Thanks for the invite, Dwayne. You're good at this! I like your editing, too!

@Dwayne_Green

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks, Mark! It was great to have you come on and discuss this!

Love this! Dr. Ward is such a gift to the church.

@timothyIII1977

5 ай бұрын

The critical text creates all the ecumenical versions for one world religion that they are driving for. Study it thoroughly. It lowers the deity of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. If you disagree with one of Marks blogs he’ll block you immediately so your not allowed to express your side. People complained when the Jehovah Witnesses made 120 changes in their translations, but seem to be alright with the nearly 1,000 changes made with the new 28th edition. Oh yes and we’re currently working on the 29th. I don’t consider these jots and tittle’s. Have we become so arrogant that we’re saying GOD didn’t preserve his WORD for thousands of years? Shame on Mark and anyone else who questions the true word of GOD.

Mark said “a double-minded man unstable in all his ways” 😂😂😂 I lol’d at work when he said that.

Was just today commenting on one of his vids, “more on the jot and tittle thing”. He’s so nice about responding to comments, bet he sends me a link to this vid. Dr. Ward is a very thoughtful and considerate man.

Mark ward I'm so glad to see you with this gentleman having a real great discussion which we all need to have again thank you both

Really glad you brought on Dr. Ward and that you continue to build on what we have heard from other guests. I feel like we're on the same page a lot because of that. Dr. Ward is well-spoken and is strong in his arguments for continued translation work on any text we use. He also appears very genuine in desiring and exemplifying love, patience, grace, and unity between the "two sides" of this issue. In a practical sense, he seems to usually try and step aside from debating the harder text and textual criticism issues in the interest of encouraging all to trust the academy, which can make some or many feel like they must be "locked out" on the text/textual criticism issues and decisions on the very Bible they desire to read and follow. Yes, the academy is probably made up of primarily Christians, and they have served the Church (and Christ) in what they do. On the other hand, do we want "most" of Christendom (especially Pastor/Preachers/Teachers of the Word) somehow disqualified, paralyzed, or powerless on this issue? This may be why the "theological" arguments are still brought up and must be considered as seriously as the "science" or art (I do believe textual criticism has the subjective involved, as well). Obviously, people like me who can't read Greek or Hebrew are at a complete disadvantage addressing/understanding textual criticism decisions in detail. But, what many folks like me can do is research what these men believe, say, and do in their practice of textual criticism. For instance, James Snapp Jr. is never mentioned as a true "scholar," but probably has done more research than most all of us on the history, men, and arguments involved. Dr. Ward has done well in one of his videos to talk about at least one of the men involved in the formation of the RSV/ASV (Scrivener) to enlighten us on the textual criticism beliefs and debates of that time (loved that video). So, I'm just now getting into what people like Burgon and Hill believed and argued concerning the theories and decisions spear-headed by Westcott and Hort. I think you might agree that one of the reasons you are making these videos is that many believe the issue is not "settled." Therefore, keep these videos going and keep pursuing the hard questions! Topics/questions to possibly consider might include, "What are the 'lies" and what is the 'truth' about Westcott and Hort?....What "myths" or what "assumptions" do some on each side still hold to that hinder or "heat up" the debate (i.e. the Sinaiticus forgery belief; the "older is better" principle; the assumptions/beliefs about the "gaps" and losses in textual transmission; scribes "always added, never omitted" text; the Bible must never stop (or must stop) changing; etc.) My apologies for such a long comment, but it reflects the amount of thinking you have engaged me in on our beloved Scripture text! Thanks again, Dwayne!

@Dwayne_Green

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the large comment, I read every word! I agree, Mark Ward has said, even in one of these video parts, that he works more on a popular level, and for many people, the issue of textual criticism doesn't bother them and they're happy to use whatever translation is in there hand... I almost envy them in some way! But there is also a large amount of people who desire to dig deeper and to look at the various GNT editions and, in my mind, its not settled. I find myself where I'm not terribly comfortable with the CT, but I can't bring myself to say the TR is "THE TEXT". So I find myself supporting a Byzantine text. When I was first a Christian, I was part of a KJVo church and there are lots of misinformation to support the position. I will at some point take a look at some of the facts that are often misappropriated to support their position.

@charlesdoyle2161

2 жыл бұрын

@@Dwayne_Green I, too, have some similarities in my background with you and Dr. Ward. And, as you, find myself letting go of some of the "jot and tittle," literal, KJV/Scrivener TR-only viewpoints, but also still having several reservations with the CT position/text- all while praying to God, "What's the answer!?" Also, as you, and as Stephen Hackett has indicated, there is something about the Byzantine text that still draws me, seeing enough evidence to make me wonder why it was so easily trumped by the 2-3 Alexandrian texts that are used to declare the omission or modification of several passages that have been in our Bible for centuries. And, what does that say about God's preservation of Scripture? May we persevere for now in our quest for the truth, have spiritual discernment, and yet not lose focus on the fruits of the Spirit and the Gospel! Therefore, I look forward to what you find and can share with us on the misinformation that seems perpetuated on both sides of this issue. God bless ya, Dwayne!

@markwardonwords

2 жыл бұрын

​@@charlesdoyle2161, I'm loving your comments. They are exactly, I think, the way you should be thinking. Even your gentle critique of my encouragement to trust mainstream evangelical scholarship. Two things come to mind: 1) If you've dropped the connection between Matt 5:18 (and, I presume, Psalm 12:6-7) and the textual debate, and you have dropped the expectation of finding the every-jot-and-tittle-perfect Hebrew and Greek texts, and if you accept my call for translating whatever texts you prefer into intelligible English, then I am satisfied! We have an arcane argument that need not put distance between us as brothers in Christ. 2) If you can write a comment like this, you are not the person who needs to just "trust the mainstream evangelical scholars." You have the gifts, interest, and ability to dig deeper. By all means do so! Acknowledge your limitations, as you have done: you don't know Hebrew or Greek. That is humble and right to remember. But you have so much you can learn. Keep going! Listen to the best voices on all sides. (Search for "ANSWERING A QUESTION I GET ALL THE TIME: THE PLACES TO START IN STUDYING NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM" on my blog for my recommendations-sorry for the all caps, just copied it from my blog.) But you are not most people in the church. Most people won't get as far as you have gotten. I believe I can still encourage them to examine the fruit of the mainstream evangelical conservative scholars who take my viewpoint, and then encourage them to trust those scholars-not as perfect but as probably right! If their pastor uses the NKJV, though, that's fine, too! If they perceive trustworthy Christian character in him, they can trust him, too. Hope that helps! May the Lord bless your search for truth.

@charlesdoyle2161

2 жыл бұрын

@@markwardonwords Wonderful reply! Thank you! I certainly will revisit your blog and read that post. God bless you, as well, Dr. Ward.

Thank you to Dwayne and Dr Ward. As usual, some good material here to help inform my understanding.

Dwayne, to your point on the sanctification of God’s people and settling on a text of Scripture, the relationaship between God’s people and God’s word has a kind of mutuality. The word of God via the testimony of the person of the Holy Spirit sanctifies the people of God and they recieve the testimony of the Holy Spirit in the word by faith. As such, the people of God by faith, hearing the voice of their Savior through the testimony of the Spirit in the word of God come to recognize the word of God as indeed the word of God. This is the process whereby the Church moved from the Tyndale edition to the Coverdale to the Matthews etc until arriving at the KJV. Each iteration being recognized as a more refined iteration than the previous. Then for over 400 years the English-speaking Church held to the KJV and to this day the Church has yet to settle on a different standard sacred text other than the KJV. Ergo, the KJV remains the closest thing to if not the standard sacred text of the 21st century English-speaking Church, which is a main reason why I still defend the KJV. I hope this helps clarify things. I hope to make comments on the video over at my blog this week so hopefully you’ll be seeing more traffic. Blessings, and keep up the good work.

@Dwayne_Green

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks Peter! So as I understand your position, the Holy Spirit is directly tied to the scriptures, and as we are sanctified further by the Holy Spirit, the church recognizes more and more the accuracy of the Holy Scriptures. Is that right? I'm having a hard time understanding this sentance: "he word of God via the testimony of the person of the Holy Spirit sanctifies the people of God and they recieve the testimony of the Holy Spirit in the word by faith". Can you word it a little differently?

@petervankleeck3899

2 жыл бұрын

@@Dwayne_Green Sure. The Holy Spirit sets God’s people apart [sanctification] from the world, the flesh, and the Devil and continues to do that throughout the Christian’s life [progressive sanctification]. As a result, the Christian is more able to discern between the holy and profane and in this case, the Christian is able to discern between different iterations of Bible translations because the Christian by faith, being sanctified by the truth [John 17:17], hears the voice of the Spirit with greater clarity and perfection in one iteration rather than another. This process applies both to the collation of the Hebrew and Greek canon and its subsequent refinement as well as to the refinement of versions. One final note, while academicians have indeed performed some sort of text-critical work in the above collation and refinements it is not the academician who declares whether said refinement is indeed a refinement. Rather it is the Spirit of God speaking to the people of God in faith by the word of God which propels this process. God the Spirit determines whether X is a refinement or not and He communicates as much through the faithful reading of the word of God by the faithful people of God. Again, I hope this can be a help. Let me know if you need any further clarification. Blessings.

@stevenhayes1611

2 жыл бұрын

I’d say Psalm 12:6 affirms this process of purification, which is exactly what happened with the English Bible during the English reformation, resulting in the KJV as the settled, “pure” text. To the objection that the NA28 is just continuing that process, I’d say that the psalm does not support a process that continues indefinitely, but one that in a finite and reasonable amount of time achieves perfection. In contrast, the CT side asserts that their process is going to continue forever and will never achieve perfection-which is not consistent with the testimony of Scripture.

@stevenhayes1611

2 жыл бұрын

The other annoyance from CT guys on Psalm 12:6-7, displayed here by Mark Ward, is they act like these two verses are the only place in the Bible the potentially teaches preservation the way most TR/KJV view it. Of course, there are tons of other places in Scripture that teach preservation. I know a lot of KJV defenders who simply do not use Psalm 12 to avoid dealing with the issues associated with it. I don’t think that’s the right approach, but the point is Psalm 12 is far from being the only portion of Scripture that asserts Gods promise of preservation.

@michaelsinger2921

2 жыл бұрын

@@stevenhayes1611 This does not address the argument, however, that the church did not have a perfect word available to it until the KJV was completed. Seems like a long time for the LORD to allow His people to be kept in the dark.

Dr Theodore P Letis stated back in 2003, two years before he passed away: ".... when we go back to the oldest evidence, it seems to be evidence that's connected with these aberrant movements in the very early part of the church before orthodoxy was completely and ultimately defined in the Nicean [or Nicene] era where the ecclesiastical text begins to dominate the manuscript transmission stream, so the character at the macro level, the character differences, between the pre-Nicean [or pre-Nicene] witnesses that Hort and our contemporary scholars want to go back to, and the post-Nicean [or post-Nicene] ecclesiastical text, the character is dramatically different, and Burgon was arguing, at that level, as was Edward Hills, at the micro level we all have problems, but in the received text tradition, the ecclesiastical text tradition, the micro differences and problems don't disturb and interrupt the full-bodied theology that the early church embraced and that we continue to embrace as orthodox believers... whereas at the micro level, the alternate older witnesses from Egypt have many, many, many, many problems.... [then he talks about E C Colwell's collation of the oldest papyri, where he found P66, P45, P75 to be the sloppiest examples of transcription that have ever been found in the history of manuscript writing] ... but they're the *oldest* witnesses.... so... the pre-Nicean [or pre-Nicene] Egyptian witnesses at the macro *and* the micro level have many more problems than we do....." (from a lecture with Q&A in 2003, available on video kzread.info/dash/bejne/ZneIwcZxmdyoic4.html ) .... evidently, this will not solve the so-called "which TR problem", but it does give a clue, as a principle... and these facts (and principle) go for the Byzantine text as well as for the TR... but for the TR-editions this is a mini-mini-micro-micro level... close enough for "jots & tittles", i can live with that!... but if we want to become very specific, i am free to hold to a certain edition of the TR! "minuscule" problem solved! (minus the printers' typos, of course).... but if i want to do some "believing TC" (like Hills did), i can hold to the "group of TR editions".... 😉

@Dwayne_Green

2 жыл бұрын

I agree with you here, the Egyptian Papyrii are indeed problematic... If we presuppose that the age of the manuscript means quality (as the CT text 'generally' conclude) than one lands exactly where the CT is. However, I would challenge this thinking. The older papyrii diverge from themselves much more than does those in the Byzantine tradition, which makes it less consistent among themselves. Perhaps a 'quality over age' approach should be taken? This is part of the reason I would hold to a Byzantine position. But then, in the TR, there are problems from an evidential perspective; I'm thinking of the various minority readings in the TR. I've got your link on my 'watch later' list, and I'll be sure to take a look at it!

@helgeevensen856

2 жыл бұрын

@@Dwayne_Green nicely observed and stated :)

@bislig2alabama

Ай бұрын

Sleep time

Great part one Dwayne, I mean Mr. King 😉

@Dwayne_Green

2 жыл бұрын

🤣🤣🤣... Minus the scandal!

@JonStallings

2 жыл бұрын

@@Dwayne_Green And minus all the wives 🤣

@Dwayne_Green

2 жыл бұрын

@@JonStallings 🤣🤣🤣

Dwayne if your still thinking about modern academia, I suggest reading the book "the death of scripture and the rise of biblical studies" by Michael Legaspi. It follows Michaelis at a new University in the Enlightenment era that changed how people thought about the Bible from "Scripture" to something akin to a historical record of a classical civilization and set in motion the modern "Academic Bible". It kind of started by a desire to synthesize the ancient past with the modern Enlightenment age in terms of morals and manners to make Civil servants and educated elite in State. Basically striving to bring the essence of classical civilization and it's "greatness" to bear on the modern world with all it's changes. And this led to sort of an organic reimagining of what the bible is and could be used for, which has allowed the multiplication of schools of interpretation such as "historical criticism" or "feminist interpretations". The modern Academy would be in line with this Enlightenment type of university vs the medieval universities which saw the Scripture as the Word of God and Universities as theological. The modern Academy is not concerned with theological but the natural, and scientific, historical, etc...that is my synopsis. There is a difference between the modern Academy which grew out of the Enlightenment and the Medieval Universities in the same way that Jeff Riddle parses between modern textual criticism and the text criticism of the reformers. Different aims, different foundations, one being Spiritual and the other Natural. The "role" of the Bible is different between the one and the other, the Medieval school and the Enlightenment School. FROM THE DESCRIPTION The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies examines the creation of the academic Bible. Beginning with the fragmentation of biblical interpretation in the centuries after the Reformation, Michael Legaspi shows how the weakening of scriptural authority in the Western churches altered the role of biblical interpretation. Focusing on renowned German scholar Johann David Michaelis (1717-1791), Legaspi explores the ways in which critics reconceived the role of the Bible.

@Dwayne_Green

Жыл бұрын

This is certainly a question worth further consideration... Hills begins his book with a history of the philosophies behind our modern rational thought, I havn't made any conclusions specifically but its certainly well worth the consideration. This sounds like an interesting book. What are some of the major differences between modern academia and medieval academia? More specifically, how is logic applied in either school of thought?

@echeneis2256

Жыл бұрын

​@@Dwayne_Green 16:20 Thanks Dwayne for your response. Mark Ward in the above timestamp says that Christians need to know Greek and Hebrew to properly deal with the text of Scripture and therefore necessitates the modern Academy, and the conversation made it seem as though both you and Mark believed there was really no difference between the modern academy and the medieval universities. But you mentioned it was something you wanted to look more into, which is why I wrote the comment suggesting "the death of Scripture and the rise of Biblical Studies" by Michael Legaspi. The difference, as far as my comment is concerned since I am not an expert, is from that book I suggested, which was that modern Academia is not concerned with God's Word as "Scripture". They view the Bible in an "Academic" way, that is as a naturalistic book no different from Homer or Shakespeare. And when the "grubby liberal scholars" write bad things about the bible it is because they do not regard the bible as the Word of God (for example Historical Criticism rejects the fundamental unity of the Scripture because they deny Scripture was authored by the Holy Ghost.) This book actually shows how Christians in the 18th and 19th century at Gottingen, who were Pietists, adapted the bible to modern scientific thought and began to look at the bible not as Holy Scripture that came from Heaven, but rather as a natural "historical" document that could have all kinds of insights into "language" and "philology" and "history" and "classical civilization" "government". So basically the Bible became an archaeological dig site that could shed light on many different areas of study that are in line with the Scientific Enlightenment agenda. So the difference between the Modern Academy and the Medieval University is a wide chasm since both are built on two very different presuppositions the medieval being "confessional" and the modern university being "scientific" and the main objective of the Gottingen school of Michaelis (the subject of the book) sought to detach the Scripture from confession thus creating the "academic" bible, that is a bible that is free from theological presuppositions (such as that is is God's Word) and confessionalism and creeds and can be freely examined and used for whatever purpose is desired. My understanding is that at the Gottingen School, Michaelis was dealing with philology and language of Hebrew and other languages. In fact, one part of the book describes how they broke away from the idea that Hebrew was a "sacred" language which enabled them to discover new ways of decoding the Hebrew by comparing it to other languages that are more well known. I guess this never occurred to them since they considered Hebrew to be a dead language. But when they reasoned based on study of language that Hebrew has "rules" just like any other language and so could be decoded by learning the general rules of language. They figured the closest was Ancient Near Eastern Arabic, so they used this in order to decode the Hebrew. This was not really possible before because Hebrew was thought to be a Divine Language and also dead, so it was alien in a sense, unlike other language. This opened the door the Ancient Near Eastern studies and paved the way toward understanding Israel as a classical civilization like Greece or Rome that could be gleaned for insights. All these things opened the door to Scientificating the Bible. Basically by unshackling the Scripture from it's Divine origin, that is God's mouth, they secularized biblical studies. So this is my point here, I do not know about LOGIC but I can only assume that the foundation your School is built on is going to profoundly impact that types of things the School does and teaches and for what purpose, which includes how Logic is understood and used. This is the problem for Christian's who adopt an Academic understanding of Scripture. But the Reformers understood Hebrew and Greek yet modern Christians today have no problem with Modern Textual Criticism which is of the Enlightenment.

Good video, this has been a really interesting discussion across the different interviews. When it comes to the question of church vs the academy is it as simple as that or do you think the concern of many like Dr Riddle comes not from the fact that people with phd's are doing this work, but that many of them come from liberal view points or completely sceptical views? I have no doubt that people like Peter Gurry are seeking to serve the church, but there are many who really aren't. Rather than trying to have a simplistic view of one of the other, should we be rightly concerned that there are too many (and in my view 1 would be too many) who don't fall into both categories of being faithful men who seek to upload a high view of God's word and also the best research and textual criticism?

@Dwayne_Green

2 жыл бұрын

This is a great question... Undoubtedly there are textual critics who DO love God and love His Word. But yes, there are liberal scholars whose work has been used in modern TC. I don't think though that we can simply dismiss these claims because of that... For example, is Peter Gurry using the work of Bart Ehrman in the CBGM? I really don't know. The other thing to consider, would be that Christian eduction... eg. DTS, FTS, etc... would be considered an extension of the church, would it not? Those organizations exist to equip saints to minister to the church.

@gastie1

2 жыл бұрын

@@Dwayne_Green Yeah, I think there needs to be a balance on all sides of the debate. There are/should be concerns and at the same time a lot to be thankful for. I am very grateful for the work Dr Ward is doing and I have greatly enjoyed his videos in recent times. I'm fairly new to the whole discussion and have found the videos you and others are putting out very helpful as I think through it. Having said that, I still don't feel I'm getting close to the right answer and each question throws up a couple more. At the end of the day, I'm glad it's people smarter than me trying to resolve these issues while I listen

Correction: (not so clear) “Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.”

I'm NOT a TR person, though I work from many mss. The point of Mathew is in the SPIRITUAL realm not a piece of paper. Meaning of What was spoken, given by the Spirit all aspects stand until it's fulfilled, that is completed down to the one jot or one tittle

I believe the majority byzantine text is superior, not KJV only though. The KJV translators (the learned men) said this in 'the translators to the reader' under the heading "Reasons Moving Us To Set Diversity of Senses in the Margin, where there is Great Probability for Each" “Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that : so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.” Underlining mine.

Which Textus Receptus? Are you asking a "which edition" question? Isn't that kind of like, "which King James Version" - the first one off the press? - The Wicked Bible? - the 1613 edition? 1769? 1900? Cambridge? Oxford? When one says they believe the "King James Version" are they not saying they believe the commonly received consensus of editions of the King James Version and not a sectarian, peculiar, private or individually preferred edition? Which "original" Scriptures? The finger of God written original tablets that Moses crushed at the bottom of the mountain? The copy that God re-wrote? The multiple varying copies of the 10 Commandments found in the writings of Moses and cited by our Lord Jesus Christ, the apostles and prophets? The copy of Isaiah as found in our current Hebrew and English editions or the copy of Isaiah Jesus read from in Luke 4 and the Ethiopian was reading from in Acts 8? As for Matthew 5:18 "one jot or one tittle" is an idiom defined by our Lord in Matthew 5:19 as "one of these least commandments." I can only pray that all parties of this debate would consider the definition of Scripture as used in the Scriptures - any edition or version in any language in any age. Hint: It is NOT a reference to the autographs nor is it a reference to any English edition. This should not be construed to mean that the Autographs were not the Scriptures or that our English Bible is not the Scriptures. The term Scriptures has never been a reference to sectarian, peculiar, private or individually preferred versions or editions. Think about the definition of the term Scriptures and how the term is used in the Scriptures. I hope and pray that by doing so it will take out some of the rancor in this debate.

Jesus Christ, the only perfect living Word, of one substance and co-eternal with the Father, fulfilled every jot and tittle of the law through His crucifixion, death and resurrection. He is, and fulfilled, every jot and tittle. We see as through a glass darkly. Keep on digging, comparing, and praying! Thank you! 📖

A political answer

I liked this video very much with Dr. Mark Ward. I do not know one jot or tittle of Hebrew or Greek either. I think to use Psalm 12:6-7 as a preservation Scripture when obviously we had no Greek New Testament at the time falls pretty flat and especially if you try to transfer that into an English translation and say only the KJV is the pure English Word of God when you have great translations like the Geneva Bible and the New King James Version. To say the KJV is the prefect pure Word of God in English also fails miserably when you look at Hebrew and Greek and the Nation of Israel. Thou Shalt Not Kill (Exodus 20:13) is not a totally perfect verse. Fact is, we can kill. We can kill someone in self defense, we can kill someone on the battlefield, we can kill someone by executing a murderer, we can kill animals for food. However, we cannot murder. That is what the Hebrew says and the KJV still rendered that kill. Its just not technically accurate. To say you were going to execute Peter after Easter was a totally wrong rendering (Acts 12:1-4). Pascha in Greek means the same as Pesach in Hebrew which is Passover. Also, from a Jewish law perspective, you cannot execute someone on Passover. Even the KJV says it was the time of the Feast of Unleavened Bread which includes Passover and the Feast of Firstfruits. Then the KJV says that Jesus whom "ye slew "and" hanged on a tree." (Acts 5:30) Totally wrong. Jesus was killed by hanging Him on a tree. So you see, although the KJV is a great and enduring translation, it is not perfect and you don't have to be a scholar to know that. Blessings!!

Is it possible to request a version of this video without the distorted faces? The goofy video editing style detracts from the serious topic.

@Dwayne_Green

2 жыл бұрын

It's just my editing style, I recognize it might be a bit too much, so I may tone it down a little. not all the way, but a little :)

It seems you guys only recognise Calvinists as scholars. The which TR only relates to the confessional guys. It is like only focusing on those you disagree with, and not acknowledging other positions.

@Dwayne_Green

2 жыл бұрын

Dude! I'm the pastor of a Pentecostal Church! I recognize more than just 'Calvinists' as scholars, I've got people scheduled to come on the channel who arn't Calvinists! A number of the guests on here already would not identify as Calvinists. I've hosted Peter Van Kleeck, and Jeff Riddle in the interest of not being an 'echo chamber'. To further my justification of having them on, they seem to be the foremost authorities on Confessional Bibliology. I've extended the same to Peter Gurry and Elijah Hixson (whom I also don't entirely agree with) I'm focusing on TR Advocacy and Confessional Bibliology because that's the topic I'm discussing right now, and it's my right on my channel to do so. But it's certainly NOT the only thing I've discussed on this channel. I can't speak for Mark, but if you're directing this at me, it's simply not true!

The content was great, the editing was very distracting and awful to be subjected to.

the question “which TR is Silly and demeaning”. It’s not a serious question. You are pretending to be the judge of perfection. it’s real easy, God promised to persevere the word. If you think that the bible that moved the whole world and has been tried and fixed and standardized is wrong and the trash found in a wastebasket, or a wastelands or the waste of space called the Vatican library is better and then you completely wreak the faith in the word by people who can read and count is Ludicrous. these bibles coming out can almost to a point mark the decline of the christian church in the west. Faith in the word is as important as faith in the spirit or faith in a god or a jesus.

@stevefrancis5885

2 жыл бұрын

You misrepresent the text "found in the trash" do some research on what that actually was. Initially a damaged portion that had been set aside for copying not discarded. The whole manuscript was later acquired from the monastery.

@igregmart

2 жыл бұрын

Amen.

@treybarnes5549

2 жыл бұрын

@@stevefrancis5885 I believe it’s his (Tysondorf)words. There is lots of evidence of tampering and even forgery. There is enough evidence to not give it any authority in rewriting the whole bible.

@stevefrancis5885

2 жыл бұрын

Would you be ok with an updated TR translation without all the old English wirds that are dead or mean something different today?

@treybarnes5549

2 жыл бұрын

@@stevefrancis5885 i’m doubting modern scholarship. If the ESV is their best scholarship, I wouldn’t want them to revisit anything so important as That. The NKJV isn’t that bad as long as you keep your eyes off their terrible subjective opinionated footnotes that leave you puzzled more than ye and thee ever could.haha

1 Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor EFFEMINATE, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 1 Corinthians 16:13 Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, QUIT YOU LIKE MEN, be strong. The lack of testosterone in Dr Ward's voice (and demenour) is concerning

@greg7384

Жыл бұрын

Sadly, this is the kind of logic and grace we've come to expect from TR-only advocates. And, ironically, you're not even quoting from the original 1611 AV. These are the correct quotations: 1 Corinthians 6:9 Know yee not that the vnrighteous shall not inherite the kingdome of God? Be not deceiued: neither fornicatours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselues with mankinde, 1 Corinthians 16:13 Watch yee, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men: be strong. Every jot and tittle, huh? Hmmmm...🙄