The root of the issue is people want to get at the meaning of God’s word but we disagree on who is the authority to clarify that meaning. Some people say it’s the Bible but then of course if it’s the Bible you’d go with the translation that suits your views of God, not the translation that has been kept pure by God and his Church. Fighting over words is much less important than fighting over what God is meaning with those words
Very good defense of TR. I've been wondering about the critical text and the omissions of the Mark 16, adulterous woman, Lord's prayer doxology, and 1 John 5:7 passages. Amazing defense! This conversation was very informative. Either these passages are the very Word of God, or they are not. You can't just put brackets around them and claim they are not the word of God without coming under the curse of Rev 22:19. It's not a minor matter. The critical text truncated ending of Mark is very suspicious and unusual. If we believe God has preserved his inspired word throughout all the generations, how can we ignore these words that the church has adopted as part of God's word?
Everyone please be careful challenging this podcaster - he likes to challenge everyone but cannot tolerate being challenged fed himself - he blocked me for not pandering to his viewpoints …
While I'm finding the TR arguments more and more convincing, I'm still not sold on wholesale adoption of the MT. For example, On Deut. 32:8, the Dead Sea scroll reading of "sons of god" show that the Masoretic text is erroneous and that the older septuagint manuscripts were accurate (interestingly, later Sept readings did have the "sons of Israel" language but it's been argued this was done to appease rabbis against the prevailing Christian view of the former in the first century). The Dead Sea Scrolls predate the Masoretic by hundreds of years. With all due respect to Pastor Khanda, he is creating a strawman. No one is saying we should prefer the Sept b/c it's Greek but b/c, in certain cases, the evidence shows that it is closer to the original Hebrew. NOTE: Neither am I saying we should always prefer the Sept He is right to say we shouldn't elevate the KJV as inspired, but it's also wrong to elevate the Masoretic text as such. It is invaluable but nonetheless compiled by unbelieving Jews that chose among the Talmud, proto-masoretic texts, Sept texts, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and oral tradition. Also, it's difficult for me to understand how we shouldn't follow the lead of the NT writers when they favor the Sept over the Masoretic. It's usually preferred by them yet we're to otherwise dismiss it?
The first appearance in the Greek text of the Johannine comma is in 1215 at the fourth lateran council, the most heretical Roman Catholic council up to that point (LOL); the woman caught in adultery first appears in codex beza in the 400s.
Shocking ignorance on display. Here's one point of pushback: these guys admit that at times Jesus quoted the septuagint. Why would he quote any text other than the original Hebrew? Your problem is not with those who don't use the received text, but with Jesus and the apostles!
Furthermore, the idea that if a text is older it does not necessarily mean it's closer to the original is completely preposterous. That would be like 500 years from now someone discovering a copy of the Declaration of Independence written in 1778 and one written in 2024 and believing that the one from 2024 was closer to the original. Good luck trying to persuade anybody who isn't a priori committed to your view 👍
What debate where you watching? Riddle could not agree as to which TR? To posit the idea that the TR is only text is dangerous. Anyone with just a little knowledge on textual criticism can easily demonstrate the foolishness of that position.
@herminiohernandezjr.9316 Trying the fake "gotcha" argument, the "which TR" argument shows you are not up for this discussion. If you would begin to read both sides, you would see that the arguments you are parroting are shallow.
@@brettmahlen722 referencing reformers who did not have the textual evidence we have today will not help you. Stop leaning on the tradition. We are not Roman Catholics. TR onlyism is no different than what Rome claims.
@herminiohernandezjr.9316 You just proved again, you don't know what you are talking about. Parroting rebutted arguments will get you nowhere. How can you make so many poor arguments in one short post?
Excellent conversation. May the Lord open the eyes of many to the truth.
The root of the issue is people want to get at the meaning of God’s word but we disagree on who is the authority to clarify that meaning.
Some people say it’s the Bible but then of course if it’s the Bible you’d go with the translation that suits your views of God, not the translation that has been kept pure by God and his Church.
Fighting over words is much less important than fighting over what God is meaning with those words
Sounds like Barth
Very good defense of TR. I've been wondering about the critical text and the omissions of the Mark 16, adulterous woman, Lord's prayer doxology, and 1 John 5:7 passages. Amazing defense! This conversation was very informative. Either these passages are the very Word of God, or they are not. You can't just put brackets around them and claim they are not the word of God without coming under the curse of Rev 22:19. It's not a minor matter. The critical text truncated ending of Mark is very suspicious and unusual. If we believe God has preserved his inspired word throughout all the generations, how can we ignore these words that the church has adopted as part of God's word?
🔥 conversation. Thank you brothers.
Everyone please be careful challenging this podcaster - he likes to challenge everyone but cannot tolerate being challenged fed himself - he blocked me for not pandering to his viewpoints …
While I'm finding the TR arguments more and more convincing, I'm still not sold on wholesale adoption of the MT. For example, On Deut. 32:8, the Dead Sea scroll reading of "sons of god" show that the Masoretic text is erroneous and that the older septuagint manuscripts were accurate (interestingly, later Sept readings did have the "sons of Israel" language but it's been argued this was done to appease rabbis against the prevailing Christian view of the former in the first century). The Dead Sea Scrolls predate the Masoretic by hundreds of years. With all due respect to Pastor Khanda, he is creating a strawman. No one is saying we should prefer the Sept b/c it's Greek but b/c, in certain cases, the evidence shows that it is closer to the original Hebrew. NOTE: Neither am I saying we should always prefer the Sept He is right to say we shouldn't elevate the KJV as inspired, but it's also wrong to elevate the Masoretic text as such. It is invaluable but nonetheless compiled by unbelieving Jews that chose among the Talmud, proto-masoretic texts, Sept texts, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and oral tradition. Also, it's difficult for me to understand how we shouldn't follow the lead of the NT writers when they favor the Sept over the Masoretic. It's usually preferred by them yet we're to otherwise dismiss it?
The first appearance in the Greek text of the Johannine comma is in 1215 at the fourth lateran council, the most heretical Roman Catholic council up to that point (LOL); the woman caught in adultery first appears in codex beza in the 400s.
Shocking ignorance on display. Here's one point of pushback: these guys admit that at times Jesus quoted the septuagint. Why would he quote any text other than the original Hebrew? Your problem is not with those who don't use the received text, but with Jesus and the apostles!
Furthermore, the idea that if a text is older it does not necessarily mean it's closer to the original is completely preposterous. That would be like 500 years from now someone discovering a copy of the Declaration of Independence written in 1778 and one written in 2024 and believing that the one from 2024 was closer to the original. Good luck trying to persuade anybody who isn't a priori committed to your view 👍
Jeff Riddle defeated James White and it opened a lot of peoples' eyes
What debate where you watching? Riddle could not agree as to which TR? To posit the idea that the TR is only text is dangerous. Anyone with just a little knowledge on textual criticism can easily demonstrate the foolishness of that position.
@herminiohernandezjr.9316 Trying the fake "gotcha" argument, the "which TR" argument shows you are not up for this discussion. If you would begin to read both sides, you would see that the arguments you are parroting are shallow.
@herminiohernandezjr.9316 Owen, Turretin, Milne, Riddle: you have a lot of catching up to do.
@@brettmahlen722 referencing reformers who did not have the textual evidence we have today will not help you. Stop leaning on the tradition. We are not Roman Catholics. TR onlyism is no different than what Rome claims.
@herminiohernandezjr.9316 You just proved again, you don't know what you are talking about. Parroting rebutted arguments will get you nowhere. How can you make so many poor arguments in one short post?
I would recommend this discussion on the use of the Septuagint: ua-cam.com/video/Wozfw14b4n8/v-deo.html