the lecture!
The ads that appear are based on your analytics i.e. your watch and search history.
@@HearGodsWord The point I was trying to make is how disrptive it is to have ads in the middle of a lecture.
@@SD-xs3py Then why don't you get an ad-blocking software? There are plenty to choose from.
I agree with everything presented here except for the bow tie.
2:52 Reliability is NOT the same thing as plenary verbal inspiration/inerrancy.
I think of James White as the greatest theologian alive. Maybe not the best PREACHER... of course I've heard better, but he's so incredibly knowledgeable it's insane. He knows things I didn't know ANYONE could know.
I like how he continually hounds social media platforms, lol.
11:17 There are 2,000 errors in the Bible?
video repeats at 41 and 54 min
Variants, God using the weakness of man to preserve His word.
White left out an important bridge between the old and the new. There is a complete copy of The Book of Isaiah in the Israel Museum. My favorite section is Isaiah 9:6. It describes Jesus.
How many people think that mosques of the former Ottoman Empire have manuscripts from the sacking of Constantinople?
Hebrews is Paul's theology? Paul was a minster to the Gentiles. Hebrews is written to the Circumcision. There are no less than 6 Old Testament quotes before you get out of the first chapter. "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, HEB6:05 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, HEB6:06 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." THAT is not the gospel of Grace. It is a Jewish message to Jews in the last days.
The theology may echo Paul in some respects, but Hebrews introduces multiple ideas not found in Paul (e.g. Christ's priesthood) and is written in an entirely different 'Alexandrian' style from any of Paul's epistles. The author's self description also makes Pauline authorship unlikely.
IMHO, Apollos (a native of Alexandria) is the most likely NT saint known to us to have been the author.
I thought they read & wrote from right to left???
They? The Hebrews? This is Greek.
23:06 I expect it is likely I'll be in my glorified spiritual body by then. I'm not sure the joke can land with a Christian crowd, if we have fully imbibed our own worldview. Maybe some expect Christ's coming to be later than that: granted.
I appreciate Dr James White very much but baffled why at 35 minutes 40 seconds, when mentioning the earliest variants on John 1:18, p66 and p75, he translates
μονογενὴς θεός as "unique God" when it means "only begotten" theos (divine one or " only begotten God"... hence Nicene Creed "God from God"...or "divinity from divinity" or "deity from deity" the Word was and is a divine Spirit that came forth from God the Father, i.e. the begetter.
The oldest Bible in the world was found in an Eastern Orthodox Monastery. That tells you all you need to know.
Brother Whyte,
An honest question would be:
Does this mean that our Lord spoke LIES? He (who is truth) has said:
My WORDS shall not pass away - Period.
No. that does not bother me, because the Bible I use has in all his words.
And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor.
(Lk20:20)
The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
(Luk16:16)
And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words.
(Mark12:13)
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
(Mat24:35)
_
For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him. The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
(Psa12:6-7)
❤
The way to end the debate over this stuff is to ask these questions::...
1)... "Can anyone prove conclusively that the Authorized Version is not a verbatim reproduction of the originals?"
2)... List me just one 'reading' we posses today, that the King James translators did not have access to?
End of the debate 😁
Of course they can. The KJV even incorporates text for which there is 0 manuscript evidence.
@@Berean_with_a_BTh Morning..... How do you know the King James translators didn't have manuscript evidence for 'all' their 'readings'?
34:59
Interesting that one of the oldest copies of Scripture is kept by the Catholic Church,
Why don't they just create a new Textus receptus? Has anyone compared the Textus receptus with the manuscripts dated on 300?
The Textus Receptus is the critical text of its era
Do you even understand what the Textus Receptus is?
The Textus Receptus as we now know it was first compiled in 1894 (i.e. 283 years after the KJV was first published). The work was done by Scrivener, who looked for _printed editions_ (not actual manuscripts) of the Greek & Hebrew texts supporting the KJV translation, from which he then created the Textus Receptus. Since then, the Textus Receptus has been revised many times and today there are over 100 versions of it.
The Textus Receptus also contains supposed Greek readings that have absolutely no manuscript support, especially in Revelation. For example, the reference to "Thou art righteous, O _Lord,_ which art, and wast, _and shalt be_ " in the KJV and Textus Receptus at Revelation 16:5 is not supported by _any_ manuscript evidence. _Every_ known manuscript contains the equivalent of "Righteous art thou, which art and which wast, _thou Holy One_ ". Indeed, there is _no_ Greek manuscript support for the Textus Receptus' last six verses of Revelation - Erasmus simply created his own version of the Greek text by translating the Latin Vulgate's text into Greek.
As for your "Has anyone compared" question, the answer is yes. In part, that is how we know the following words/passages in the Textus Receptus aren't authentic:
• Matthew 19:9 - _εἰ_ (ei);
• Mark 16:9-20;
• John 7:8 -_οὔπω_ (oupō)
• John 7:53-8:11;
• Acts 8:37; and
• 1 John 5:7.
Plus, as already discussed,
• Revelation 16:5; and
• Revelation 22:16-21,
In the Textus Receptus aren't supported by _any_ manuscripts.
There are others, but that should suffice.
Get a book called the text of the new testament . There are at least two good ones written by different people that are good. You will learn much more from the book than from a talk like this. Bruce Metzger is one of the authors. Blessings.
Videos such as this are still useful for those who don't want to buy such books or invest the time and effort it takes to properly understand them.
PS, the Metzger book you're referring to is probably _The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission Corruption and Restoration_
Min 42 and 55 seem to be a loop of the same thing
1:04:20
For the algorithm
It's like drawing a art piece if you copy it theirs gonna be a difference but you get to see the picture anyway that the artist drew😏😎
I want your tie
is this the white Voddie ?
A God of love wants love uncoerced in return.
Thou shalt not take the name [character] of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
{Exodus 20:7}
And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. *God is love* and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
{1 John 4:16}
Ya, pretty sure all of us here know the Scriptures but what does that have to do with manuscripts?
@@philtanics1082
Any bible translation after Wescott and Hoth, (wolves in sheeps clothing) is Jesuit corruption.
We love him because he first loved us. So a psychoanalysis if God out thin air is...thin
While I appreciate the scholarly approach to manuscript preservation, I must point out James White's dishonesty regarding Sharp's rule and its application, particularly in passages like 2 Peter 1:1. He presents it as if it definitively proves that Jesus is identified as God in the same sense as the Father. However, Greg Stafford has thoroughly demonstrated that Sharp’s rule, as interpreted by James White and Dr. Wallace, is flawed. There are clear exceptions to the rule, and the context of Scripture always identifies the God of the Christians and Jesus as the Father ( 1 Corinthians 8:6, John 20:17 ) To reinterpret these texts to claim that God and Jesus are the same being is not only a stretch but outright misleading.
In John 1:1, the Logos is not identified as Ton Theon (the God) in a definite sense but as Theos without the article, an anarthrous structure that distinguishes Jesus as a separate god. Meanwhile, the God whom Jesus is with is described as ton Theon, the definite God. This distinction is further clarified in John 1:18, where Jesus is referred to as the monogenēs theos (unique god) who is alongside the invisible Almighty God, His Father and God above him.
Scripture and early church understanding consistently refer to the sons of God as "gods" without equating them to God Himself. The attempt by James White and others, like Dr. Wallace, to conflate these ideas not only ignores the linguistic and historical context but also misleads people into believing that these texts support the Trinity. This is not just historically inaccurate-it is, quite frankly, deceptive.
You JWs merely ignore Greek Grammar for the sake of your doctrine.
If the lack of the article before θεός (theos) is so important, explain who θεός (theos) is in John 3:16.
The third clause of John 1:1 in Greek reads καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος (kai theos ēn ho logos), literally meaning "and God was the Word".
JWs make much of the lack of the article ὁ (ho) before Θεὸς (theos) in the third clause of the Greek text, saying its absence means the Word was only "a god". But they are inconsistent: John 1:18 & 8:54, Romans 8:33 & 9:5 and 1 Corinthians 8:4 & 8:6, 2 Corinthians 1:3 & 5:19, Galatians 6:7, Ephesians 4:6, 1 Thessalonians 2:5, and Revelation 21:7 all lack the article ὁ (ho) before θεὸς (theos) with exactly the same accenting, but the New World Translation (NWT) has no trouble omitting the indefinite article there and translating θεὸς (theos) there as 'God'. 2 Corinthians 1:3 even has the exact same καὶ θεὸς (kai theos) wording as John 1:1 following ὁ πατὴρ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν (ho patēr tōn oiktirmōn) - an unambiguous reference to God the Father! On the JW's translation 'principle', 2 Corinthians 1:3 in the NWT should be translated as:
_Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and a god of all comfort,_
thus differentiating between God as _the Father of mercies_ and Jesus Christ as _a god of all comfort,_ but they failed to do so. Oops!
In all, there are 282 instances of the anarthrous θεός (theos) in its various inflections in the Greek New Testament, but the NWT only translates it as 'a god', 'god', 'gods' or 'godly' 16 times, demonstrating a mere 5.7% (1/18) commitment to their translation 'principle'.
Unlike English, Greek Grammar lacks the indefinite article and the Greek article functions differently from the English definite article. Plus the Greek article isn't needed for a noun to be definite. Nouns lacking the article are anarthrous. In Greek Grammar, θεός (theos) in the third clause of John 1:1 is what is known as a pre-verbal anarthrous nominative predicate noun. That is, the noun precedes a verb, lacks the article, and is the subject of and qualifies the object of the clause. In the New Testament, this form almost always denotes a quality. What this tells us is that the Word is qualitatively God. Put another way, the Word is distinct from but has the same nature or essence as God. There are very few cases in the New Testament where this form is indefinite. Thus, the onus is those arguing for the indefinite sense to explain why it has to be so here. Had John inserted the article before θεός (theos), that would mean the Word is identical with God (Unitarianism).
@@Berean_with_a_BTh Your response is an unfortunate mix of misrepresentation and arrogance, so let me help you untangle this mess. First, you’ve completely missed the point. The argument isn’t about the lack of the definite article before theos in John 1:1c. It’s about the distinction John explicitly makes between ton theon-the God the Word is with-and theos-what the Word is.
This distinction is not accidental. John could have identified the Word as the same God He is with, but he deliberately makes a distinction, showing that the Word is not the Almighty God but a separate divine being. The Word (logos) is a proper noun identifying someone who was in the beginning with another entity, ton theon. This is a clear, unmistakable reference to Almighty God.
If you think this refers to the Trinity, then Jesus is no part of it. And if you think this refers to the Father, then Jesus must be identified as the Father. However, you believe neither of these things. Instead, you argue He is a "person of God," a notion that John doesn’t state anywhere. Say what you mean and mean what you say.
John describes the Word in a way that aligns with the Jewish understanding of the sons of God, a category Jesus Himself claims to belong to (John 10:34-36). The sons of God are called gods or godlike all over the Scriptures (e.g., Psalm 82:6, Psalm 8:5). Yet Trinitarians completely disassociate from this Biblical understanding, interpreting Scripture not in its historical or linguistic context but through a doctrine developed centuries later under the influence of a pagan emperor. It’s hard to imagine a more ridiculous approach to Biblical interpretation.
Have you even read John 1:18? There, Jesus is described as monogenēs theos-a unique god. Once again, John differentiates between the invisible Almighty God and the Word in terms of theos exactly like John 1:1. If John intended to present a Trinitarian understanding, he would have used language that explicitly united the two in one essence. Instead, his choice of words consistently emphasizes their distinctiveness. The Trinity is absent from the Biblical scriptures; it’s a later, false doctrine.
Your attempt to equate this with other anarthrous uses of theos elsewhere in Scripture (e.g., 2 Corinthians 1:3, Romans 8:33) is irrelevant. Those examples do not share the same syntactical structure or theological nuance. John 1:1c is unique-it’s the only occurrence of its kind in the Scriptures, and its context demands a careful distinction between the two theos entities.
While it’s evident you like to speak on things you clearly don’t understand, your assumption that I’m a Jehovah’s Witness is unfounded and irrelevant. I’m a Christian who prioritizes truth over tradition. While I disagree with Jehovah’s Witnesses on many theological points-especially regarding salvation-I won’t deny when they’re right. Their translation of John 1:1c as "the Word was a god" aligns with the Greek text and context.
In fact, the NWT’s rendering of John 1:1c isn’t unique. Many respected translations have rendered it similarly, long before the NWT existed:
1808: “and the word was a god.”
1864: “and a god was the word.”
1928: “and the Word was a divine being.”
1935: “and the Word was divine.”
Even Origen, one of the early church’s most respected scholars, recognized the same distinction the NWT highlights. Origen explicitly differentiates between ton theon (the God) and theos (a god or divine being). This isn’t some modern innovation; it’s a well-attested understanding of the text.
Your response sidesteps the heart of the issue in John 1:1, which is the clear and deliberate distinction John makes between ton theon and theos. This isn’t something that can be brushed aside or reinterpreted through the lens of Trinitarian dogma-it’s right there in the text for anyone willing to approach it honestly.
Proverbs 18:13 reminds us that answering a matter before hearing it is folly and shame. If you want to have a meaningful conversation, stop forcing the text to fit a preconceived theological framework, stop assuming things you cannot know, and start addressing the clear distinctions John makes between ton theon and theos.
Until then, your accusations of ignorance would be better directed toward the mirror.
Poor audio
Where are the manuscripts at? Where is manuscripts of the first written Codex’s in the fourth century.
Why don't you do some basic online research on whichever manuscripts you're interested in. All the information is in the public domain.
@@Berean_with_a_BTh I have read and read about scriptures and there’s nothing to proof in them, religion is the most destructive force mankind has ever created. You look at the Bible, the Quran, Christianity, Jewish, they are only stories no more than any cult. You cannot prove anything in them, they are manipulated by man though leadership of people wanting to control and enslaved. When you cast hate from one religion to the other saying if don’t believe as I believe and you’re going to hell, there is something wrong. These holy books are nothing but man’s hate. Where is the love? When you say Jesus loves us,and God says if you do not do as I command you’re going to hell, something is wrong! Watch the movie Close Encounters of the Fifth Kind. And look at you contend.
OK, this may or may not get an answer from Dr. White.... but in his discussions on manuscripts... I can accept and do the fact and idea of older may be better and more right! However in making Bibles, WHY are we tied to the Greek New Testament that was created by Wescott & Hort? I can accept a Bible that uses "older" manuscripts, bun NOT any that use that Greek New Testament.... In all that I know, at age 81, is that THEIR WORK is not a TRUE or RIGHT work!! WHY did? WHY do? theologians since then put so much faith into THEIR WORK, and over the number of Greek manuscripts that we NOW HAVE!! A BIBLE that does NOT have their GREEK in it would BE a better, more right, and perhaps a more true Bible!!
616 is the Marvel Cinematic Universe 😂
Bothered? Uh...I am now. Never used those. I felt it was some scholars opinion instead of God's Word.
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?