Here's why we should keep it!

In this video, we'll be reviewing the evidence for and against the inclusion of the passage from Matthew 18:11: For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost. Should we retain it like the Byzantine Text and the Textus Receptus do? Or should we remove it like the Critical Text does. Join me as we take a look at the details.
This video is a condensed and edited from of the 1.5 hour livestream that happened on June 19th, 2024.
#textualcriticism #byzantinetext
~~~ CONTENTS ~~~
0:00 Introduction
0:50 Lets not dismiss the issue at hand
1:56 English Bibles and Matthew 18:11
6:40 The NET Bible notes
10:00 The parellel passage in Luke 19
11:47 Which Greek texts have and dont have the passage
12:41 Metzgers Commentary of the Greek New Testament
15:10 Variations within Matthew 18:11
16:30 The earliest manuscript which contains the passage
17:10 Codex L and the marginal note
19:29 Codex K another 9th century manuscript
20:22 A Latin Greek interlinear manuscript
22:55 to seek and to save
23:53 Squashing Metzgers argument
25:13 Why these kinds of arguments are poor
27:05 Manuscripts that dont contain matthew 18:11
31:15 Family 1 and Family 13
32:15 Conclusion

[@jimmason5738]

It will all be made known in the judgement.

[@timmyholland8510]

If a version have the verses there and in bracelets, that's good. One could also get Papermate and white out the bracelets and white out the footnote, act they never was there.

[@cvanhaelst4189]

The argument that one author of scripture, or some scribe, copied (plagiarized) another's work would mean that they're writings are not inspired. But that is the general premise of modern textual criticism. Scripture is just ancient writings like all other ancient writings.

[@jpatpat9360]

Also check against the Septuagint - the Hebrew that was translated from was the one Jesus had in His day and which we no longer have. It is thought that the Masoretic OT we have was recompiled after the Jews went to Babylon. But I don't know about the NT but I do take note of the footnotes and references about the doubtful verses

[@patrickjames1492]

I like your argument in favour of Matthew 18:11. I find Metzger disappointing, often. Should 'to seek' be ζητῆσαι instead?

[@rodneyjackson6181]

With all respect, you can still read the verse in the footnotes. Matthew 18:11 NLT "And the Son of Man came to save those who are lost." Not missing and not disappeared.

[@johnrideout7124]

The "Widdows" scripture didn't disappear, it wasn't in the Greek text in the first place.! But the same "Deleted" scripture can be found at Mark 12v40, also at Luke 20v47. ! As mentioned before any deleted material always has an explanatory reason, in the N.W.T., If only you care to look for it, before making wild accusations..!

[@jamessheffield4173]

In To Cast the First Stone: Tommy Wasserman on page 186 say Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are of unknown provenance. Pax.

[@fnjesusfreak]

Skeptics, such as I believe are the majority of those behind the Nestle-Aland text, have a low value of the authority of Scripture, and are likely to favor the weirder or shorter readings, and lionize Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. I think a critical text developed only by actual believers would be much closer to the traditional text (possibly excepting the Comma Johanneum, since that's genuinely contested). Also, Alexandrinus (at least in the gospels) is inconvenient to their hypothesis.

[@AVKingJamesBible]

I want to share with everyone something that I have discovered a while ago during my journey with Christ. Let me first preface this by saying a few things..... This may sound a bit offensive to some at first. I hope not, but it might. I say that because I too took offense when someone first mentioned this to me. Please reserve judgment for a bit and let me explain. It has to do with Bible translations. When I first began my walk with Christ, I was perplexed with the MANY different translations. I eventually settled on the NASB. It is the translation that a very well known and respected Pastor that I follow uses at his church, and one that is supposed to be among the “most literal translations”. Sounded good enough for me, so thats what I began using as my “go-to”. I also chose to compliment that with a NIV study Bible and a NKJV study Bible...... Now..... Fast forward a bit. One day I came across someone in my travels, and the topic of Bible translations came up. I quickly discovered that he was a member of the “dreaded” “King James Only” group. I had never come across this group before, and it honestly seemed a bit cultish to me at first. He began to tell me how all the “modern translations” had been corrupted and altered, and that the ONLY pure and true English translation was the King James. My response to him was something along the lines of..... “That’s ridiculous! There are a lot of legitimate translations. Many of them just have updated language that make it easier for a modern reader to understand” He went on to explain how even my beloved NASB and NIV (and many others) had been corrupted by unscrupulous translators and so forth. He continued, and said that even the New King James has been altered, and has dangerously changed Gods Truth. Ok..... So now I’m thinking that this guy must be crazy....... But I thought about it for a while. I then purposed in my heart that I wanted, above all else, the TRUTH. If what he was saying to me was actually true, I wanted to know about it, and it was worth the time it took me to find out! I decided to do some research on this topic. The short answer to what I discovered is that he was, in fact, CORRECT! There is a lot of VERY compelling evidence that the modern translations are, in part, corrupt and HAVE BEEN altered in a way that absolutely DOES NOT honor God, specifically attacking the Deity of Jesus Christ, His sinless perfection, The Trinity, and many other critical areas of Christian doctrine. To quote Matthew 13:28 “an enemy hath done this” Now I’m not going to try to convince you of this. But I do want to DESPERATELY URGE you to diligently take the time to look into this. Don’t brush this off as I almost did! Purpose it in your heart to seek Gods truth in this matter, no matter where it takes you! I promise you, it WILL BE worth it! I STRONGLY urge you to get and read the book “51 Reasons Why The King James: A Path From Doubt To Faith” by David W. Daniels. Seriously, everyone needs to read this book!!! It’s only $4.99 for the Kindle version on Amazon! About $17 with shipping if you want the paperback. **Also, MUST READ “New Age Bible Versions: An Exhaustive Documentation of the Message, Men & Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the Antichrist's One World Religion “ by G. A. Riplinger. ** It WILL change your mind!!!!! These books offer TONS of COMPELLING evidence to the King James Only stance! I can now say, without reservation, I am unapologetically a member of the King James Only group. After seeing the evidence in favor of that position, I can’t in good conscience go back. I just can’t. At times, I literally felt sick to my stomach as I saw how some passages of the modern translations have been altered, and the implications that those changes have. In the same way that when I came to know Christ, I felt compelled to tell others about the gospel, I now feel absolutely compelled to share this information with my brothers and sisters in Christ. This is SO IMPORTANT because there is SO MUCH error in people’s theology and it is being perpetuated by CORRUPT translations. On a side note, I used to think the King James was difficult to read. It absolutely is not! It’s beautiful, and I have never felt closer to Jesus during my Bible time, then I do while reading from The King James! Kindly consider my words. I hope this reaches each of you well! It WILL change your mind!!!!!

[@ST52655]

💯

[@christianuniversalist]

I’m more of a CT guy than a Byzantine guy.

[@ST52655]

I advocate for the KJV, but very much appreciate your deep dives into the various Bible translations.

[@EricCouture315]

ECM includes Matthew 18:11

[@Pastor-Brettbyfaith]

ECM and the entire modern text team is beginning to claim Byzantine Priority. The Alexandian text is comprised of 9-12 manuscripts. The Byzantine text tips the scale. Get a KJV and a Strongs Concordance. You will be a scholar in no time.

[@kirbysmith4135]

​@Pastor-Brettbyfaith And Mark Ward's book on false friends so that you won't think you understand words that you really don't.

[@EricCouture315]

@@kirbysmith4135 and his book coming out teaching you HOW TO FIND the false friends on your own since his book barely scratches the surface.

[@kirbysmith4135]

@@EricCouture315 Thanks! I hadn't heard of that one.

[@Pastor-Brettbyfaith]

Modern text advocates trust Aleph & B; codex Sinaiaticus and Vaticanus. If it is not in those 2, it is automatically removed from the critical text. If it comes from the critical text, it basically can not be trusted. Sinaiaticus is not what you have been told. Just use a KJV, and your channel will change dramatically. The reason why I went back to the KJV is because I know that Modern Text criticism relies on Sinaiaticus. This is the greatest division the church has ever known. I am done with it. Modern Text Criticism is a mess!

[@jamessheffield4173]

If you followed recensions, text-types, process, and now CBGM AKA GIGO, just wait until 2030 for the complete ECM. Then from an ancient garbage dump in Upper Egypt we find a new scrap. Methinks, I'll just stick with the AV. Peace.

[@Pastor-Brettbyfaith]

@@jamessheffield4173 Amen!

[@christianuniversalist]

Why limit yourself to texts from, at earliest, 10th century codices? It’s time to give up the myth that the TR had some divine providential pure-line preservation.

[@christianuniversalist]

@DwayneGreen, do you delete posts? Because I posted one just a few hours ago and it’s not there any longer.

[@Dwayne_Green]

no sir. For some reason youtube chooses to not allow certain posts. I'm not sure why as there appears to be no rhyme or reason to it :(

[@christianuniversalist]

thanks

[@treybarnes5549]

putting the artifacts found in holes and dungeons and tombs has caused chao in the footnotes of these new age bibles. Really makes the scholars look like fools.

[@lloydcrooks712]

I have written a book on the weakness of modern textual criticism in fact highly James R Royce book on scribal habits in early new testament papryi which came to the conclusion that scribes where more likely to omit than add Juan hernandez came to the same conclusion with his book on codicies

[@BrianBeam-du4zn]

I'm KJV only but appreciate your content

[@christianuniversalist]

They’re not “modern versions”, they’re actually older versions that were translated relatively recently due to the “discovery” (hidden is also apt here) of many many more manuscripts and codices.