Formatting the Word of God with Dan Wallace

#textualcritisim, #earlychristianmanuscripts, #christianmanuscripts, #danwallace, #laniertheologicallibrary
Christians have never been able to read the Bible without interpretive influences already in place. Professor Wallace will trace these “helps” for readers through the centuries and talk about some key events-the development of the codex and its relation to the canon, columns and public reading, the use of color, Eusebian canons, and other features.
Dr. Wallace will take his survey through to the modern Bible formats in our print editions and discuss the benefits and detriments of Stephanus’s versification-especially on the King James Bible and New American Standard.
Dan Wallace is the Executive Director of The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts and Senior Research Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary.
To see an Interview with Dan Wallace, Tommy Wasserman and David Capes, on this topic, here is the link, • Special Event - Conver...
To listen to a podcast with Dan Wallace and David Capes click this link. www.laniertheo...
Lanier Theological Library- www.laniertheo...
The Stone Chapel Podcast- www.laniertheo...
Biblical Literacy- biblical-liter...
/ laniertheologicallibrary
/ laniertheologicallibrary

[@keithsurland5856]

As a fluent reader of New Testament Greek, I owe so much to Dr Wallace. I read his grammar cover to cover 11 times of the years and wore out one edition. I hope people understand how blessed we are to have such knowledge at hand.

[@loratreskin9442]

Братья, это было великолепно! Огромное удовольствие слушать вас. Такие нужные и полезные размышления. Много нового открываю для себя.

[@AJBernard]

May God richly bless Dr. Wallace. thank you!

[@Yesica1993]

I'm only 33 minutes in. But wow, I missed my calling in life. This is book/Bible geekery on a level I've never seen! Incredible! How I wish I could be a part of it.

[@rasmith_99]

Just a priceless man of God. And his work.

[@rosslewchuk9286]

Great stuff here! I especially appreciate Dr. Wallace's treatment of the nomina sacra/divina, and most notably his comments about the early believers regarding the deity of Christ 54:25 Thank you so much for this lecture!😊👍🙏📖

[@josephthomas2226]

I never get tired of listening to Dan. I've never given a lot of thought to how they determined book order. Brilliant. One correction though. Constantine did legalize Christianity, but it did not become the state religion until 380. The edict.of Thessaloniki under emperor theodocius.

[@frjosemaria]

Another fantastic lecture by Dr. Wallace. Thank you so much!

[@Erik_Danley]

First and second Hebrews! Ha, wow that is fascinating to me. What I would love to know if both scribes wrote out them out exactly same

[@emiljohann88]

Amen

[@gussetma1945]

Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion. That was Theodosius.

[@Subliminal8853]

45:20

[@jw2442]

Somebody who was involved in numbering those leaves probably had a long night nippin' on a bottle of Sweet Red Blend.

[@LeGalileen]

A non colonialism related individual (Eastern Europe) will see the word slave differently. Presenting the word slave as a common practice in the past, Someone, whose parents/society/race practiced. slavery by 1501 AD up, stays with a feeling of embarrassment deep inside as an immoral practice: doing to others what you, your family, your relatives, your friend would ever endure. So the use of the term slave to ease that. embarrassing helps. But, after all, the immoral blame it carries with it won't go away as long there are people who are thinking. If the Greek word would convey the word dulis as slave or bound servant, the most common word to describe this in servitude, either by choice for a better life/protection or as fir a debt, us SERVUS. From servus, we have serve, servant: by choice or for a debt not able to pay (2 Kings 4). And, if it still used as slave, the way that individual will become e slave/servant will never be viewed the same way. eaves of the 1501 up by Western Europe is different. First, the Hebrews, the Romans did not have a new world where to dig for gold, to plant sugarcane, etc. And to find those guys/slaves, you have to encourage wars between themselves, any of them captured would be sold. That's why that captured had on his mind to fight or revenge of that evil act. The servants or dulis/slaves of the Hebrews, of To e are never as dangerous as those brought in the New World. That's why the slaves general uprising in 1791 in Saint Domingue// Haiti was so brutal. Apostle has become a servant: by love not by fear of a gun..

[@Anton37-wc9sh]

"Word of God" wow 100% scientific definition

[@vahppus9958]

Dear Daniel Wallace. I note that you argue that Gods name is Jahve, and that you (51:43 -49) say that «…so Jehovah’s witness don’t really exist because there is no one known as Jehovah.» After having heard some of the lectures of Nehemia Gordon - a hebrew professor who strongly agues and explains that Gods name is and is to be pronounced «Jehovah», I came to think that it would be interesting to listen to a discussion between you and him. I assume that since you have a strong opinion that «Jehovah» is wrong, you surely must have some arguments that you think could teach this hebrew professor something as important as this? In case you also think so, I guess we both look forward to that discussion. Also he seems like a nice guy, so how could it hurt to ask - both of you being honest, brave hearted, humble truth seekers, I am sure. But in case you don’t really feel that you are able to argue against Nehemiah Gordon on this topic, I guess you won’t. If wanting to have a head start, take a look at «Nehemia´s wall» (Yehovah Research) where he have several talks about Gods name, Jehovah - according him. I thought slipped my mind. I came to think about Saul, later known as Paul. First he was an enemy of the christians, but in his defense, he was always an honest man. When he changed his way of looking at realities, he still kept on being honest. Based on this. Just a thought experiment, but imagine just for a second that Jehovah’s Witnesses have found the Truth, that they in fact are the true Christians. - Would you then want to be one of Jehovah’s witnesses? - Another ting. In another KZbin discussion I note that you argue that Jehovah’s Witnesses are wrong about the doctrine of trinity. At «Special Event - Conversation with Bill Mounce and Dan Wallace: Mark Lanier, 04/24/22 (at 34:52), you mention that «Jehovah´s witnesses get this wrong because they take something that somebody after three or four weeks of Greek would get right.» If I understand you correct, you here assume or might even claim that Jehovah’s Witnesses must have less than three or four weeks of Greek. Further, I guess that all those during history who have translated the Bible in the same untrinitarian way as they do, in you opinion must be in the same category. That those who don’t agree are not taught by the theologians. Just a thought, on general basis. If knowing a language by heart results in understanding things right, how come the theologians of that time, the Pharisees on the one side, and the theological school uneducated first Christians on the other side had different view on the Scriptures? I guess that the Pharisees problem was not that they did not know their mother tongue well enough. - Agree? From what you say during the discussion, I get the impression that you claim that the doctrine of the trinity is a Biblical teaching - and that you insist that the Bible must be translated according that view. As I see it, what comes first - step one should be to prove that a view, the doctrine of the trinity in this case - is a biblical teaching. As I see it, it would seems illogical to take step two before step one - and then «forget» to do step one. If to translate according an unproven idea, and then «prove» this idea by pointing to what is translated according this unproven idea, people will easily think that the Bible teach what such a translator thinks it should be, not knowing that step one never happened. During several years, I have been speaking to a number of people that say they believe in the doctrine of trinity, and asked them if they please can show step by step - sentence by sentence - how «the Athanasian Creed»- aka «the doctrine of the trinity» is based on the Bible. Chapter and verse. So far, nobody have been willing (n)or able. Therefore a challenge to you, and/or others who feel able and who have blood suger above knee level: Show step by step - sentence by sentence how «the Athanasian Creed»- aka «the doctrine of the trinity» is based on the Bible. Chapter and verse, if you please. - - In advance thank you very much :)

[@137chuckm]

I would think many people overtime of trade show and convince you that the Logos is God the Holy Spirit God and the Father is God. Is there a chance you don't want to be convinced? Because there's an old saying a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still

[@vahppus9958]

@@137chuckm I get the impression that you have an opinion of something biblical, but until you describe what and why, it’s hard to say anything about it. There’s an old saying that a thought that is vaguely expressed is vaguely thought.

[@137chuckm]

Oh not at all vague. I think you may be proving my point

[@vahppus9958]

@@137chuckm If you transform the thought you see clearly in your mind, to an understandable way of describing it, by using words that describes your inner picture so others than yourself can be aware of the idea your have in your mind, I would be able to know what you are thinking about. - Feel free to try :)

[@137chuckm]

I don't see why you don't understand what I said. I mean you could clearly tell us if others have tried to show you that the Logos is God, the Holy Spirit is God and the Father is God. It's really not complicated is it?

[@allenbrininstool7558]

I will ignore the traditions and false doctrines of the Catholic church

[@marycrawford3460]

then you are very ignorant

[@NeedAVacay-y5u]

​@@marycrawford3460 Can you explain? I really do not know why Catholics believe what they believe.

[@truthgiver8286]

Formatting the word of god ? does this mean changing the bible so it does not contradict itself anymore. You would have to change a lot as there are so many mistakes.

[@vahppus9958]

Would you be kind to mention some of the biblical mistakes and contradictions you are thinking about?

[@truthgiver8286]

@@vahppus9958 Matthew 2:1-3 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi[ a] from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him." Luke 2:1-2 In those days, Caesar Augustus made a law. It required that a list be made of everyone in the whole Roman world. It was the first time a list was made of the people while Quirinius was governor of Syria. Quirinius was not governor until 10 years after Herod’s death Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Luke 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

[@truthgiver8286]

It seems you're ignoring my reply but that often happens when people don't have an answer they pretend it never happened 😁

[@vahppus9958]

@@truthgiver8286 What reply, where and when? I never got the impression that your question «Formatting the word of God? does this mean to changing the bible so it does not contradict itself anymore. You would have to change a lot as there are so many mistakes» was to me, but directed to Daniel Wallace. After all, you are reffering to the title of the video and not to what I said and requested in my comment. Based on your question I asked you if you would be kind to give some examples on contradictions and mistakes you had in mind. I note that you do not give any examples. Therefore I get the feeling that your claim about biblical contradictions and mistakes are not based on anything worth mentioning.

[@truthgiver8286]

@@vahppus9958 You note that I did not give any examples ??? Do you suffer from bible blindness where you just can't see the mistakes I gave you 2 on the birth of Jesus and 3 for his last words. It is the comment directly after yours asking for examples.