Excellent! And so why would we trust the educated guess of a modern day scholar MORE than the consensus of the ancient, early church? Terrific point, Bro Dwayne!
You state that the Critical Text folks argue for “some form” of Divine Preservation, but from what I have seen or heard, getting them to define what that means is about as easy as getting a TR/KJVO person to tell you which TR is the best representative of Divine Preservation! Thanks, Pastor Dwayne, for another enlightening discussion!
Thanks for the support of the Byzantine text, as they say the "cream rises to the top". 3 Times Israel was instructed to build an alter of stones to the Lord ( Dt. 27:5, Ex 20:25, Josh 8:31 ) but they were forbidden to wield iron on the natural rock (else it be polluted), granted they were tasked with building the alter but there were restrictions. Conjectural emendation may be the iron "lifted up" against the stone polluting the "altar" or the pure word.
Always a blessing to hear from you. I share your view of the Byzantine text. If you make more videos like this, defending it, I think you'll help a lot of people get their bearings on this fascinating issue. God vless you, and God bless his Holy and Eternal Word!
I seem to recall a video you did some time ago with Dr. Robinson where he outlined another problem with the CT being that by its nature it has a 'Frankenstein's monster' thing going on. My understanding (by memory) was that because the CT is built on a word by word basis, when you go and grab 10, 15, 20 words in a row, that combination of words in that position is completely new and unlike any historical document on record. I may be misunderstanding or misrepresenting that point perfectly, but I remember thinking at the time that that whole concept also causes major problems (at least for me) when thinking about preservation.
That's right! The so-called "Frankentext". There are a number of examples (I don't have them on hand) where even short streatches of text cannot be found in the manuscript tradition. At some point I'll do a video on it.
@@Dwayne_Green Please do, I have tried to summarize the problem concisely a few times and simply found myself unable to do so. I do not have the underlying language skills or manuscript knowledge to do it justice so I end up trying to find videos (that aren't super dense and long). I have a grasp of the problem, but properly explaining it in a way that is easily understood by others and has evidential backing is much harder. I do know though that for me, it would be right up there with conjectural emendation as a major problem with any concept of preservation.
@Dwayne_Green if preservation is through the Greek manuscripts, does it follow that there must always be people who know Greek well enough to read printed texts from those manuscripts?
I am somewhat between the Nestle Aland and the Byzantine Text. Although I would disagree with Scrivener on some readings I agree with much of what he said. “By collecting and comparing and weighing the variations of the text to which we have access, it aims at bringing back that text, so far as may be, to the condition in which it stood in the sacred autographs” I believe we have enough Greek manuscripts to avoid conjectural emendations. I don’t believe we are bound by the editorial decisions of the Nestle Aland, or ECM, or any printed edition, English translators think they are either, compare ESV at Acts 13:33. In fact the NASB95 sometimes would go with a Byzantine reading from the apparatus, I’ve noticed a few at Hebrews 3:6, 4:2, and the one at 11:37 which is still in the 2020 and LSB. What I do believe is that which Richard Bentley said. “The real text of the sacred writers does not now (since the originals have been so long lost) lie in any MS. or edition, but is dispersed in them all.”
I would be interested if you made a video on your exact stance on preservation. Like is it that we have the exact words in the main text of a printed edition, or is it that it is the reading above or below the line of a printed edition, or perhaps a 3rd option?
While I am a Byzantine prioritist myself, and I do find the argument of preservation to be a compelling one, I can already think of an argument you may receive from the other position: What about the places in the OT where the Septuagint holds the true reading and the Masoretic Text is clearly corrupted? Such as the "like a lion" in Psalm 22:16?
If we are going to tout the Byzantine Priority, we need more translations with BP, but as far as I know there are only 2 in English. Almost all translations are CT and TR of which I love the NLT and the NKJV.
@@lukekey2827 I honestly don't know the name of one of them but the other one is the World English Bible (WEB). It is public domain. It uses the Robinson and Pierpont Byzantine Priority Text.
I know of no text critic today who would argue that the Byzantine text as we find it promulgated in the minuscules is the result of a concerted fourth-century recension. Peter Gurry Evangelical Textual Criticism Blog
Help me a little here. Is it conjectural emendation if it based on a version that also, supposedly, was based on Greek manuscripts at some point? I would assume true conjectural emendation would be reliant on no evidence at all. Here, there is evidence, though it is outside of the original language of the New Testament. Couldn't it be possible that an early version may better preserve an original reading than later Greek manuscripts, or is that not possible? Thanks!
Your quiet right here, I could have spent a bit more time defining 'conjectural emendation'. Even though its found in an ancient version, it may, or may not necessarily be evidence of a Greek witness with that reading, to suggest it is would be conjecture, especially given the scant evidence for such a reading!
Yes, it would seem we do accept, for example, a reading from the LXX if it has a reasonable chance of reflecting a Hebrew reading more likely to be original (and more likely to explain the current MT reading).
Some people would call adopting a reading found only in translations a conjectural emendation. Others would only use it for adopting a reading with no manuscript evidence of any sort. It depends on how strictly you want to define the term.
I'm no fan of conjectural emendation either, but this is more of an argument against certain critical text advocates than the critical text position itself. The Tyndale House Greek New Testament does not contain any conjectural emendations. Dirk Jongkind is one of a number of critical text advocates that oppose conjectural emendation. It may be an argument against the TR, since its various editions include a few conjectural emendations. However, I don't know that its advocates are opposed to saying that God lead Erasums or Beza to the original reading that had been lost from the manuscript tradition. Their faith rests in the printed text, not the manuscripts behind it. As much as I would love to oppose all conjectural emendations on theological grounds. I don't believe I can do this IF one defines "conjectural emendation" as strictly as you just did. I cannot avoid believing that there are a few places in the Old Testament where the original reading is not found in any extant Hebrew manuscripts, but it found in one or more of the ancient versions. In particular, I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that Saul was only one year old when he became king (1 Samuel 13:1) or that Ahaziah was both 22 (2 Kings 8:26) and 42 (2 Chronicles 2:22) at the beginning of his reign. I believe that the original readings of the NT are all found in the Greek manuscripts (I strongly opposes the conjectural emendations of the NA28 or the ECM), but I think in the OT, I have to allow for the possibility that, on rare occasions, God allowed the original wording to be preserved in a translation rather than in the original language manuscripts.
I should have taken more time in the video to share how this is true... I think I briefly mentioned it, but yes, not all text critics agree on CE. As for the Old Testament issues, I'm simply not equipped at this point to tackle that, though your two examples do raise some interesting questions.
My only issue with these examples is that they are supported by some manuscript evidence, even if the evidence is in the ancient versions. They are "conjectural" in the sense that we're carefully guessing at the exact Greek word equivalent of an extant non-Greek reading, but they are not coming from nowhere. Contrast that with the KJV's most infamous emendation, Beza's modification of Revelation 16.5 to read "who is and who was and who is to be" (NKJV). That's a reading that our dear Calvinist scholar introduced purely on similar phrasing in 1.4, 8 and 11.17: "who is and was and is to come."
Yes, they conjecture to non-Greek manuscripts, and often very few. The one example in acts, has a singular Latin manuscript for support. Although conjectural emendation is not simply 'pulled out of nowhere' (the implication of educated guess is at play here) it's surprising that the vast preponderance of Greek Manuscript evidence is pushed aside for a singular reading in an old version. It's not a good look.
Doesn’t Robinson say that the TR isn’t from the Byzantine text? He says this in a recent interview with Ward/ Berg… did I understand him correctly? I always understood that the TR was from the BT
I did watch that same interview, but I don't remember him saying that specifically. It should be noted however that the Byzantine Text is NOT the TR, though the TR is relatively close to the Byzantine text (at least in comparison to the critical text). I think it can be demonstrated that the TR is *mostly* byzantine but with a number of Latin intrusions.
@@Dwayne_Green it’s within the first 10 minutes and I believe he calls it a sub-text to the Byzantine. How do you view it? Blessings and thank you for all you do brother 🙌🏻
Thanks for this. I have a question. Why do critical text advocates ignore quotes from the majority text by church fathers which clearly date earlier than the oldest existing manuscripts?
I wouldn't say they 'ignore it', but I think it's a matter of giving a 'greater weight' in texual decisions to the 'oldest and best', rather than the Majority.
You really need to provide a definition of what you mean by preservation. I know there are different Aryans in the definition, but you would need to provide yours. Robinson says that the idea of preservation rules out conjecture emanation you might wanna quote him on that too.
Being a TR advocate, I prefer the Majority text over and above the Critical text (by far) I also recognize that the TR comes from Antioch and the Byzantian line of text (it is the right line for several reasons rightly laid out in your videos) however, it makes an error, a very similar error to the Critical text advocates, that is that it prioritizes the scientific method above God's Word. You may say that this is not the case but at bottom, God's Word simply becomes a numbers game to the Majority text advocates. Although it's nice to be on the right side of the greater number of greek manuscripts, but mere numerical considerations cannot bring us to God's Word. There is no room for faith. There is no room for lesser represented texts ie. 1John 5:7. There is no room for preservation in all its aspects (not just a one-dimensional numerical approach). Again, I am very grateful for the work that the majority text guys because it really helps people understand the lineage of Scripture and that the evidence is really on our side (both majority and TR to a greater or lesser extent). I understand the topic is much more nuanced than this and further discussion would need to be had to flesh it all out but i believe that Majority text is a powerful tool that can be used but it lacks much and misses the mark slightly on preservation. The Bible never said that the preservation of Scripture would be a numbers game.
I'm not opposed to it. I'm only opposed to it being the guiding principle and not Scripture and the principles set out in the Bible. Text criticism must be done but not at the expense of what Scripture says. I'm not sure if you believe in evolution and other such like hot topics of dispute within the Church but in many cases, people put the science before God's Word and not God's Word as supreme in all controversies. This is what I believe has happened with modern textual criticism. Although they won't admit it, but it's obvious, they have put the science before Scripture. It how many manuscripts do we have of this, how early is that dated... but what happens if one day they dig up some manuscript that will change it all? it could literally all fall apart! If its premises are built upon science alone then they can be destroyed by the latest science as well. Do we as Christian shun the use of science? Absolutely not! but we should know its rightful place in this and any other discussion. Science is a mere "handmaiden" to theology.@@No_auto_toon
I would argue that the TR is just a product of textual criticism too - based on relatively few manuscripts. There is really no good reason to prefer it.
@@D12Min There is textual decisions made with the TR but the methods used are far different from those used today by modern scholars (many of them ungodly and have no business near the Word of God making decisions what verses are in and what they decide to exclude). That aside, the "relatively few" manuscripts that you claim they used were chosen based upon their use by the Church and there veracity and faithfulness. They rejected Vaticanus and others for being untrustworthy. These "few" are the majority of manuscripts we have today minus a handful of verses like 1John5:7. Thats why the majority text and the TR are much closer to each other than the Critical Text.
For quoting a single line for educational purposes, It would never fly. My use here would fallsunder 'Fair Use'. CBS had successfully won a lawsuit, citing fair use, for including parts of the speech in a broadcast.
@@Dwayne_Green The ACLU has bought the copyright to all of Martin Luther King's speeches and writings. It sounds like you have covered yourself. Just trying to prevent a lawsuit as such. Glenn Beck spoke about this on one of his radio broadcast about 20 years ago.
The Byzantine manuscripts are olderr and most certainly not "better" worse if anything though all our manuscripts have been corrupted in some way. ACTS 15:24 is a prime example of a textual variant between the NIV(Alexandrian manuscripts) and the KJV (byzantine manuscript) where a corruption is shown in the KJV by adding that gentiles arent requred to follow the law of Moses.
@@D12Min sure they do. See Isaiah 56:6-7. Should a Gentile wish to join theirselves to YHWH they must Keep Shabbat. Jesus quotes from this Passage in Isaiah when he's throwing the moneychangers out of the Temple. My Father's house will be a house of prayer for all Nations he says. Quoting straight from Isaiah 56 which deals with salvation for others. God's Law is eternal for all Generations and as Solomon the Wise once said obey the commandments for this is the duty of all mankind. Jesus says any man that teacheth the law is done away with will be called the least in heaven. William Tyndale says now if any man that submitted not himself to keep the commandments do think that he have any faith in God? the same mans faith is vain, worldly, damnable, devilish and plain presumption as it is above said and is no faith that can justify ot be accepted before God
@@andrewclemons8619 Isaiah 56:5-6 was written when Israel was still under the old covenant and it´s obviously talking about proselytes. In the new covenant the case is so clear, teaching people to be under the Mosaic law is pretty much THE arch heresy of the NT and absolutely laughable at its face. Galatians 3:27 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are NO LONGER under a tutor.
it is well passed time for a major publisher to give us a Byzantine text translation.
English Majority Text Version (EMTV) available for free online
World English Bible
Majority Text update of the ASV1901.
Excellent! And so why would we trust the educated guess of a modern day scholar MORE than the consensus of the ancient, early church? Terrific point, Bro Dwayne!
You put it well and carefully and I've been trying to say this for a long time to my colleagues..
Thank you, Dwane. It is good note that the Tyndale House greek new testament is a critical text that contains 0 conjectual emendations .
This is true, and not ALL textual critics agree with the conjectural emendations.
You state that the Critical Text folks argue for “some form” of Divine Preservation, but from what I have seen or heard, getting them to define what that means is about as easy as getting a TR/KJVO person to tell you which TR is the best representative of Divine Preservation!
Thanks, Pastor Dwayne, for another enlightening discussion!
Thanks for the support of the Byzantine text, as they say the "cream rises to the top". 3 Times Israel was instructed to build an alter of stones to the Lord ( Dt. 27:5, Ex 20:25, Josh 8:31 ) but they were forbidden to wield iron on the natural rock (else it be polluted), granted they were tasked with building the alter but there were restrictions. Conjectural emendation may be the iron "lifted up" against the stone polluting the "altar" or the pure word.
Hey brother Dwayne! Greetings from Patagonia, Chile. Big fan of #byzantine priority , thank God for your channel and ministry!
Always a blessing to hear from you. I share your view of the Byzantine text. If you make more videos like this, defending it, I think you'll help a lot of people get their bearings on this fascinating issue. God vless you, and God bless his Holy and Eternal Word!
Thank you for your work
Excellent argument
Dwayne, on which scriptures do you base your preservation dogma?
I seem to recall a video you did some time ago with Dr. Robinson where he outlined another problem with the CT being that by its nature it has a 'Frankenstein's monster' thing going on. My understanding (by memory) was that because the CT is built on a word by word basis, when you go and grab 10, 15, 20 words in a row, that combination of words in that position is completely new and unlike any historical document on record.
I may be misunderstanding or misrepresenting that point perfectly, but I remember thinking at the time that that whole concept also causes major problems (at least for me) when thinking about preservation.
That's right! The so-called "Frankentext". There are a number of examples (I don't have them on hand) where even short streatches of text cannot be found in the manuscript tradition. At some point I'll do a video on it.
@@Dwayne_Green Please do, I have tried to summarize the problem concisely a few times and simply found myself unable to do so. I do not have the underlying language skills or manuscript knowledge to do it justice so I end up trying to find videos (that aren't super dense and long). I have a grasp of the problem, but properly explaining it in a way that is easily understood by others and has evidential backing is much harder.
I do know though that for me, it would be right up there with conjectural emendation as a major problem with any concept of preservation.
@Dwayne_Green if preservation is through the Greek manuscripts, does it follow that there must always be people who know Greek well enough to read printed texts from those manuscripts?
🎯Amen!😎👍😊🙏📖Blessings!
I am somewhat between the Nestle Aland and the Byzantine Text. Although I would disagree with Scrivener on some readings I agree with much of what he said.
“By collecting and comparing and weighing the variations of the text to which we have access, it aims at bringing back that text, so far as may be, to the condition in which it stood in the sacred autographs”
I believe we have enough Greek manuscripts to avoid conjectural emendations. I don’t believe we are bound by the editorial decisions of the Nestle Aland, or ECM, or any printed edition, English translators think they are either, compare ESV at Acts 13:33. In fact the NASB95 sometimes would go with a Byzantine reading from the apparatus, I’ve noticed a few at Hebrews 3:6, 4:2, and the one at 11:37 which is still in the 2020 and LSB. What I do believe is that which Richard Bentley said.
“The real text of the sacred writers does not now (since the originals have been so long lost) lie in any MS. or edition, but is dispersed in them all.”
I would be interested if you made a video on your exact stance on preservation. Like is it that we have the exact words in the main text of a printed edition, or is it that it is the reading above or below the line of a printed edition, or perhaps a 3rd option?
Have you done any research considering the Latin Manuscripts like Codex Vercellensis ?
No, i'd like to look into some of the Latin tradition, but I've got to get myself through a Latin grammar first.
While I am a Byzantine prioritist myself, and I do find the argument of preservation to be a compelling one, I can already think of an argument you may receive from the other position:
What about the places in the OT where the Septuagint holds the true reading and the Masoretic Text is clearly corrupted? Such as the "like a lion" in Psalm 22:16?
Yes!
If we are going to tout the Byzantine Priority, we need more translations with BP, but as far as I know there are only 2 in English. Almost all translations are CT and TR of which I love the NLT and the NKJV.
What are the 2 BP English translations you’re referring to??
@@lukekey2827 I honestly don't know the name of one of them but the other one is the World English Bible (WEB). It is public domain. It uses the Robinson and Pierpont Byzantine Priority Text.
@@lukekey2827 One of them is the World English Bible (WEB), but I am also curious as to what the other one is.
@@lukekey2827There is also (1) the Eastern Orthodox Bible, and (2) a translation by Robert Adam Boyd.
I know of no text critic today who would argue that the Byzantine text as we find it promulgated in the minuscules is the result of a concerted fourth-century recension. Peter Gurry Evangelical
Textual Criticism Blog
Progress! But yes, it only took 100 years for the idea of a Lucianic recension to be finally considered total bunk!
@@Dwayne_Green Good point. Blessings.
Help me a little here. Is it conjectural emendation if it based on a version that also, supposedly, was based on Greek manuscripts at some point? I would assume true conjectural emendation would be reliant on no evidence at all. Here, there is evidence, though it is outside of the original language of the New Testament. Couldn't it be possible that an early version may better preserve an original reading than later Greek manuscripts, or is that not possible? Thanks!
Your quiet right here, I could have spent a bit more time defining 'conjectural emendation'. Even though its found in an ancient version, it may, or may not necessarily be evidence of a Greek witness with that reading, to suggest it is would be conjecture, especially given the scant evidence for such a reading!
Yes, it would seem we do accept, for example, a reading from the LXX if it has a reasonable chance of reflecting a Hebrew reading more likely to be original (and more likely to explain the current MT reading).
Some people would call adopting a reading found only in translations a conjectural emendation. Others would only use it for adopting a reading with no manuscript evidence of any sort. It depends on how strictly you want to define the term.
Is there a printed version of the Majority Standard Bible,I kinda like that reading
I'm not even sure they're finished editing it (being sure they've caught all the places that need to be modified to fit the RP text). ???
No, it's still in the editing phase. It's not certain yet if they will print it or if it will be online.
@@Dwayne_Green oh okay
@@Dwayne_Green Bible Hub has a Majority Standard Bible
I'm no fan of conjectural emendation either, but this is more of an argument against certain critical text advocates than the critical text position itself. The Tyndale House Greek New Testament does not contain any conjectural emendations. Dirk Jongkind is one of a number of critical text advocates that oppose conjectural emendation.
It may be an argument against the TR, since its various editions include a few conjectural emendations. However, I don't know that its advocates are opposed to saying that God lead Erasums or Beza to the original reading that had been lost from the manuscript tradition. Their faith rests in the printed text, not the manuscripts behind it.
As much as I would love to oppose all conjectural emendations on theological grounds. I don't believe I can do this IF one defines "conjectural emendation" as strictly as you just did. I cannot avoid believing that there are a few places in the Old Testament where the original reading is not found in any extant Hebrew manuscripts, but it found in one or more of the ancient versions. In particular, I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that Saul was only one year old when he became king (1 Samuel 13:1) or that Ahaziah was both 22 (2 Kings 8:26) and 42 (2 Chronicles 2:22) at the beginning of his reign. I believe that the original readings of the NT are all found in the Greek manuscripts (I strongly opposes the conjectural emendations of the NA28 or the ECM), but I think in the OT, I have to allow for the possibility that, on rare occasions, God allowed the original wording to be preserved in a translation rather than in the original language manuscripts.
I should have taken more time in the video to share how this is true... I think I briefly mentioned it, but yes, not all text critics agree on CE. As for the Old Testament issues, I'm simply not equipped at this point to tackle that, though your two examples do raise some interesting questions.
👍👍
My only issue with these examples is that they are supported by some manuscript evidence, even if the evidence is in the ancient versions. They are "conjectural" in the sense that we're carefully guessing at the exact Greek word equivalent of an extant non-Greek reading, but they are not coming from nowhere.
Contrast that with the KJV's most infamous emendation, Beza's modification of Revelation 16.5 to read "who is and who was and who is to be" (NKJV). That's a reading that our dear Calvinist scholar introduced purely on similar phrasing in 1.4, 8 and 11.17: "who is and was and is to come."
Yes, they conjecture to non-Greek manuscripts, and often very few. The one example in acts, has a singular Latin manuscript for support. Although conjectural emendation is not simply 'pulled out of nowhere' (the implication of educated guess is at play here) it's surprising that the vast preponderance of Greek Manuscript evidence is pushed aside for a singular reading in an old version. It's not a good look.
I would like at some point to give a bit of time and effort to 16:5
Doesn’t Robinson say that the TR isn’t from the Byzantine text? He says this in a recent interview with Ward/ Berg… did I understand him correctly? I always understood that the TR was from the BT
I did watch that same interview, but I don't remember him saying that specifically. It should be noted however that the Byzantine Text is NOT the TR, though the TR is relatively close to the Byzantine text (at least in comparison to the critical text).
I think it can be demonstrated that the TR is *mostly* byzantine but with a number of Latin intrusions.
@@Dwayne_Green it’s within the first 10 minutes and I believe he calls it a sub-text to the Byzantine. How do you view it? Blessings and thank you for all you do brother 🙌🏻
@@Kenneth-nVA I think "Sub text" is a good way to phrase it :)
Thanks for this. I have a question. Why do critical text advocates ignore quotes from the majority text by church fathers which clearly date earlier than the oldest existing manuscripts?
I wouldn't say they 'ignore it', but I think it's a matter of giving a 'greater weight' in texual decisions to the 'oldest and best', rather than the Majority.
@@Dwayne_GreenSome text critics (like Fee) even deny that there are those quotes..
You really need to provide a definition of what you mean by preservation. I know there are different Aryans in the definition, but you would need to provide yours. Robinson says that the idea of preservation rules out conjecture emanation you might wanna quote him on that too.
Huh! I find it fascinating how much Critical Text Land looks like Germany! 😂
Huh... Perceptive! 😂
Being a TR advocate, I prefer the Majority text over and above the Critical text (by far) I also recognize that the TR comes from Antioch and the Byzantian line of text (it is the right line for several reasons rightly laid out in your videos) however, it makes an error, a very similar error to the Critical text advocates, that is that it prioritizes the scientific method above God's Word. You may say that this is not the case but at bottom, God's Word simply becomes a numbers game to the Majority text advocates. Although it's nice to be on the right side of the greater number of greek manuscripts, but mere numerical considerations cannot bring us to God's Word. There is no room for faith. There is no room for lesser represented texts ie. 1John 5:7. There is no room for preservation in all its aspects (not just a one-dimensional numerical approach). Again, I am very grateful for the work that the majority text guys because it really helps people understand the lineage of Scripture and that the evidence is really on our side (both majority and TR to a greater or lesser extent). I understand the topic is much more nuanced than this and further discussion would need to be had to flesh it all out but i believe that Majority text is a powerful tool that can be used but it lacks much and misses the mark slightly on preservation. The Bible never said that the preservation of Scripture would be a numbers game.
You sound like you are against any kind of text criticism at all. But how did we get the TR?
I'm not opposed to it. I'm only opposed to it being the guiding principle and not Scripture and the principles set out in the Bible. Text criticism must be done but not at the expense of what Scripture says. I'm not sure if you believe in evolution and other such like hot topics of dispute within the Church but in many cases, people put the science before God's Word and not God's Word as supreme in all controversies. This is what I believe has happened with modern textual criticism. Although they won't admit it, but it's obvious, they have put the science before Scripture. It how many manuscripts do we have of this, how early is that dated... but what happens if one day they dig up some manuscript that will change it all? it could literally all fall apart! If its premises are built upon science alone then they can be destroyed by the latest science as well. Do we as Christian shun the use of science? Absolutely not! but we should know its rightful place in this and any other discussion. Science is a mere "handmaiden" to theology.@@No_auto_toon
I would argue that the TR is just a product of textual criticism too - based on relatively few manuscripts. There is really no good reason to prefer it.
@@D12Min There is textual decisions made with the TR but the methods used are far different from those used today by modern scholars (many of them ungodly and have no business near the Word of God making decisions what verses are in and what they decide to exclude). That aside, the "relatively few" manuscripts that you claim they used were chosen based upon their use by the Church and there veracity and faithfulness. They rejected Vaticanus and others for being untrustworthy. These "few" are the majority of manuscripts we have today minus a handful of verses like 1John5:7. Thats why the majority text and the TR are much closer to each other than the Critical Text.
Nestlé is just for chocolate not for a Greek text...LoL
You can be sued for quoting that speech. Check the laws.
For quoting a single line for educational purposes, It would never fly. My use here would fallsunder 'Fair Use'. CBS had successfully won a lawsuit, citing fair use, for including parts of the speech in a broadcast.
@@Dwayne_Green The ACLU has bought the copyright to all of Martin Luther King's speeches and writings. It sounds like you have covered yourself. Just trying to prevent a lawsuit as such. Glenn Beck spoke about this on one of his radio broadcast about 20 years ago.
@@Dwayne_Green Wonderful! ACLU has bought the rights to MLK; I know the Glenn Beck discussed this on his radio show twenty years ago.
The Byzantine manuscripts are olderr and most certainly not "better" worse if anything though all our manuscripts have been corrupted in some way. ACTS 15:24 is a prime example of a textual variant between the NIV(Alexandrian manuscripts) and the KJV (byzantine manuscript) where a corruption is shown in the KJV by adding that gentiles arent requred to follow the law of Moses.
That´s pretty much the point of much of the NT.... especially Galatians.
@@D12Min what's the point?
@@andrewclemons8619 that Gentiles don´t have to keep the Mosaic law.
@@D12Min sure they do. See Isaiah 56:6-7. Should a Gentile wish to join theirselves to YHWH they must Keep Shabbat. Jesus quotes from this Passage in Isaiah when he's throwing the moneychangers out of the Temple. My Father's house will be a house of prayer for all Nations he says. Quoting straight from Isaiah 56 which deals with salvation for others. God's Law is eternal for all Generations and as Solomon the Wise once said obey the commandments for this is the duty of all mankind. Jesus says any man that teacheth the law is done away with will be called the least in heaven.
William Tyndale says now if any man that submitted not himself to keep the commandments do think that he have any faith in God? the same mans faith is vain, worldly, damnable, devilish and plain presumption as it is above said and is no faith that can justify ot be accepted before God
@@andrewclemons8619 Isaiah 56:5-6 was written when Israel was still under the old covenant and it´s obviously talking about proselytes.
In the new covenant the case is so clear, teaching people to be under the Mosaic law is pretty much THE arch heresy of the NT and absolutely laughable at its face.
Galatians 3:27 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are NO LONGER under a tutor.