Sadly, some KJV-onlyists will even claim the KJV was translated from a Textus Receptus _manuscript._ There was also no such thing as what we now call the Textus Receptus when the KJV was first published, in 1611. The Textus Receptus as we now know it wasn't compiled until 1894 (i.e. 283 years later) by Scrivener, who looked for _printed editions_ (again, 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 translators of the KJV didn't examine a single manuscript for themselves. What they used was _printed critical versions_ (not actual manuscripts) of the Greek & Hebrew texts produced by Erasmus, Stephanus & Bezae - and even the Latin Vulgate. Those printed versions of the Greek New Testament included the _Comma Johanneum_ (1 John 5:7) from the well-known early 16th century forgery called Codex Montfortianus that the RCC used to sneak the verse into Erasmus' 3rd edition. Furthermore, the Textus Receptus 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. And, of course, we now know the _Pericope Adulterae_ (John 7:53-8:11) is a later addition to John's Gospel and that Mark 16:9-20 is a later addition to Mark's Gospel. As such, these passages don't deserve the canonical status the KJV and Textus Receptus give them. Anyone claiming to be concerned about scribes changing God's word - as KJV-onlyists claim to be - should be thankful that all the centuries of scribal changes to the manuscripts that ended up being used to produce the critical editions of the Greek New Testament from which the KJV was produced and the later 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.
Thank you for this wonderful summary! Very helpful. Since you're clarifying terms, here's a fun piece of trivia: Although "Elzevir Brothers" is the usual designation, Bonaventure Elzevir was actually the uncle of his partner, Abraham.
Jonathan, you have explained these terms as precisely as textual critics such as Daniel B. Wallace. No other pastor of the churches I’ve attended and held membership in have even mentioned this stuff. Much respect from this long-term Southern Baptist.
Thanks for the clear and concise explanations! A lot of words get thrown around with very little normative understanding. You're making a difference. Thanks!
Hi Pastor John. I enjoy your videos. I think you do a great job of exposition. Especially, on these issues. If I were an elder of a local church, I WOULD HIRE YOU AS LEAD PASTOR. You're doing a great job! Keep Preaching, brother. Amen, Jesus Christ!
Thank you!! Crisp clean and short explanation of these overused terms whenever some super guru scholar try to mesmerize the masses with their scholarship…Nothing against learning but sometimes these guys have the spirit of too much!
@ yes you are, you are stating something without clarification in relationship to Scriviner’s work. There is a text referred to as the Critical Text and that is not the TR.
@@bubba1234xyz at least think before you make these brain-dead posts... the TR is a critical text. whether it's Scrivner's work or Erasmus', they produced critical texts... stop acting dense
Pastor Jon - My only regret when listening to your videos is I don’t live close enough to attend your church and sit under your ministry of the Word. To all my KJVO friends - no one has ever answered why the inspired writer of the NT book of Hebrews quoted a textual variant in Hebrews 8:9. I’m willing to listen and learn.
I very much enjoyed the way you've handled this Teaching. I'm sure God doesn't have an American are British Bible in prominence on the right hand side of the throne. Robertson and Dan Wallace may have their debates. But I feel like it's time for someone like you to have a More reasoning together view.
Thank you for straight facts! Question: can you provide more detail on the story of how Erasmus received the manuscripts from the east? Where & from whom they were received? Who went there to retrieve them? Erasmus himself or another person? It sounds intriguing to me that someone from the west would randomly walk into the Ottoman east and walk out with a centuries-old Bible.
Thank you for the encouragement. I love your question. Erasmus went to Basel, Switzerland because he thought he would find a trove of manuscripts. Instead, he only found a handful. The ones that were at Basel were brought there before the fall of Constantinople (1453) somewhere around 1432-1434. Someone had brought them to Basel for a conference and they never left. When Erasmus produces his first edition in 1516, he uses these and a borrowed commentary of Revelation that had the text in it. In one of my videos I actually talk about this and list out the manuscripts. I will search my transcripts and see which one that is and I will let you know.
@@pastorburris Thank you for a prompt reply. That is fascinating and a story that doesn't disappoint. I will continue to learn more about this as time goes on. I will also look for your video on those manuscripts.
The namers of the “Critical Text” needed better marketing advice. Many KJV-onlyists think “critical” means it is criticizing the King James Bible. They should have named it the “Revealed Text” instead and those who don’t know the meanings of the word “critical” would have all jumped on board.
@@capnjs Nope. Textual criticism is a scholarly investigation of manuscripts with variants. If a scholar has several versions of a manuscript but no known original, then established methods of textual criticism can be used to seek to reconstruct the original text as closely as possible. Sometimes they will create a new “original” document using that method. This document is a “critical text”. It has nothing to do with criticizing.
I like that little smile at the end! ............ There is a great UA-cam video of soprano Regula Muhlemann singing Mozart's "Exsultate Jubilate" Part way through, two cello players quickly look at each other, and smile. They know that, collectively, they've nailed it! :--}>
I believe that if one stays within the formal translations i.e. word for word, then one is fine. It's when one ventures out of the formal that one has to be very careful.
I use kjv, nkjv, and nasb as suggested by pastor everhard. I’ve come to the conclusion that the masoretic text for ot, and majority text for nt are as close as we can get to the autographs. I don’t like the conjecture element of textual criticism. Using a majority approach seems much more effective and less prone to errors
Pastor Burriss, rather than a meager-meal introduction to biblical textual criticism, this video is one big old burrito festival. Shouldeth thou indulge me, now cometh forth three 'If's and beyond: 1. If Erasmus, within a period of twenty years, published five di-glot editions of the Greek and Latin New Testament on facing pages, does this mean he was a 'glotten for punishment'? 2. If F.H.A Scrivener's 1881 edition was merely a reverse engineered/back engineering of the KJB Authorized Version translated into Greek, then wouldn't those who advocate that this is the perfect and final Textus Receptus be engaged in circular reasoning? ... in that there is nothing to support this position with cross-references to any external source? 3. If the 1881 Critical Text edition that contains the conjunction ἢ ('or) in the first sentence clause of 1 Corinthians 11:27 [which is the same rendering as the earlier (A) 1550 Stephanus Textus Receptus and the (B) 1598 Beza Greek New Testament, as well as the later (C) RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005] was good enough for Westcott & Hort, then that's good enough for me. 4. This 1881 W&H CT rendering of 1 Corinthians 11:27 is at odds with the English translations of (A) the 1560 Geneva Bible and (B) the 1611 King James Version, both of which have the conjunction 'and' (καὶ) in its first sentence clause. Epilogue: Twice I dreamed that I translated the Greek New Testament into English with "unreasonable eclecticism", but then these renderings subsequently were consigned to oblivion as (A) the Textus Rejectus and (B) the Criticized Text, according to Majority Text opinion. I'm glad I woke up.
I'm looking for a modern Bible. 1. It should begin with the Geneva Bible. (Hopefully, upsetting kjv onlyists. ) 2. It should contain all the original Geneva Bible margin comments in modern English. 3. It should carefully fix the old Testament using the Old Testament Septuagint + Dead Sea Scrolls, not the Masoretic Text. 4. It should carefully fix the new Testament using the Majority Text(Byzantine). Editors should have a similar philosophy as the LSB/WEB Bible. 5. Decent leather. I don't want a paperback or hardcover. 6. Center column reference links 7. Passage headings. 8. No tabs on the side to help find books of the Bible.
Unfortunately, I just recently watched a sermon on KJV onlyism by a pastor that went to my church camp growing up. He stated a lot of the KJV only propaganda that you hear from everyone else that is only listening to a select few people instead of studying the topic for themselves. He even stated in the video and I quote “I don’t believe the inspiration of the Bible was in the original autographs.”
My favorite translations are the KJV and the LSB, but I do the majority of my reading in Hebrew and Greek. I use the BHS for Hebrew and the NA28 and Tyndale Greek New Testament. I also have a New Testament in Modern Hebrew that I read daily.
For those who use the “ Egypt is bad” argument against the Alexandrian text. In John one Jesus is called the word. When king Herod tried to kill Jesus by ordering all the baby boys to be killed, God sent them to Egypt to be kept safe. So God sent the word to be kept safe in Egypt.
Yep. In a recent video (I forget which one), I made the statement that nothing good ever came out of Egypt except for Abraham, Moses, Israel, Jesus, and Apollos - just to name a few.
Great summary of the terms and facts. Sometimes I feel like the scholarship around textual criticism doesn't prioritize producing a text that is designed to serve the church. Most groups doing this work are creating an eclectic text that on one hand is claimed to be as close to the original text as we can get, but at the same time, retaining sole ownership/copyright over the text. There is only one eclectic greek text that allows free unlimited unrestricted use for the benefit of the church at large. Sometimes it seems to me that the Robinson-Pierpont text should be prioritized by the church as a whole, not necessarily because it has the best scholarship, but simply because it is the only fully free biblical Greek New Testament. I am frustrated at these men who wish to collate, copyright, and thus control the ability to distribute the Biblical Greek text.
It is not original. This is not a problem of Alexandrian or Byzantine text types. It simply made its way into the text in the 9th Century from the margins.
KJV is good, but not perfect. More than once Young's Literal Translation, which is also from the Textus Receptus, is clearer on the deity of Christ. See below. 2 Thessalonians 1:12 YLT- that the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and ye in him, according to the grace of our God and Lord Jesus Christ. KJV- That the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and ye in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ. KJV adds "the", separated "our God" from "Lord Jesus Christ". Titus 2:13 YLT- waiting for the blessed hope and manifestation of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, KJV- Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ KJV is unclear, but Young's is unmistakable: Jesus is here called "great God". 2 Peter 1:1 YLT- Simeon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who did obtain a like precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ KJV- Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ Once again Young's is clear, but KJV is clouding a clear sound-off for the deity of Jesus. If one MUST have the TR, fine. But there's better options.
in the case, of divorce and remarriage there are two mistranslations....one is πορνεία and the other one is δουλεία so good luck reaching any agreement on this issue....
First, you should always cite your references and provide scripture. You did neither. Secondly, you have provided no context for your comment. This is not a scholarly refutation. It is not even a refutation. And no, neither of those are mistranslations. Those are Greek words. The NT was written in Greek. That can never be a mistranslation.
Are you familiar with the nearly 30 places where the reading in the KJV matches no known edition of the TR? The reason why is because the KJV translators used reasoned eclecticism in producing the KJV.
@pastorburris well there you go. It's a flawed process that can lead to readings that don't have any support from existing manuscripts. But doesn't this happen in CT translations more often than KJV
You jumped too soon. I did address those things. Here’s one for your so-called Alexandrian cult. Are Alexandrian Manuscripts Corrupt? Answering the Alexandrian vs Antioch Two Schools Argument ua-cam.com/video/WYExFw2rTFM/v-deo.html
here's another question you could ask ... for 400 years when printing was getting the Bible into the hands of the people, God could not manage to get the right text? Oh dear!
The Alexandrian has been disqualified as a text type due to too much incoherence between manuscripts. There is now only one recognized text type: the Byzantine.
@@pastorburris ---. “On the Relationship of the ‘Western Text’ and the Byzantine Tradition of Acts-A Plea Against the Text-Type Concept.” Pages 137-48 in Novum Testamentum Graecum: Editio Critica Maior, III/3: Apostelgeschichte, Studien, edited by Holger Strutwolf et al. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2017. Hixson, E., & Gurry, P. J., eds. (2019). Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism (p. 349). IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press.
@@pastorburris "Scholars now tend to avoid speaking of textual “traditions” and “text-types” as such, but this quotation nevertheless captures an important aspect of the transmission of the text.39" "39 On the reasons for this development, see Eldon J. Epp, “Textual Clusters: Their Past and Future in New Testament Textual Criticism,” in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, 2nd ed., ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes, NTTSD 42 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 519-77." "Cole, Z. J. (2019). Myths about Copyists: The Scribes Who Copied Our Earliest Manuscripts. In E. Hixson & P. J. Gurry (Eds.), Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism (pp. 147-285). IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press."
Awesome Pastor.❤
Keep doing what you’re doing Pastor! Praying for you and your new ministry.
Very nice job explaining what for many is a confusing topic. Keep up the good work 👏
Sadly, some KJV-onlyists will even claim the KJV was translated from a Textus Receptus _manuscript._
There was also no such thing as what we now call the Textus Receptus when the KJV was first published, in 1611. The Textus Receptus as we now know it wasn't compiled until 1894 (i.e. 283 years later) by Scrivener, who looked for _printed editions_ (again, 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 translators of the KJV didn't examine a single manuscript for themselves. What they used was _printed critical versions_ (not actual manuscripts) of the Greek & Hebrew texts produced by Erasmus, Stephanus & Bezae - and even the Latin Vulgate.
Those printed versions of the Greek New Testament included the _Comma Johanneum_ (1 John 5:7) from the well-known early 16th century forgery called Codex Montfortianus that the RCC used to sneak the verse into Erasmus' 3rd edition.
Furthermore, the Textus Receptus 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.
And, of course, we now know the _Pericope Adulterae_ (John 7:53-8:11) is a later addition to John's Gospel and that Mark 16:9-20 is a later addition to Mark's Gospel. As such, these passages don't deserve the canonical status the KJV and Textus Receptus give them.
Anyone claiming to be concerned about scribes changing God's word - as KJV-onlyists claim to be - should be thankful that all the centuries of scribal changes to the manuscripts that ended up being used to produce the critical editions of the Greek New Testament from which the KJV was produced and the later 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.
thanks for writing this. it was very helpful
Thank you for this wonderful summary! Very helpful. Since you're clarifying terms, here's a fun piece of trivia: Although "Elzevir Brothers" is the usual designation, Bonaventure Elzevir was actually the uncle of his partner, Abraham.
Jonathan, you have explained these terms as precisely as textual critics such as Daniel B. Wallace. No other pastor of the churches I’ve attended and held membership in have even mentioned this stuff. Much respect from this long-term Southern Baptist.
Great concise summary. Thank you.
Thanks for the clear and concise explanations! A lot of words get thrown around with very little normative understanding. You're making a difference. Thanks!
Hi Pastor John. I enjoy your videos. I think you do a great job of exposition. Especially, on these issues.
If I were an elder of a local church, I WOULD HIRE YOU AS LEAD PASTOR. You're doing a great job! Keep Preaching, brother. Amen, Jesus Christ!
But please note: A PASTOR IS NOT A HIRELING! He is called by Christ, appointed by the Holy Spirit.
:--}>
I do not think this brother meant it in that way, but yes. A pastor is not a hireling.
hey pastor! Great video! Could you maybe make a note on this video adding what the authorized version means so that beginners don't get confused!
Thank you!! Crisp clean and short explanation of these overused terms whenever some super guru scholar try to mesmerize the masses with their scholarship…Nothing against learning but sometimes these guys have the spirit of too much!
Excellent video! Thank you pastor!
"The TR is an eclectic text"
thank you... way too many people are ignorant of the fact that the TR is also a critical text
@@craigime your redefining terms
You’re
@@bubba1234xyz I'm not
@ yes you are, you are stating something without clarification in relationship to Scriviner’s work. There is a text referred to as the Critical Text and that is not the TR.
@@bubba1234xyz at least think before you make these brain-dead posts... the TR is a critical text. whether it's Scrivner's work or Erasmus', they produced critical texts... stop acting dense
Pastor Jon - My only regret when listening to your videos is I don’t live close enough to attend your church and sit under your ministry of the Word.
To all my KJVO friends - no one has ever answered why the inspired writer of the NT book of Hebrews quoted a textual variant in Hebrews 8:9. I’m willing to listen and learn.
I very much enjoyed the way you've handled this Teaching. I'm sure God doesn't have an American are British Bible in prominence on the right hand side of the throne. Robertson and Dan Wallace may have their debates. But I feel like it's time for someone like you to have a More reasoning together view.
Very informative! Another great video!
That was an excellent overview of an often misunderstood subject.
Thank you for straight facts! Question: can you provide more detail on the story of how Erasmus received the manuscripts from the east? Where & from whom they were received? Who went there to retrieve them? Erasmus himself or another person? It sounds intriguing to me that someone from the west would randomly walk into the Ottoman east and walk out with a centuries-old Bible.
Thank you for the encouragement. I love your question. Erasmus went to Basel, Switzerland because he thought he would find a trove of manuscripts. Instead, he only found a handful. The ones that were at Basel were brought there before the fall of Constantinople (1453) somewhere around 1432-1434. Someone had brought them to Basel for a conference and they never left. When Erasmus produces his first edition in 1516, he uses these and a borrowed commentary of Revelation that had the text in it. In one of my videos I actually talk about this and list out the manuscripts. I will search my transcripts and see which one that is and I will let you know.
@@pastorburris Thank you for a prompt reply. That is fascinating and a story that doesn't disappoint. I will continue to learn more about this as time goes on. I will also look for your video on those manuscripts.
Good information
Thank you
The namers of the “Critical Text” needed better marketing advice. Many KJV-onlyists think “critical” means it is criticizing the King James Bible. They should have named it the “Revealed Text” instead and those who don’t know the meanings of the word “critical” would have all jumped on board.
@@capnjs Nope. Textual criticism is a scholarly investigation of manuscripts with variants. If a scholar has several versions of a manuscript but no known original, then established methods of textual criticism can be used to seek to reconstruct the original text as closely as possible. Sometimes they will create a new “original” document using that method. This document is a “critical text”. It has nothing to do with criticizing.
@@rrsafetyI agree totally, but I wish the scholar who named the discipline had said textual analysis instead.
@@rrsafetylol you got proven right pretty much immediately. Sorry bro. But keep it up. God bless.
@@rrsafety no they don’t. You will not find a piece of pro KJV literature stating that. It is a straw man.
@@rrsafety This is nuts and nobody believes that red herring. Not one piece of literature on the subject states that.
I like that little smile at the end!
............
There is a great UA-cam video of soprano Regula Muhlemann singing Mozart's "Exsultate Jubilate"
Part way through, two cello players quickly look at each other, and smile. They know that, collectively, they've nailed it!
:--}>
I believe that if one stays within the formal translations i.e. word for word, then one is fine. It's when one ventures out of the formal that one has to be very careful.
I use kjv, nkjv, and nasb as suggested by pastor everhard. I’ve come to the conclusion that the masoretic text for ot, and majority text for nt are as close as we can get to the autographs. I don’t like the conjecture element of textual criticism. Using a majority approach seems much more effective and less prone to errors
Why would a longer and larger number of people playing a game of telephone be prone to less errors?
Most excellent content❤
Again informative. P.s. Are you related to Pastor Zach Burris who was pastor at one of our local churches, The Mill Church in Stratford, Wisconsin?
I am not aware of any family in Wisconsin, but please tell cousin Zach I said hello. 😀
Pastor Burriss, rather than a meager-meal introduction to biblical textual criticism, this video is one big old burrito festival.
Shouldeth thou indulge me, now cometh forth three 'If's and beyond:
1. If Erasmus, within a period of twenty years, published five di-glot editions of the Greek and Latin New Testament on facing pages, does this mean he was a 'glotten for punishment'?
2. If F.H.A Scrivener's 1881 edition was merely a reverse engineered/back engineering of the KJB Authorized Version translated into Greek, then wouldn't those who advocate that this is the perfect and final Textus Receptus be engaged in circular reasoning? ... in that there is nothing to support this position with cross-references to any external source?
3. If the 1881 Critical Text edition that contains the conjunction ἢ ('or) in the first sentence clause of 1 Corinthians 11:27 [which is the same rendering as the earlier (A) 1550 Stephanus Textus Receptus and the (B) 1598 Beza Greek New Testament, as well as the later (C) RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005] was good enough for Westcott & Hort, then that's good enough for me.
4. This 1881 W&H CT rendering of 1 Corinthians 11:27 is at odds with the English translations of (A) the 1560 Geneva Bible and (B) the 1611 King James Version, both of which have the conjunction 'and' (καὶ) in its first sentence clause.
Epilogue: Twice I dreamed that I translated the Greek New Testament into English with "unreasonable eclecticism", but then these renderings subsequently were consigned to oblivion as (A) the Textus Rejectus and (B) the Criticized Text, according to Majority Text opinion. I'm glad I woke up.
I'm looking for a modern Bible.
1. It should begin with the Geneva Bible. (Hopefully, upsetting kjv onlyists. )
2. It should contain all the original Geneva Bible margin comments in modern English.
3. It should carefully fix the old Testament using the Old Testament Septuagint + Dead Sea Scrolls, not the Masoretic Text.
4. It should carefully fix the new Testament using the Majority Text(Byzantine).
Editors should have a similar philosophy as the LSB/WEB Bible.
5. Decent leather. I don't want a paperback or hardcover.
6. Center column reference links
7. Passage headings.
8. No tabs on the side to help find books of the Bible.
Unfortunately, I just recently watched a sermon on KJV onlyism by a pastor that went to my church camp growing up. He stated a lot of the KJV only propaganda that you hear from everyone else that is only listening to a select few people instead of studying the topic for themselves.
He even stated in the video and I quote “I don’t believe the inspiration of the Bible was in the original autographs.”
Wow!
The King James 1769 edition was good enough for the apostles, so who are we to question it, right? (jk)
That's heresy Patrick! And blasphemy too!
Simple question: Which text do you use?
My favorite translations are the KJV and the LSB, but I do the majority of my reading in Hebrew and Greek. I use the BHS for Hebrew and the NA28 and Tyndale Greek New Testament. I also have a New Testament in Modern Hebrew that I read daily.
For those who use the “ Egypt is bad” argument against the Alexandrian text. In John one Jesus is called the word. When king Herod tried to kill Jesus by ordering all the baby boys to be killed, God sent them to Egypt to be kept safe. So God sent the word to be kept safe in Egypt.
Yep. In a recent video (I forget which one), I made the statement that nothing good ever came out of Egypt except for Abraham, Moses, Israel, Jesus, and Apollos - just to name a few.
@pastorburris can I have your bibliography for my own research purposes
@@pastorburrisplus Athanasius too!
Great summary of the terms and facts. Sometimes I feel like the scholarship around textual criticism doesn't prioritize producing a text that is designed to serve the church. Most groups doing this work are creating an eclectic text that on one hand is claimed to be as close to the original text as we can get, but at the same time, retaining sole ownership/copyright over the text. There is only one eclectic greek text that allows free unlimited unrestricted use for the benefit of the church at large. Sometimes it seems to me that the Robinson-Pierpont text should be prioritized by the church as a whole, not necessarily because it has the best scholarship, but simply because it is the only fully free biblical Greek New Testament. I am frustrated at these men who wish to collate, copyright, and thus control the ability to distribute the Biblical Greek text.
What is your view of I John 5:7 and 8. The CJ debate?
It is not original. This is not a problem of Alexandrian or Byzantine text types. It simply made its way into the text in the 9th Century from the margins.
Which text do you prefer. The TR or the critical text? Which manuscripts to do think are more reliable, the Alexandrian or the Byzantine?
KJV is good, but not perfect. More than once Young's Literal Translation, which is also from the Textus Receptus, is clearer on the deity of Christ. See below.
2 Thessalonians 1:12
YLT- that the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and ye in him, according to the grace of our God and Lord Jesus Christ.
KJV- That the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and ye in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.
KJV adds "the", separated "our God" from "Lord Jesus Christ".
Titus 2:13
YLT- waiting for the blessed hope and manifestation of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ,
KJV- Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ
KJV is unclear, but Young's is unmistakable: Jesus is here called "great God".
2 Peter 1:1
YLT- Simeon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who did obtain a like precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ
KJV- Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ
Once again Young's is clear, but KJV is clouding a clear sound-off for the deity of Jesus. If one MUST have the TR, fine. But there's better options.
in the case, of divorce and remarriage there are two mistranslations....one is πορνεία and the other one is δουλεία so good luck reaching any agreement on this issue....
First, you should always cite your references and provide scripture. You did neither. Secondly, you have provided no context for your comment. This is not a scholarly refutation. It is not even a refutation. And no, neither of those are mistranslations. Those are Greek words. The NT was written in Greek. That can never be a mistranslation.
helpful tho the accent lol
Oh yeah, I have a horrible accent. Sorry, it's too late to fix it now. Just pray for me. :)
Its lovely :)
Reasoned eclecticism is a flawed process. Some readings end up not matching any readings from existing text.
Are you familiar with the nearly 30 places where the reading in the KJV matches no known edition of the TR? The reason why is because the KJV translators used reasoned eclecticism in producing the KJV.
@pastorburris well there you go. It's a flawed process that can lead to readings that don't have any support from existing manuscripts. But doesn't this happen in CT translations more often than KJV
What this clearly demonstrates is that, as I have said and as has been the historical understanding, no translation is perfect - not even the KJV.
@@pastorburrisNot only that, but the TR has Greek readings that are in no known Greek manuscript.
Well why didn't you go into the Westcott and Hort problem
They were not Christians
Why didn't you touch on the cult of the Alexandrians
You jumped too soon. I did address those things. Here’s one for your so-called Alexandrian cult.
Are Alexandrian Manuscripts Corrupt? Answering the Alexandrian vs Antioch Two Schools Argument
ua-cam.com/video/WYExFw2rTFM/v-deo.html
here's another question you could ask ... for 400 years when printing was getting the Bible into the hands of the people, God could not manage to get the right text? Oh dear!
The Alexandrian has been disqualified as a text type due to too much incoherence between manuscripts. There is now only one recognized text type: the Byzantine.
You forgot to add, "in your opinion".
🤣@@pastorburris
@@pastorburris If you want my opinion, that will cost you cash-money. That just ain't free. All you get are the facts from me.
@@pastorburris
---. “On the Relationship of the ‘Western Text’ and the Byzantine Tradition of Acts-A Plea Against the Text-Type Concept.” Pages 137-48 in Novum Testamentum Graecum: Editio Critica Maior, III/3: Apostelgeschichte, Studien, edited by Holger Strutwolf et al. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2017.
Hixson, E., & Gurry, P. J., eds. (2019). Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism (p. 349). IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press.
@@pastorburris
"Scholars now tend to avoid speaking of textual “traditions” and “text-types” as such, but this quotation nevertheless captures an important aspect of the transmission of the text.39"
"39 On the reasons for this development, see Eldon J. Epp, “Textual Clusters: Their Past and Future in New Testament Textual Criticism,” in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, 2nd ed., ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes, NTTSD 42 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 519-77."
"Cole, Z. J. (2019). Myths about Copyists: The Scribes Who Copied Our Earliest Manuscripts. In E. Hixson & P. J. Gurry (Eds.), Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism (pp. 147-285). IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press."