Daniel Wallace: Is What We Have Now What They Wrote Then? Part 2 - Biola Chapel

Chapel from September 23, 2011.
More info on Daniel Wallace can be found at: www.csntm.org/

[@georgeins.c.494]

Fantastic... every time I watch I learn. Grateful for Dan and NTIS and all they do. Stay prayerful folks.

[@HoldFastApolpgetics]

This is wonderful!! Thank you, Mr Wallace!!

[@ericday4505]

It is amazing how smart Dan is, the guy makes you say wow, that makes sense. I really wish I could take a course with the guy.

[@King_David794]

Great servant of God. I love listening to his prayer

[@ElijahJean-Leon]

This was such a GOOD SPEECH!

[@umbluegray1]

I return to Dr. Wallace's discussions on textual criticism every so often for various reasons: 1. It reassures my faith, and 2. I so often hear the objection that we can't be sure of today's Biblical text because it has changed so many times throughout history. Dr. Wallace provides the source information we can use to share the truth with people who have that objection.

[@knightclan4]

Outstanding!!

[@johnno.]

It's a good thing that the core doctrine isn't effected by the textual variants cosidering the way it has been distributed papyrus turns to dust over time but the fact that it has a 1000 more copies than any other ancient writings during that period is proof enough that it is legit and should be taken seriously not that it's infallible but that it's core doctrine is still intact. 616 being the number of the beast that's new to me lol John 1:1 and john 1:14 easy way to tell jesus is God but if in the early writings of mark 1:1 Go to malachi 3:1 jesus is God again it surprises me so many people miss this even the Jews missed the virgin birth prophecy in isaiah 7:14

[@davidbrock4104]

I love listening to Dr Wallace, I always learn something. His subject should be of great importance to every believer but it is not. Unfortunately, some wish to remain in an uneducated state, not really understanding where we get our Bible from, especially the New Testament.

[@davidbrock4104]

Listening again, picking up more the second time around. Thanks for posting

[@gregorybezanson]

In the time of Shakespeare, words were often spelled differently- the SAME word. Not all word spellings were settled. Different spellings from his various plays.

[@anamontenegro2632]

Amen!

[@gregorybezanson]

Most texual variants are one letter added or two letters in the wrong order. No printing presses in those days. With a printing press all printed pages will be the same. 😅

[@corkystorky]

@seanhflowers i find it hard to digest your question, can you simplify it?

[@GenerationY1000]

The word προς carries with it a meaning intimacy.... when it says εν αρχη ό λογος... it is saying that the logos was there in the beginning.. The logos existed in the beginning. It assumes existence. In the same way when reading the greek in the Septuagint it assumes the same thing in the greek. It assumes God existed prior to the beginning. As the wording is almost the same. But it starts off the same. Although now reading you wrote a book on here you might as well covered all of this lol...

[@corkystorky]

@corkystorky For the contradictory part, 'was with' and 'was'... in Greek the word theos means God. It has it's equivalent in Hebrew which, both, could also mean magistrate, judge, vice-regent. The Word was God, in greek, is, The Word was vice-regent, the office of representation. And the 'The Word was with God' is 'The Word was towards God', a directional mode. This says that the Logos is our way to God, that the Word gives us the image of God, and the Incarnate Word is the image of God.

[@traildude7538]

Sorry, but that treats the Greek in a very non-Koine and non-first-century thought. You're also engaging in the fallacy of changing the meaning of a word in the middle of a sentence; to be consistent you would have to say, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with/towards the vice-regent, and the Word was the vice-regent" -- leaving readers totally baffled, asking, "Vice-regent of whom?" The critical clause doesn't translate well into English unless you think in philosophical terms, specifically ontology; to be clear about it we should translate, "And God is what the Word was being". θεός takes on the idea of a "substance" or "nature" in a way that identifies the thing referred to as being the same as the substance or nature of θεός (God) -- and thus it's an equation telling us that the essence of the Word is the very same essence of God -- thus the Word was God is entirely correct.

[@corkystorky]

@corkystorky Exodus 21:6 in hebrew, speaks of judges, which in hebrew is elohiym, the same word for God. The judges or magistrates are the vice-regents of God, they judge in the place of God. So when the Logos was made flesh, he represented the image of God that the spoken and written Word in the Scriptures cannot do, because Jesus displayed the character of God right before their eyes in the very form of man, they saw the Word in action, that's why it was said, the people saw a great Light.

[@corkystorky]

@corkystorky The Word proceeds from God, not the other way around. Just like our very word, we can tell people who never saw, something that we are really not, but something they would imagine in their minds that we are. An image of a person is created based on what we tell them, so our word is a person, it has character. Because of the logos being generated by a 'source', the logos then is the son of the 'source' (aka father). 'Abraham beget Isaac' - father beget son.

[@budyharianto8229]

Is the textual variation only between greek,??... What about from aramaic to greek?

[@corkystorky]

@kyzersoze74 'Son' in a biblical sense, means 'something' that proceeds from a source or parent, like Abraham beget Isaac. If the Word proceeds from God, and that the Word has the illumination of the image from whom it proceeds, then that Word is a person. It is appropriate for John to say Word instead of Son, because God said "Let there be light", God through the Word created light.

[@1MoreMuslim]

@davidstephenbearden Nicea was not about what scripture should be in or left out from the canon. All parties believe in John, but one of the two has a different interpretation of it. Arians saw the Trinitarian doctrine as polytheism, disguised in monotheist shell.

[@corkystorky]

@corkystorky Rom 10:8 says, 'The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming'. That's how close the Logos was with God, even in the beginning. It was 'through' the Word that God created everything. 1 Cor 8:6, John 1:1-3. There was an error in the translation of 1Tim 3:16 that says "God was manifest in the flesh" indicating that the Father became Incarnate. That was an accident in Codex Alexandrinus adulterated by a scribe later on.

[@traildude7538]

"God manifest in the flesh" would not mean "the Father became incarnate" unless you're an Arian.

[@Blurb777]

In the beginning was the Word and God was ''facing,'' ''toward'' (or ''before'' [the word is "pros" which has several meanings] ) the Word, and God was the Word. That's how John 1 :1 really translates.

[@traildude7538]

To catch the depth of John's thought, it can be rendered, "In the beginning the Word was being, and the Word was being face to face with God, and God is what the Word was being." It's both relational and ontological, and when you catch the ontological side based on the Greek word tense, it becomes totally impossible to deny the deity of the Word.

[@Blurb777]

@@traildude7538 Thank you. Being a native Greek speaker, I just took it as it read and never gave it the depth of thought you did, but I do appreciate your thoughts. Especially this, did I like, " "it becomes totally impossible to deny the deity of the Word"

[@traildude7538]

@@Blurb777 I started out in ancient Greek, reading things like Xenophon, Sophocles, Plato, and so on where paying attention to tense and the definite article were often quite important. It's one reason I love the Epistle to the Hebrews; it's very "high" Koine that to someone who learns typical "New Testament Greek" gets stymied by, but its near-classical (and definitely Alexandrian) structure is wonderful to me. In New Testament Greek readings classes it always struck me as sad that so many students began with Koine Greek and so didn't have the habit of pondering deeply, something very true about John's writing because it reads so easily on a surface level it's tempting to just glide on through and miss the depths of John's thought. And after having read through the entire Greek New Testament three times straight through and at least another time tackling the major books in depth, I find myself still totally baffled at how anyone who is actually reading the Greek and not just mentally turning it into English can possibly miss the trumpeting of the repeated assertion that Jesus is God.

[@Blurb777]

@@traildude7538 Jesus IS God. Amen! When Christ walked on the water, He didn't say, "Don't be afraid, it's Me." He said, "Don't be afraid. I AM that I AM."

[@corkystorky]

@seanhflowers Well, to be honest it's not the way it was presented in the greek. It said 'en ho logos pros ton theon' and scholars translated that by way of something like 'face to face' in 1Cor 13:12 'prosopon pros prosopon'. 'Face to face' suggests an idea of being so close to each other, but it presents a lighter idea of the relationship between the Logos and the Father, if for the sake of the masses. It would be enough for them to know that the Logos was with the Father from the beginning

[@darapdiengdoh2179]

Do we still have the originals manuscripts written by the first authors??

[@cameronclark447]

No

[@luisselby7041]

Nada, nothing, cero...

[@amletisma9888]

And ?

[@914light]

wonder if Daniel dined at in-n-out on his trip to Ca. ? I sure miss in-n-out :(

[@jonathanbenisrael2501]

Psalms 147:19 -20 “He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel.” “He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD.” It doesn't really matter if you are not an Israelite. The spirit of an Israelite will bear witness to what is written. Granted there are many corrupt versions on the market and by design, but not the 1611 KJV. It was translated from the original transcripts, even it has the Books of the Apocrypha in which most bibles on the market do not have. The ten commandments are clear but no one in Christianity follows them. The Greeks brought much evil into this world, even today.

[@marykinuthia6067]

True, the word of God is by a revelation. To some it is given.

[@jonathanbenisrael2501]

@@marykinuthia6067 His gives the understanding of His word to Israelites keeping His commandments and the faith in Jesus the Christ, the Israelite Messiah. Psalms 111:10 for understanding; and Hebrews 7:14 for nationality of Jesus.

[@corkystorky]

@corkystorky If it has been a 'togetherness', it should have been written in greek, en ho logos SUN theo (sun is 'closer' than para or meta in greek). The Son is not a totally separate God of it's own accord, but the Logos is the second person in Elohiym. It submits to the head, the Father (1 Cor 11:3).

[@traildude7538]

No -- when πρός is used in reference to persons it should be considered to mean "face to face with". It's not so much "togetherness" as "relatedness". It can't be used to make "the Son.. a totally separate God", nor for that matter could συν. BTW, that should be "_He_ submits to the head"; the Logos is a Person.

[@corkystorky]

@corkystorky Eve came from Adam, when you see them you don't say there are now two Adams. No, you see Adam in two persons, and physically by union the bodies unite as one: "the two shall become one flesh". Adam is the head of Eve, The Father is the head of the Son, not the other way around. No polytheism, just misunderstood by most.

[@traildude7538]

Actually in terms of ancient philosophy "two Adams" would be perfectly correct: that Eve came from Adam indicates that her essence was the same essence as Adam's; indeed it could not be otherwise.

[@corkystorky]

@kyzersoze74 Luke 10:26 "How do you read it?" It seem like you read the person in the Elohim as a separate God. No, that's not how it should be understood. I'll give an illustration, in the beginning there was only one Adam, later Eve came out of Adam - you then have two persons but Adam and Eve still remains one. Eve was not a separate Adam, Adam was her head. "The two shall become one flesh". If Eve is a separate Adam, then you got two Adams. Same applies with Elohim.

[@jonathanbenisrael2501]

Revelation 2:25 “But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.” We have the 1611 KJV with the Apocrypha. The Messiah will clear all things upon His return and likely while in the wilderness.

[@corkystorky]

No, there is no need to change the number of the beast from 666 to 616. Daniel Wallace should be or ought to be familiar with an ancient church father, not sure if it's Irenaeus or Ignatius, (more probably Irenaeus I think), who dealt with this scribal mistake, he said it's 666 not 616. So way back the second (or third century, my memory fails me) this issue had been settled, that even it's a recent discovery by Tischendorf, the answer has been available all along.

[@traildude7538]

It wasn't "a scribal mistake", it was a deliberate alteration that is connected to Donatism, and can be explained by it being an attempt to make the meaning of the Greek work in Latin. This was noted by both Origen and Hippolytus (both third century) and IIRC one of them noted the connection to Latin.

[@davidstephenbearden]

Don't forget John 1:14...

[@corkystorky]

@1MoreMuslim Well that is inappropriate in the sense that Jesus means savior, and why say Savior (Jesus) when he had no one to save yet? That's why the Scriptures say The Serpent instead of The Devil in certain occurences. John 1:1 says, The Word was towards God, and The Word was vice-regent. 1 Cor. 8:6 supports that translation.

[@corkystorky]

@1MoreMuslim Arius did not have the spirit of Christ, his treacherous attacks later on after the Council of Nicea will prove this. No wonder he misunderstood the deity of Jesus.

[@valerieprice1745]

666 is supposed to be Nero. 616 is supposed to be Caesar. So, Caesar Nero, which causes some people to believe either the spirit of Nero will inhabit the Man of Lawlessness, or a Pope (modern Roman emperor) will be the Man of Lawlessness. I don't know, I only know I put my faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ.

[@corkystorky]

I quite feel ashamed, what else can I say?

[@corkystorky]

@1MoreMuslim It may have been translated as the Word was God, but in Greek it says en ho logos pros ton theon (The Word was towards God). When we speak of 'towards' we mean direction, the Word then directs us to God. The Word reflects the image of God. The written Word gives us idea of what God is like, and John 1:14 states the Word becomes Incarnate, you see the image of God in the very flesh. Jesus is not God himself, the Father is. The Word proceeds from God (part of Elohim)

[@Blurb777]

Actually, corkystorky - the original Greek that Wallace was reading from said, "In the beginning was the Word, and God was facing toward the Word (or God was before the Word - for ''pros'' has several meanings in Greek), and God was the Word." That is how the old Codex Sinaiticus reads - 350 AD.

[@traildude7538]

@@Blurb777 Siniaticus in John 1:1 reads ' In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with/towards God, and God was the Word'. It doesn't have the flipped word order you used.

[@Blurb777]

@@traildude7538 What flipped word order? What am I not understanding? And "God was the Word." That is how it reads. I have always read it that way. it's what it reads. What do you mean about a flipped word order?

[@traildude7538]

@@Blurb777 You wrote "and God was facing toward the Word", but the Greek is "καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν". But that reminds me that John is using a word order that is flipped from the more straightforward version, which would be "καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεὸς". By putting the anarthrous noun first -- καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος -- he elevates "θεὸς" from a simple substantive noun to a declaration of substance in the philosophical sense; that's why I translate, "And God is what the Word was being", to catch the flavor.

[@woofy021282]

@1MoreMuslim. I agree that it can say with. But that does not mean polytheism. It is also a Christian belief that all three parts of the Godhead make up one whole. Just because a clover has three distinct leaves we don't say there are three clovers. We understand it is one functioning clover. If I put poison on one of the leaves it affects the other two because they are instrumentally one clover while still remaining three separate leaves. It does not have to be either or.

[@traildude7538]

Or perhaps a better illustration, an electron has spin, it has charge, and it has mass, yet it is not three electrons, it is one.

[@andanandan6061]

But can we have 1 clover with just 1 leave

[@ChiliMcFly1]

It sounds like you have text from multiple sources most incomplete. Probably from Ebonite's and Marcionites who have differences in Theology. These 2 had their own followings in Roman Empire and always disagreed with each other. Rome needed to make peace with these groups and 535 A.D. sat down and merged the 2 Theologies. Now there's just a convoluted text that's left which is why there are so many Denominations.

[@Dreammaster695]

Jesus loves Paul and “the Mary and Joesph went to Jerusalem” isn’t in the bible...

[@r6343]

He never claimed these statements were in the Bible. These were simply phrases he used to demonstrate a point about the Greek language.

[@ComradeAgopian]

Uh oh , the ancient heresy of subordinationism .

[@traildude7538]

And she's butchering the Greek.... badly. She denounces Arianism while being borderline Arian!

[@guessable]

666 Nero 616 Neron

[@1MoreMuslim]

@StevieWonder501 You are reading through your doctrine, not the text. John 1:14 says the Word BECAME Jesus. How to interpret such statement would give birth to dozens of different Christianities. In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God. That is John 1:1, replacing the Word with Jesus. Clear Polytheism.

[@1MoreMuslim]

Dan Wallace is certainly a great Textual critic, but very poor theologian. The Unitarians believe in John 1:1, but they are still Unitarians. Dan Wallace needs to be critical of the Orthodox theology, not just assume the inherited theology. John 1:1 doesn't say Jesus is God, it says the WORD was God.

[@lecramred4453]

Jesus is the Word of God

[@Blurb777]

1MoreMuslim - Wrong - the text that he read from, John 1:1, says "God was the Word." And if you continue to read that chapter, it is very clear that The Word is Christ Jesus. "He (Logos) came to His own possession, and His own possession rejected Hm. But as many as took Him, to them gave He the authority to become the children of God, to those who believe on His name.This Logos, the Word, who came to His own possession, or creation, was also the One Who made ALL things and nothing has been created that He did not create - according to John 1. He was the Light of men, and men hated it because their deeds were evil. They did not understand the Light. This is Christ Jesus, but also God. It's really, I think, one of the most powerful chapters in the entire Bible and set in stone for me that Christ Jesus is Indeed God who created all things - and put His deity aside to come to earth as a person so that He could die for us - so that we may LIVE for Him, and Love others, for Him. It's actually potently powerful, full of life-affirming love and for the value of each of us as human beings.

[@ambassador_in_training]

Read Revelation Ch.1 and see what Jesus calls Himself. Read Hebrews ch. 1 and see who Jesus is described as. Read 2 Pet 1:1 and see who Jesus is. Read the prophecy of Isaiah 9:6 and see who the given Son is. Read Daniel Ch. 7:13-14 and see who the Son of Man is. Also, read Acts 5:3-4 and see who the Holy Spirit is, as well as 1 Thes 5:19 (quenching the Spirit), Eph 4:30 (grieving the Holy Spirit), Matt 12:31-32 (the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit) and realize that one cannot do those things to a force but only to a person. Acts 13:2 says "the Holy Spirit said, separate Me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them", which tells us that the Holy Spirit speaks with the authority as God. There is a lot more. We can discuss it further if you'd like. God bless you richly.

[@johnno.]

John 1:14