Erasmus and King James: The Real Story | TCC 4/7

[@DavidJHarris43]

"Any form of the text that you take and exalt as an absolute standard above revision, is already the product of revision...you will have to answer the question, 'Why did God approve of all the revision before that point, but disapproves of all the revision after that point?'" See Tim's explanation beginning at 1:04:43.

[@markwardonwords]

Yes, this is gold. I loved this!

[@BrentRiggsPoland]

Which of course begs the question, How do we know which revisions are God approved? Are all revisions and translations God approved? Are there any revisions or translations that God rejects? Doesn't the Standard version take precedent over sectarian, peculiar, private or individually preferred versions or editions?

[@Belak-gq3wt]

@@BrentRiggsPoland Yes… this is textual criticism. The point of this video is that the Textus Receptus is a product of textual criticism. The point of the series is that God’s word has been preserved, but not in the way we wish it was. If there was one perfect (errorless) text, then it will be nearly impossible to find it with all of the revisions and editions that exist. Rather, preservation has been achieved through an extant amount of manuscripts which contain human scribal error yet still retain 99% uniformity. Praise His Name!!

[@BennettJonWayne-xw9vi]

@@Belak-gq3wt It is much easier to have faith in the Bible, exactly as it has been given unto us, than to believe that God would allow a faulty Bible to be published, preached and promoted throughout the world. Through His divine providence, God used first the Jews and secondly the structure of church, throughout the centuries to preserve and protect the textual purity of His Holy Word.

[@Belak-gq3wt]

@@BennettJonWayne-xw9vi overall, I agree. The problem is, that the textus receptus still contains variations. I still prefer TR readings, but it would be wrong to completely discount other texts.

[@5crownsoutreach]

This discussion is fabuluos. Especially the discussions about Erasmus' early contributions in contrast with his notes.

[@markwardonwords]

Many thanks!

[@corybanter]

@@markwardonwords I really enjoyed this discussion: so historically grounded and full of grace.

[@DavidJHarris43]

44:44 Such an important note. Excellent and thorough work guys!

[@markwardonwords]

Many thanks!

[@calebschaaf1555]

The question you ask at @32:00 and the discussion that follows is so very important. I think it's awesome you were able to get a group of guys together like this.

[@markwardonwords]

Amen!

[@davidbrock4104]

Lots of really good info, though I think I'm most impressed by a 9 year old nearly reading the Bible thru. Good for him.

[@markwardonwords]

Me too!

[@andrewefting8622]

Thanks, guys, for this insightful session! I've done quite a bit of study on this topic and heard all sorts of new and great material in this presentation. Very well done!

[@markwardonwords]

Our pleasure! Means a lot coming from you!

[@antonybrennan]

These discussions are fascinating and insightful. I am really enjoying hearing them.

[@markwardonwords]

So glad to hear!

[@alanr745]

This is just awesome. Informative, well said, reasonably concise in thought, and above all, provides calm, sensible, and loving ways to disagree with textual absolutism. Praise the Lord for men who are willing to dig into the nitty gritty and answer those who oppose themselves.

[@markwardonwords]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@Hospody-Pomylui]

Excellent! I learned so much from this. It made me love the KJV more! It also made me see the KJV as a "critical text" translation itself. It made me feel like the RSV and ESV were spiritually more in alignment with the KJV than the NKJV (Which saddened me because I love the NKJV, and also I acknowledge ya'll didn't speak to any of that, just a personal extension in my thoughts) Mark, are any KJVO receptive to the modifications made in the New Scofield? I think it's such a reverent clarifying device used in that edition.

[@markwardonwords]

Thank you! I've never met anyone who was KJV-Only but liked the New Scofield. But Tim, as often, would know better!

[@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175]

kjvo might use the original 1917 scofield called old scofield. I think the old scofield has a few definitions for archaic words.

[@AJMacDonaldJr]

"We must always emphasize the Christian starting point that all our thinking ought to have. If we are Christians, then we must begin our thinking not with the assertions of unbelieving scholars and their naturalistic human logic, but with Christ and the logic of faith." ~ E. F. Hills

[@markwardonwords]

I agree with this quote as stated!

[@MAMoreno]

This "logic of faith" won't necessarily be consistent from one Christian to another, especially across the major denominational branches. The logic of faith for a Roman Catholic believer might be that the Vulgate is the starting point for determining the original texts (though Protestant influence on Catholicism has weakened that assumption in the last century). The logic of faith for an Eastern Orthodox believer is likely to be that the Byzantine Greek text-type is the starting point, since that's the form that the EO Church has copied and preserved--alongside the Septuagint form of the Old Testament. For Protestant believers, it's far less clear, since Protestantism doesn't have a distinct history throughout the Middle Ages. We have three options available to us: 1. Assume that the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church was essentially correct, and adopt one of the previously-listed views (Vulgate priority or LXX-Byzantine priority). 2. Assume that the Reformation-era scholars were correct when they produced a Greek New Testament that generally followed the Byzantine Text, but with Vulgate variants. (This view also tends to accept the Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament with little correction.) 3. Assume that we can't dogmatically trust any of these traditions, since we don't recognize the infallible authority of the groups that produced them. View 2 is tempting because it produces a distinct tradition for Protestants that's similar to that of the Catholics and Orthodox. They have their 5th Century New Testament traditions, so we have our 16th Century New Testament tradition in response. And it might be especially appealing for Protestants who are less radical in their rejection of Catholic and Orthodox tradition (e.g. Lutherans and some Anglicans). A text that assumes both denominations were only slightly wrong in their adoption of certain readings would go along rather well with the attitude that both denominations are only slightly wrong in their theology. But for those with a Radical Reformer perspective, this approach is unsatisfactory. The Catholics and Orthodox of centuries past weren't only slightly wrong in their beliefs--they were very wrong. So why assume that they produced or preserved a trustworthy Bible? Why wouldn't you look to a period that predates the establishment of Christianity as Rome's state religion for a purer form of the text? If your faith includes the notion that true Christianity needed to be restored after two millennia of corruption, then your faith will also allow for the idea that the true Bible would need to be restored after two millennia of corruption.

[@AJMacDonaldJr]

@@MAMoreno All of your questions can be answered by reading Dr Hill's book: "The King James Version Defended" which is where the quote was taken from.

[@panayiotiserotas7943]

Thank you so much for these videos. Very insightful. Mention was made about readings that were only found in the Latin but for some reason Erasmus kept them in his greek edition of the NT (textus receptus). I have been wondering about a variant only found in the TR and as far as I know is nowhere to be found in any critical text or Byzantine text edition of the NT. In revelation 21:24 with the addition "of those who are saved". Can we verify if that's a reading of the Latin translation that he chose to keep in the greek text? Thank you.

[@theologynerd1689]

My brothers I really appreciate this work. I'm enjoying it greatly. I have been "nerding out" for each of these discussions. I have one request. First, a little backstory before I give my request. God saved me at 21 from a life of atheism, crime, drug addictions, and so much more. God providentially put me in an IFB church that was "King James preferred" where bible versions and translations were not a major topic because my former pastor had been a missionary in Mexico for 15. I believe serving in another culture for so long "mellowed out" the pastor and he kept peripheral doctrines on the periphery. When I desired to leave my State school and attend bible college to learn to study the bible for myself in order to find out if the theology I had become convinced of were true, God providentially led me to BJU. I loved it there. But after my first or second semester, while interacting with some KJVO brothers online I heard multiple times that "Bob Jones is compromised." I so badly wanted to know why these incredibly conservative, straitlaced, fundamentalist Christians were being called "compromisers." It wasn't until later I heard about the "Leaven of Fundamentalism" tapes. My request is that if any of you can point me to that series online please do. I can't find it anywhere. I want to watch it for informational purposes. If it doesn't already exist online and you have access to it you would be doing my generation of fundamentalists and textual confidence adherents a great service by uploading those messages and making them available. Fair Use law will protect you from any copyright claims by PCC or any of the speakers in the videos. Fair use protects showing or duplicating a copyrighted work for the purpose of criticism. You can criticize the message in the video description or edit in short clips of yourself, audio, or captions criticizing what was said in the video. If anyone still tries to submit a copyright claim against the videos you have to submit a counter notification and tell KZbin you posted the video as Fair Use for criticizing the position taught in the video. Thank you kindly.

[@markwardonwords]

Hey: contact me through my contact form. I may have something for you. ;) byfaithweunderstand.com/contact.

[@deniemarie5010]

Excellent discussion. There's so much information covered in this video I have to watch it again. Thank you for doing this series. Thanking God for you Brothers.✝️📖🙏

[@markwardonwords]

Glad you enjoyed it! I've gone through it three times myself-well, four, including sitting in the room filming it!

[@chilic82]

Awesome discussion!! I’ve hoped someone would do this for years!!! Thank you to all involved.

[@markwardonwords]

Our pleasure!

[@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175]

Those in the 5th category are easier to spot bec they do allow revisions to the kjv. For example, Nick Sayers has revised the archaic words in the kjv into modern equivalents in his KJV 2016, but he seems to believe kjv has no translation errors. There is a 6th category that allows kjv revisions of archaic words and also allows fixing the kjv translation errors (kjvo non correctors call them kjv correctors). An example of the 6th category is Jay P Green Senior who produced the KJ3. Jay P Green Senior still believes in the reformation era traditional texts (masoretic text, TRs, latin vulgate variants) behind the kjv so he can still be called kjvo. A 7th category believes in the various reformation era traditional texts used for both english translations and non english translations. An example of the 7th category is Russell Stendal who produced the Jubilee Bible based on reformation era traditional spanish translation, various reformation era traditional english translations like William Tyndale and kjv, various reformation era masoretic texts, various reformation era TRs. 7th category is not kjvo but can be called Reformation Era Traditional Texts Only (reformation era masoretic texts and reformation era TRs). 8th category is majority texts Only such as Arthur Farstad. This position is still mainly based on tradition. 9th category is the orthodox church which uses byzantine texts for NT and septuagint for OT. This position is obviously mainly based on tradition. All of these Tradition Only positions are non critical texts only beliefs.

[@BennettJonWayne-xw9vi]

I am investigating the claim, made by Leslie McFall's Erasmus and Divorce in Matthew 19:9, that in fact Erasmus(1466-1536), a Catholic priest, in his construction of a Greek New Testament, altered the text to add "the exception clause," that has been trusted by millions of Christians like myself over the centuries, and the entire modern world. Please note my findings: John Chrysostom, a 4th century Byzantine Greek Church hierarch quotes this verse in his 62nd Homily on Matthew: "Whosoever shall put away his wife except it be for fornication, and marry another, committeth adultery." This would have been over a millennium prior to Erasmus, showing Dr. McFall's claim to be a farce. Erasmus did not alter the exception. The exceptions were in the earlier texts 4th century. I repeat: This would have been over a millennium prior to Erasmus. It is much easier to have faith in the Bible, exactly as it has been given unto us, than to believe that God would allow a faulty Bible to be published, preached and promoted throughout the world.

[@markwardonwords]

This is so meaningful to me!

[@BennettJonWayne-xw9vi]

To me, as well.@@markwardonwords To many!!!

[@BennettJonWayne-xw9vi]

To me, as well. @@markwardonwords To many !!!

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

Leslie McFall's issue with Erasmus is that he edited the Greek text of Matthew 19:9 so that instead of reading _μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ_ (mē epi porneia), meaning "not for sexual immorality", to _εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ_ (ei mē epi porneia), meaning "if not for sexual immorality" (cf. _εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ_ (ei mē epi) in 1 Timothy 5:19). McFall would have us read _μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ_ (mē epi porneia) as meaning "even for sexual immorality", thus ruling out remarriage following divorce on _any_ grounds. McFall's approach both inverts the plain meaning of the original Greek text and would have Jesus flatly contradicting what He said in Matthew 5:32, where the Greek text reads _παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας_ (parektos logou porneias), meaning "except for the reason of sexual immorality". Just try changing ‘not’, translated from _μὴ_ (mē), in Romans 14:1 or 1 John 5:16 as 'even'. Try doing the same thing in Acts 4:17 & 24:4, Romans 15:20 or 1 Timothy 5:19 all of which use the same _μὴ ἐπὶ_ (mē epi) construction as Matthew 19:9 and seeing how far that gets you... The problem facing Erasmus was that some Greek texts of Matthew 19:9 read _μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ_ (mē epi porneia), whilst others had been assimilated to Matthew 5:32's _παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας_ (parektos logou porneias). The Vulgate (Latin) text read _nisi ob fornicationem,_ meaning "not for sexual immorality". Inadvisedly, perhaps, Erasmus published his Greek New Testament with _εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ_ (ei mē epi porneia) and from there it ultimately found its way into the Textus Receptus. McFall and others in his rather extreme camp on the divorce issue (e.g. David Pawson) claim every English translation today reflects Erasmus' edited text. That simply isn't so. Only translations based on the Textus Receptus do. The widely-accepted Critical Text found in the _Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece_ and the _UBS The Greek New Testament_ texts of Matthew 19:9 used by most translators read _μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ_ (mē epi porneia), not _εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ_ (ei mē epi porneia). Early Greek manuscripts of Matthew 19:9 with _μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ_ (mē epi porneia) include: • Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) • Codex Washingtonianus (4th-5th century) Early church writers who understood _μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ_ (mē epi porneia) in Matthew 19:9 as referring to an exception include: • Clement of Alexandria (3rd century); • Origen of Lyons (3rd century); and • Basil of Caesarea [Basil the Great] (4th century). Early Greek manuscripts that assimilate Matthew 19:9 to Matthew 5:32 and its _παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας_ (parektos logou porneias) include: • Codex Bezae (5th century) • Codex Vaticanus (5th century) Early church writers who cited Matthew 19:9 with the text assimilated to Matthew 5:32 include: • John Chrysostom (4th century) Jerome's Vulgate (the official Latin translation he made in 382-384AD) had _nisi ob fornicationem,_ as did the Old Latin translations from a century earlier (e.g. Codex Vercellensis). The simply fact of the matter is that the church had understood Matthew 19:9 as incorporating an exception to the 'no divorce & remarriage' rule for over a millennium before Erasmus came along and his edit had no material effect on that understanding.

[@BennettJonWayne-xw9vi]

@@markwardonwords It is much easier to have faith in the Bible, exactly as it has been given unto us, than to believe that God would allow a faulty Bible to be published, preached and promoted throughout the world.

[@wesleybarley6405]

Really good discussions here, and very helpful for those of us who face these ideas. You are providing a great service to us by sharing your study and research. Thanks to all the men involved. Looking forward to the next videos!

[@markwardonwords]

Our pleasure! Means a lot, Wes!

[@jwatson181]

This is so insightful!

[@markwardonwords]

I certainly learned much!

[@joshuamercer854]

A lot of information I didn’t know. It makes me want to go study a lot more .

[@chrisjohnson9542]

Thank you so much. This was such a profitable study ans I thank you for dumbing it down for us laypeople to understand what you are talking about. The KJV translators didn't believe they were inspired writers speaking with divine authority. The Apostles knew that they were divinely inspired. They spoke with authority to where even Peter equates Paul's writing as scripture. This is a far different scenario than the translators. It's so obvious from their introduction. kjv Onlyism is the same thing that the Roman catholics did with the Latin vulgate. Thank the Lord that the plowboys can now read the word of God.

[@anthonykeve8894]

@~24:?? I’m SI glad Mark & Tim had that exchange about Erasmus introducing Acts 8:37*, a longer Acts 9:5-6*, & 1 Jn 5:7* coming from the Latin Vulgate - that they* (& others Tim didn’t mention) were not part of the original Byzantine MS stream.

[@suiko2fan2]

1:05:01-1:05:45 is the key point in this whole talk and the mic drop moment.

[@markwardonwords]

Agreed! Tim nailed it!

[@clintdona9857]

Brother, I apologize for taking up your time with such a basic question as this, but can you recommend a good book on the history of the making of the KJB? I have been carefully watching and listening to your TCC series and am fascinated with it and want a book on that story. I looked in Amazon books but didn’t find much. Thank you in advance. If any reader of this comment can point me in the right direction I would appreciate it. God bless all of you for the tremendous work you have done.

[@markwardonwords]

Adam Nicolson’s God’s Secretaries is one. Alister McGrath’s In the Beginning is another.

[@DouglasBFrancis]

Great conversation! I wonder if you would do, or could point me to someone who has done, a video on why 1 John 5:7 should not be in the text. A good book could also be satisfactory. As always thank you for your work!

[@markwardonwords]

I'd point you here: www.amazon.com/dp/1433564092?tag=3755-20 Also, Scrivener in his Plain Introduction discusses this passage: www.google.com/books/edition/Six_Lectures_on_the_Text_of_the_New_Test/MAE-AAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=1%20John%20v.%207%2C%208&pg=RA1-PA201&printsec=frontcover

[@matthewmurphyrose4793]

M. Ward, where are you getting the idea that Scrivener, "took a view broadly similar to that of Westcott and Hort?"

[@markwardonwords]

See my talk on Scrivener; search for Henry Ambrose on my channel. His lay-level intro to NT text crit is where I’m getting this. He uses canons of textual criticism that are very similar to those of Westcott and Hort. He uses a fair bit of language that I hear our TR defender brothers criticize all the time.

[@matthewmurphyrose4793]

@@markwardonwords thanks. I saw (and read) that talk when it first came out, and although I agree with much of what you presented - I did come away thinking that Scrivener was not properly represented there either. It would be much more correct to say that Scrivener, "took a view broadly similar to that of" *Burgon* - than to paint him as you have. And I very much doubt that you (or anyone) would ever state that Burgon "took a view broadly similar to that of Westcott and Hort," so how then could Scrivener? (If that makes sense?) Have you studied any of Scrivener's other works, or perhaps what other experts have said concerning him in this vein?

[@markwardonwords]

​@@matthewmurphyrose4793, I'm open to reading recommendations. I've read not a few of Scrivener's things here and there (appendices, introductions)-but that was the one book I read straight through. When he was given the chance to teach neophytes about NT textual criticism, he sounded a great deal like Westcott and Hort. He made the same *kinds* of arguments I myself make when I argue for this or that reading. I saw no evidence that he took a Burgonian view-with the one big exception that he didn't see Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as holding the same amount of value that Westcott and Hort saw. So, again, I'm open to reading recommendations!

[@matthewmurphyrose4793]

@@markwardonwords that seems like a good attitude to have! I'd say the best place to start is: Crossing Boundaries in New Testament Textual Criticism: Historical Revisionism and the Case of Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, Maurice A. Robinson, 2002 TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism. [It's freely available online.] Dr. Robinson does a wonderful job of collecting a plethora of quotations that are pertinent to this question. I don't perfectly agree with the distance he puts between Scrivener/Burgon and the MT/BYZ positions (I tend to think that they're a bit further apart in some aspects), but I believe he is certainly correct in the main, and a must read.

[@brotherarn]

Imagine if you approached the Calvinistic doctrines the same way you approach the kjvo teaching? Perhaps this would lead to an honest discussion about Calvinism.

[@michealferrell1677]

I’m not sure as to your exact meaning but Calvinism is the conclusion of the practice of interpretation and exegesis of the text of scripture. What is your point , I’m interested?

[@artemusbowdler7508]

The video is not about John Calvin and his misunderstanding of Greek words and his interpretation of scriptures.

[@wordforursoul787]

Have u did a review on the kjver I think it's a excellent tool for new readers who love the kjv And have u did a review just on the Lsb

[@markwardonwords]

No on both! Sorry!

[@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175]

KJVer seems to be done by evangelicals so it might not be acceptable to some fundamentalists. Many kjvo do not allow any word changes in the kjv which is done by the KJVer. KJVer is a combination of word changes in the text plus end of verse definitions. Some kjvo in category 5 does allow changes to the archaic words in the kjv and convert them to modern english which is done by KJVer and by nick sayers in his kjv 2016, but these avoid fixing kjv translation errors bec they seem to believe kjv has 0 translation errors.

[@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175]

skjv (simplified kjv) is similar to kjver.

[@brendaboykin3281]

Thank you, Gentlemen 🌹🌹🌹🌹

[@markwardonwords]

Our pleasure!

[@jamespolk4322]

Very helpful Brother Mark! Thank you!

[@markwardonwords]

My pleasure!

[@rsagape7300]

This is aweaome. Thank you.

[@markwardonwords]

You're very welcome!

[@DrGero15]

Where do you get those cups?

[@markwardonwords]

Tim's wife!

[@ora_et_labora1095]

I love this

[@michealferrell1677]

I have been given the task of reading John Owen on his view of the text of scripture in Volume 4 and also his comments in 16 by a leading TR advocate . Why would he have me began the journey with Owen and what do you believe could be his possible contribution to me ?

[@WTR91]

Perhaps because Owen & Turretin are the best representation of the confessionally Reformed Christian’s actual position? Owen is also great in detail and doesn’t tend to skip over any thought. This is where the gentlemen in this video would do well to actually dispute Owen & Turretin if they desire to be convincing to those who are confessional. I am only beginning this video and I hope they do try to deal with the post-reformation Reformed Orthodoxy on this matter, personally. Specifically Turretin on the self-authenticating nature of Holy Scripture.

[@michealferrell1677]

@@WTR91 thank you for your reply , I see that I have lots of reading to do . I could see Owen maybe entertaining a majority text position if he had access to such a thing in his time, but to claim him for the TR advocacy position seems just a road to far . Your thoughts would be welcomed.

[@WTR91]

@@michealferrell1677 Since both Owen & Turretin were born in the early 1600s as well as some of the most learned Christians in history & their work was largely the basis for the mature Reformed confessions, they are the obvious choice for defining the type of “TR” advocacy that confessional men promulgate. So we can’t say it’s a “step too far” unless we are defining those words differently. They held to the self-authenticating nature of Scripture as well as providential preservation and this informed how they looked at the different editions of the texts, variants, etc. In the same vein, how would you define “majority” text position? Which one? We would have to define what that is before saying any men of that day could’ve held to it lest we commit anachronism. No problem for the replies. The subject of the text of Scripture is of the highest importance to me; I will happily talk with anyone in good faith on these matters.

[@michealferrell1677]

@@WTR91 the majority text in the time of Owen I presume would consist of the relatively few and late manuscripts that were in Erasmus possession at the time of his first printed edition. scriveners TR would not be until 1881 , so yes it would be anachronistic to have these great men such as Owen answer questions that we have about the text today that they at that time were not asking , seeing that they just were not privy to all the text data that are now in our possession , such as the early papyrus etc .

[@michealferrell1677]

@@WTR91 I also believe in the providential preservation of scripture , but what I do not believe in is that God preserved it in the same way that TR advocates insist. Any thoughts ? You seem to be more studied in this than myself.

[@johnraymond9295]

Thank you again, another educational experience. As others have commented, I will watch again to take it all in. Next Monday I have dinner with a KJV only brother, it should be an interesting discussion.

[@markwardonwords]

I pray it goes well for you! Praying right now!

[@billcovington5836]

Thank you for this discussion. I was raised KJV and still love it, but know it’s just a translation. This topic is what is driving me to read and understand the Greek for myself. I’ve collected as many copies of the Greek MSS available and that I can afford to compare. With this growing awareness, I’m using the combined TRs with RP Byzantine as guides. I prefer to have all the “traditional” text, (i. e. AP, Long ending of Mark), included with the apparatus, so that I can make up my own mind. I don’t use NA or any other modern text as a “guide”, if they delete passages. Let me delete 1Jn. 5:7 myself, or reintroduce, Θεός. Rev. 1:8 myself. Thanks again.

[@BrentRiggsPoland]

Really enjoy the videos and insights from you brothers in Christ. Please excuse all my questions. It appears to me that the originals were revised multiple times, so, revision per se should not be the issue. The debate seems to boil down to which revisions are God approved. Are God approved revisions those which match the original autographs (impossible to prove today without any extant autographs)? Those that match an English edition printed in 1611 or an English edition in someone's hand today (impossible to prove historically)? Any edition that generally agrees with "the TR" or "the Greek manuscripts"? All revisions? Some revisions (which?)? What Scriptural criteria would we as believers go by to determine that which is approved by God? Are there any Scriptures to support this?

[@bruce-g7s]

recently, i was told by 2 KJVOs that the KJV translators did not use the Vulgate, but earlier latin. could you address this, please? thank you

[@markwardonwords]

I'd have to know specific passages that are under discussion. I find this very unlikely-and not helpful to their cause. The idea that the KJV translators would have to use Latin at all shoots the perfect preservation of the Greek New Testament view.

[@bruce-g7s]

@@markwardonwords no specific passages were mentioned, just said the KJV translators did not use the vulgate but early latin. i have KJVOs for friends and i try to avoid arguments, they also continue to spread the wescott and hort rumors

[@bruce-g7s]

@@markwardonwords i just wanted to know if the KJV translators used the Vulgate or the earlier Latin, or both? thank you

[@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175]

In practice, gail is stricter than peter ruckman. Gail does not allow the use of hebrew, greek and english dictionaries. Peter Ruckman does use hebrew and greek to explain archaic words in the kjv. In practice, categories 1 to 4 are pretty much the same in practice bec they do not allow any revisions to the KJV and pretty much automatically reject new translations of the traditional texts such as ylt, lsv, nkjv, mev.

[@jwatson181]

Gail is a nut. When someone claims special revelation contrary to the Bible, we can dismiss their claims.

[@yahrescues8993]

21:58 How can one read the editors of TR editions doubting the end of Mark?

[@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175]

many people have tried to add many fake endings to Mark.

[@yahrescues8993]

@@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175 but I was asking where I could verify the TR editors doubting the end of Mark

[@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175]

@@yahrescues8993 can maybe read a book about textual criticism.

[@yahrescues8993]

@colonyofcells iamamachine maybe. I’d be interested to know exactly where to look for this specific info tho

[@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175]

@@yahrescues8993 better to be lazy and just accept expert consensus.

[@therealkillerb7643]

First, sincere thanks for a fascinating discussion. Second, with no hidden agenda, how long do we consider men "brothers" who lie, deliberately? Yes, I acknowledge many in the KJV only camp do not know better, but the "scholars" who bear false witness, and refuse to repent, are we actually dealing with brothers or the fool of Proverbs. Not trying to incite anything here, or be dismissive but cults tend to have certain sociological behaviors in common - and KJVism seems to fall into that kind of mentality. Thanks again.

[@markwardonwords]

I figure that God only knows. He will judge. I pray for mercy. If I had such a man in my church, I would exercise church discipline. And since I don’t, I apply 2 Thess 3:6, 14-have nothing to do with such men. The guys who are really smart-like Brandenburg and Van Kleeck and Riddle and Letis-fill me with special dread. I’m glad for a merciful God and the blood of Christ.

[@therealkillerb7643]

@@markwardonwords Well said, son. Keep up the good work.

[@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever]

@46:40 PREACH

[@markwardonwords]

I thought he made an excellent and enduring point.

[@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever]

@@markwardonwords you men have really given me a lot to think about. @46:40 is one of the most profound points I’ve ever heard from anybody (from Peter Ruckman to James White) in this entire debate. In the camp I’m from we certainly have the mindset of “perfect Bible” = “very near perfect doctrine” “absolute Bible” = “absolute interpretation” therefore anyone that disagrees with our near perfect doctrine that Dr. Ruckman taught is second-class, a poor & shallow Bible student or a Laodicean apostate. If you fellowship and tolerate such brothers you’re a compromiser. This is just hyper-fundamentalism and its divisive and it’s sinful. I’m starting to see this alone is sinful and that I need far more humility on these matters.

[@BrentRiggsPoland]

What is the difference in your mind between "the TR" and "the Greek manuscripts", i.e. "You have to show me from the Greek manuscripts why the TR is ok" - around 1.06 mark.

[@markwardonwords]

The TR is a printed edition of the Greek New Testament (actually, a set of printed editions with generally small variations). The manuscripts are just that: handwritten copies. Does that make sense?

[@BrentRiggsPoland]

@@markwardonwords Yes, thank you, Mark. So, all the handwritten Greek manuscripts take precedent over a compiled printed edition of Greek manuscripts (see quote above)? Is that correct?

[@markwardonwords]

@@BrentRiggsPoland It’s too complicated for a comment. I’d really just refer you to the resources we mentioned!

[@BrentRiggsPoland]

@@markwardonwords Thank you.

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

FWIW, the Textus Receptus didn't exist before 1894. The KJV was produced in 1611.

[@clarkcoleman8143]

In keeping with the spirit of Gail Riplinger, here is my analysis of the Textus Receptus at Revelation 1:8. The reason that Erasmus omitted "theos," so that "Lord God" became simply "Lord," must be that he was some sort of modern Gnostic who denies that Lord and God refer to the same being. He must have believed that "Lord" referred to a demiurge who was created by "God" and thus omitted the Greek word in order to corrupt the scriptures theologically and lead us all into damnation. Why he continued to include so many other instances of "Lord God" elsewhere is a mystery I will have to investigate further. In case it is not obvious, all of the above is sarcasm. If you have been unfortunate enough to have been exposed to Gail Riplinger, you will understand it.

[@markwardonwords]

Right! Her style of maximally suspicious, conspiracy-theory-laden analysis is only ever pointed at her enemies, not at the KJV itself.

[@clarkcoleman8143]

@@markwardonwords She might want to get familiar with the Golden Rule. Who among us wants others to make negative speculations about our motives?

[@rfranzq]

Enjoyed your Textual Confidence videos. Unfortunately you mentioned the Complutensian Polyglot but then got sidetracked and really said nothing about it with relation to the TR [except that Schrivener mentioned it for some KJV readings]. I have a feeling you will not really be mentioning and dealing with the biggest lacuna [to me] in the whole KJV debate: The Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. I hope somewhere at sometime you will talk about textual confidence with relation to it and how the translators handled it. And how modern hyper-proponents of the KJV deal with it. I have high confidence in the MT. But recognize that Ketib/Qere readings are the Masoretes doing textual criticism. The DSS and LXX provide more data. And a mention of Apocrypha might be a small addition. What did the translators think of it. And how modern hyper-proponents of the KJV deal with it. Thanks again. I did not grow up in these circles and NASB and Living Bible were quickly grasped in the 1960s in Southern California. Forgive me for lack of brevity.

[@davidguerrero25]

I agree. I would love to hear at least 10 minutes on the OT text and the KJV. What are the issues with the OT that are important to this discussion?

[@brotherarn]

The basic problems of Calvinism is that they believe that they have everything nailed down. It seems to me they are open to the possibility that they believe something that isn't true. Why is it that a they are convinced that everything that they they believe has to be true? Do they think that their doctrines are perfect and without errors? 🤔

[@markwardonwords]

Proud Calvinists shouldn’t exist!

[@michealferrell1677]

A proud Calvinist is an oxymoron

[@Hospody-Pomylui]

Love you Arnold! I enjoy your posts on EB. I don't understand where you're coming from on this comment. Is it related to to the TR? Many Calvinist use critical text bibles (actually all of them I personally know). I think the doctrines of grace properly understood produce humility. I think there are proud Arminians, proud Lutherans, proud Calvinists, proud Orthodox, etc. But what we all agree on is "Therefore, since no man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open to all men. Neither is there any other thing which keeps us back from entering in except our own unbelief." -John Calvin

[@brotherarn]

@@Hospody-Pomylui I understand the doctrines of grace as explained by Calvinist. After 4 years of study it seems to me these teachers are promoting a false gospel. I started my studies with James White. For many years I've admire and respected him as a teacher and especially as a speaker of the Bible.

[@Hospody-Pomylui]

@@brotherarn okay, man. I understand. I get my feathers riled up by Arminians sometimes, so I know where you're coming from. I do think God is sovereign in all things. That all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory and therefore are under condemnation, having the fearful expectation of the wrath of God, but that that the wrath of God was appeased by the sacrifice of Christ and that the perfect life of Christ appeased the holiness of God. That we may have our sins cast upon Jesus and therefore be free from the hold of the sin nature and that we may have the righteousness of Jesus accredited to us and therefore be made children of God (adopted) and no longer be under condemnation but rather the joyful expectation of eternal life in a glorified body in the presence of God and all his saints in sinless communion (so much better than hell!) And that this forgiveness and imputed righteousness is ours if we put our faith in Christ Jesus. That this true saving faith is demonstrated by those that have been born again by the Spirit of God. Do you think that is a false gospel? It's what I preach.

[@GabriellaBalagna]

I think your argument really missed the mark here. I've never heard King James supporters being against textual criticism or denying that the King James used it. They are against MODERN text critics because of a disagreement in the source texts. With love in Christ, God bless.

[@markwardonwords]

There definitely are KJV defenders who talk as you describe them doing. But I have also most definitely heard many of them say that textual criticism is itself evil. A prominent example is Del Johnson, then of PCC, in a prominent series of KJV-Only videos from 25 years ago. Ask the average KJV-Onlyist if the KJV translators did textual criticism, and I think they’d say no. Can’t back that up with survey data, just experience.

[@scottwtrentjr4012]

THIS is a late comment, as I just watched this session, along with session #1.... MY QUESTION IS why are these fellows and Mark in certainty.... such CRITICAL TEXT ONLYIST??? HOW can they, any of them, TRUST the Greek N. T. Bible text that was produced by Wescott & Hort..... THEIR Greek N.T. can NOT be BETTER then what ERASMUS did....!!! NO WAY, and if any of them want to overlook the history of those two men, what they stood for and tried to do..... THEN I would say that NO ONE TODAY could believe or accept any view that THEY are discussing...... OH, in the way of revisions.... why / what makes the 28th. edition of Nestle-Aland Greek N. T.?? NONE of these CRITICAL TEXT ONLYIST will answer this question..... WHY?? What are THEY afraid of???

[@inthedark334]

Quit going into the so-called Church fathers these guys were not christians. If you study their Doctrine and compared to the Apostle Paul they had already turned away from Paul's writings from the gospel. This is why the historical count can't be trusted you have to go with the biblical count according to what the Bible says.

[@Seaileanu]

This podcast episode titled "Erasmus and King James: The Real Story" challenges the textual absolutist perspective, particularly the belief that the King James Version (KJV) is a perfect and unchanged transmission of the original biblical text. The speakers, engaging in a nuanced discussion about the history of biblical translation, highlight the textual criticism inherent in creating both the Textus Receptus (TR) and the KJV. They emphasize that Erasmus, a key figure in producing the TR, did not aim for a perfect Greek text and even disagreed with some readings he included. The podcast further underscores that the KJV translators themselves acknowledged textual uncertainties, as evidenced by their marginal notes and documented deliberations. This discussion challenges the notion that textual criticism is a modern invention and emphasizes the importance of humility and ongoing scholarship in understanding scripture.

[@markwardonwords]

An excellent AI summary!

[@Seaileanu]

Briefing Doc: The Textual Confidence Collective on the Textus Receptus and the King James Version Main Themes: I. The Textus Receptus (TR) is not a perfectly preserved text, but rather a product of ongoing textual criticism and revision by editors like Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza. II. The King James Version (KJV) translators were themselves textual critics, relying on various TR editions and making their own decisions about readings. III. Textual absolutism, which claims a single, perfectly preserved text form, is historically untenable and ultimately undermines biblical authority by equating it with textual certainty. IV. The emphasis should be on textual confidence, acknowledging uncertainties inherent in textual transmission while affirming the overall reliability of the biblical text. Important Ideas/Facts: Erasmus: 1. His primary goal was to produce a revised Latin Vulgate, with the Greek text serving as a supporting element. 2. He acknowledged textual variations and made editorial decisions, sometimes prioritizing the Latin Vulgate over Greek manuscripts. 3. He did not believe in a perfect text, recognizing the ongoing need for textual work. Stephanus and Beza: 1. They continued Erasmus's legacy, revising the text while exhibiting a conservative approach. 2. Their editions incorporated readings from the Latin Vulgate that were not present in Byzantine manuscripts. 3. Like Erasmus, they engaged in textual criticism and acknowledged textual uncertainties in their annotations. King James Version Translators: 1. They used various TR editions, demonstrating their engagement with existing textual criticism. 2. They made their own textual decisions, as evidenced by their marginal notes and the final KJV text not adhering strictly to any single TR edition. 3. Their preface, particularly Miles Smith's section on "differences of readings," acknowledges uncertainties in both translation and textual transmission. Scrivener: 1. His Greek New Testament, often mistaken as the standard TR by KJV-only proponents, reflects the textual decisions of the KJV translators. 2. He was not a textual absolutist, employing similar canons of textual criticism as Westcott and Hort while holding different views on specific manuscripts. 3. His work demonstrates the ongoing nature of textual criticism and the impossibility of reconstructing a single, definitive TR edition. Key Quotes: Erasmus: On revising the Latin Vulgate: "In the first edition I made changes sparingly… afterwards I… made more quickly changes… that all the language of the New Testament might be straightforward, but still truly Latin with the exception of some words and expressions that are too widely received to admit of change." On the importance of ongoing textual work: "Sad indeed is the plight of sacred scripture if its authority depends on uneducated scribes… or drunken printers." Samuel Ward (KJV Translator): "When a Hebrew or Greek word admits two meanings of a suitable kind, the one was to be expressed in the text, the other in the margin… the same to be done where a different reading was found in good copies." Miles Smith (KJV Preface): "Now in such a case doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that preemptory… they that are wise had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings than to be captivated to one when it may be the other." Conclusion: The historical evidence clearly demonstrates that the TR and KJV are not products of a "two streams" theory of perfect preservation, but rather milestones in the ongoing process of textual criticism. Textual absolutism, therefore, is a modern construct with no historical basis. The Textual Confidence Collective advocates for a more nuanced approach, embracing the complexities of textual transmission while affirming the overall reliability and authority of Scripture.