Good discussion 🙂

I very much appreciated this interview and especially the heart, enthusiasm, and insights relative to the Biblical text transmission issue of the brother with a PhD in electrical engineering. I also have a PhD in the hard sciences, and it’s long been a complaint of mine that the so-called science of textual criticism is anything but a “science”. It appears totally subjective to me and open to massive personal bias. In the hard sciences, theories must be proven with objective evidence before their results are accepted, which has never been done by modern textual critics. The simple fact that they arduously resist scientific testing of critical manuscripts to validate their opinions concerning dating is a huge red flag for me as both a believer and a scientist, especially since in the few cases where testing has been performed it has never supported the ancient dates alleged by the “scholars”. I can’t help but suspect that these scholars know objective testing would bring down the house of cards they have built upon a shifting foundation.

@ThomasCranmer1959

15 күн бұрын

Excellent comment, brother. Even in the empirical sciences not everything is as certain as it first appears! Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper exposed many issues in their philosophical examination of the hard science of empiricism.

@ThomasCranmer1959

15 күн бұрын

Textual critics use about 11 to 17 axioms that predetermine their speculations in regards to the text. Is the shorter and rougher variant always the original one?

1:07:48 The digital revolution allows us to fact-check the textual critics. I use the Logos Bible editions of NA28 and UBS 5th.

Thanks for this. I always enjoy hearing Christians contend for the preservation of God's word in English = AKJV. I have ZERO respect for Textual critics and consider them part of the counter reformation.