Thank you both! I thoroughly enjoyed this discussion! Learned alot.

This was an exceptional presentation!!!

Brilliant! I’ve just purchased your THE TEXT-CRITICAL ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT, & am really loving how it reads

Absolutely amazing video, I can’t believe this has so few views. Thank you so much for making this.

Excellent presentation. Best I have heard so far. Exposes many problems with the critical text and major problems with Modern textual criticism.

I recently purchased Adam’s New Testament and look forward to reading it, I also think that the Byzantine Text is superior that the Critical Text

This was so informative. Thank you so much for posting this.

How odd that scholars still push the Critical Text. This should have millions of views followed by immediate updates of the major Bibles.

Hey brother Adam, bless you, long time no contact. Hope yall are well. At 7:16 Adam mentioned "catholic" epistles = general letters. Some may not know since this word comes from Greek, καθολικος katholikos, meaning "general" and therefore the epistles not addressed and sent to a specific congregation like Galatians is to the assembly in Galatia and so, this is not a catholic epistle. The Catholic Epistles were addressed to a wider audience, which are James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1 & 2 & 3 John, and Jude.

This is wonderful, thank you so much Adam!! Just what I have been wanting so I'll be buying your work! 🙏 I didn't hear the explanation for why the King James Version concludes the Lord’s prayer with the words, “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.” while most modern English translations like the ESV and NIV exclude these words from the Lord’s prayers. I have been wondering why the modern versions omit this beautiful and important ending.🤨🤔

@debras3806

4 ай бұрын

I’m not Adam, but I’ve studied the topic so will answer!😅 The NIV and ESV omit these beautiful words bc the oldest manuscripts, which are therefore probably most accurate, and which were not yet discovered at the time the KJV was translated, so not have these words:(. Unfortunate, I know! But God has graciously given man the ability to coin beautiful words as well, so I along with most (though Adam would disagree) conclude Jesus probably didn’t utter these beautiful words, but a scribe accidentally added them in somewhere along the way. Perhaps from a prayer from church that ended similarly to the LP, so he subconsciously felt it belonged there…etc. Beautiful and true regardless, but prob not part of Scripture!

18:30 The four Great Uncials date from 300 AD to 450 AD. These are the oldest bibles (Greek OT & NT) we have. Important to keep in mind. So many demon-izing 👹 the oldest bibles we have.

@RevRMBWest

6 ай бұрын

The five great uncials of the 4th and 5th centuries - Aleph (Sinaiticus), A (Alexandrinus), B (Vaticanus), C (Ephraimus), and D (Bezea) - ought not to be demonised, but that does not mean that they are the best, or that they are fully reliable; they differ greatly among themselves. You cannot, therefore, build a stable or clear New Testament text from them; that is why the Critical Text is, and must ever have, so many changing editions, as their contra-distinctive readings undergo continual re-assessment. By contrast, the vast majority of somewhat later manuscripts are wonderfully homogenous, whilst at the same time being unrelated to one another, genealogically. It is fairly easy, from them, to get a fixed and stable text; hence a return to them to establish the most ancient and reliable readings on the principle that if they do not diverge from one another they have not diverged from their archetype, whatever that archetype may be. The crucial question is, what is their archetype? The answer cannot be a fourth-century revision of the Greek manuscripts by some kind of guided recension, as no such recension happened; nor can the answer be an (unguided) process theory over many centuries, as such would only beget more divergence and heterogeneity, not convergence and the homogeneity that we see among them. Their archetype would thus be, by default, the autographs themselves.

Thank you brother Adam Very good points, My favorite was the map of where the originals were with Terrulian’s quote the copying the copy analogy where the truth is in the majority. This is similar the story of the Septuagint translation.

1:12:30 brother Adam, you reiterate what you stated earlier with the percentages of gospel manuscripts, Acts, Epistles as matching the Byzantine nearly 89% of the time and Revelation 64% you had said... and you reason that "when you have 95% of the manuscripts saying the exact same thing, I want to read that one"... yet you leave the necessary information that the oldest ones, Alexandrian, didn't survive much because so old (2nd to 6th century AD and some later) (100s) but the 9th century AD to 15th century AD (1000s) Byzantine being in high quantity, then OF COURSE the Byzantine number would be the majority yielding something like 90%. Factors like * When copied? * Papyrus, vellum or parchment influencing survivability. * where? Dry arid or humid environment? Other factors not discussed.: * in the West, 400s the Latin Vulgate became THE BIBLE but not in the East (Byzantium). Of course there would be more Greek manuscripts there. In my Ancient Philology MA studies in Jerusalem, we read the 6th century AD Desert Fathers in Greek, i.e. reading about the era of monasteries and their scribal practices a bit. Islam taking hold in 7th century AD dominating Palestine, destroying NT manuscripts in some regions, is a factor. The Prenicene early church was not a vertical hierarchy yet, but a horizontal flat structure of independent churches making copying decisions free from a Pope. This era, in my opinion, under a Catholic, State church, where there was one Pope (head Bishop) calling the shots for all churches to conform in all ways, suggests uniformity in which manuscripts to use would take hold. The uniformity as we enter into the 9th century AD onward makes sense. Bottom line, yes I know we have the gist of the NT even some questionable verses. Matthewc19:9 is the only verse I am aware of that is misrepresented in all critical texts including the TR. You might be aware but Erasmus added εἰ as εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείας Instead of μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείας Did you ever notice that? Pretty bold indeed!!

@sisterinSC

Жыл бұрын

What did the old text say?

54:40 Adam, you argue the parallels of Homer Textual Criticism to NT TC suggesting the 1. Shorter version of Homer comparable to Alexandrian NT text. 2. Medium sized to Byzantine 3. Longer to the Western text. Yet as you pointed out early in the presentation, the Byzantine is longer by combining the Western and Alexandrian variants in a single "conflated" verse. So why are you paralleling the longer to the Western and not the Byzantine brother?

@PreservedText

10 ай бұрын

You should listen to the video again, especially from 28:25

Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism. I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin, but not the Greek so out it goes. Good will towards men Doxology in Matthew Without cause God manifest in the flesh Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin, so out they go The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek and Latin so out they go. Even the “not yet” found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8 some throw out. If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem, what would you see as a problem?