Is What We Have Now What They Wrote Then? // Dr. Daniel Wallace

STAY CONNECTED⁣
⁣
Website: www.stonegate.church/⁣
Facebook: / stonegatechurch⁣
Instagram: / stonegatechurch⁣
Twitter: / stonegatechurch

[@user-py6oe6pl3n]

Thank you Sir! I believe you far better than Bart Ehrman who has no consistency but just putting negative skepticism to Christians

[@astralscholar659]

It's great to see Dr. Wallace healthy, out and about. Thank you for uploading this. God Bless

[@danielltorres5895]

was he sick?

[@astralscholar659]

@@danielltorres5895 Oh, not necessarily. I'm just glad he looked well because it's been a good while since I've seen him in yt.

[@TonyDenton]

I believe it was in God's plan to *NOT* allow man to have any original manuscripts. Why? Because man (and by that term I include women, "of course") is so predisposed to worshipping the creation/creature; that whole "shroud" thing decades ago is a good example.

[@user-yo2eg5hq1n]

And remember what Jesus warned us about in Matthew 24 that in the "end times" there would be great deception. Sad!

[@A_T_O_M_I_C_Rooster]

Awesome!

[@SalvatorPatriae]

Thank you DR Wallace

[@torahfoundation]

Great video. Todah rabah!

[@a.k.7840]

In case anyone was wondering... "If the original identification of the beast as Emperor Nero is correct, this would explain why some early manuscripts of the Book of Revelation have 616 instead of 666 as the number of the beast. The difference likely arose from spelling Nero’s name as it was pronounced in Latin instead of Hebrew. In its Latin pronunciation, the “nun” (which has a numerical value of 50) was dropped in seeking to help readers not to confuse the identity of the godless Roman emperor with someone else. Hence we get 616 in some later manuscripts rather than 666 in earlier (original) ones." - Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

[@abraao2213]

Can I hear postmillennialism is true? :D

[@godloves9163]

Nope. Because Nero doesn’t equate to any of these. Secondly just because a man’s name can calculate to 666 doesn’t prove anything. That’s being done today as well, it’s the other 24+ points that need to fit the antichrist as well than nero doesn’t fit. That proves this. You find 1 or 2 errors in a manuscript somewhere and folks now make that as truth?! Ridiculous what people do to scripture…

[@sahihchristian5799]

What a great ending...

[@makarov138]

Here's the thing for me on this KJV onlyest subject. I've spent hours and hours reading on the subject of how our English bibles came to exist. I was raised on the KJV, but graduated onward to the NKJV, and then, now, 50 years later, I use all my various translations in doing research on a particular Christian subject. I truly and most profoundly believe in the sovereignty of God, the Providence of God! God rules! I cannot express that more strongly. If the KJV is THE perfect word of God, and is truly superior to any other English bible then or now that is available; then why did God, in His infinite authority and wisdom, orchestrate the creation of this wonderful, safely-held cache of extremely ancient manuscripts for a thousand + years, of His holy scriptures that predate any Byzantine texts in existence we had, up to then, in a cave???? Are they not to be used by His children? Are they not to be used to show where previous errors were made in earlier translations? Or, are they to be relegated back to the cave where they rested for a full millennium and saying to God; “Never mind. We got this?” PREPOSTEROUS!!

[@7amadexplains477]

If you want to read the unaltered book of God, it exists today, exactly the same way it was day 1, not a single letter is different and all the data backs this up. It’s called the Quran.

[@makarov138]

@@7amadexplains477 The bible existed way before the Quran was even a thought in anyone's mind. Waste of my time!

[@7amadexplains477]

@@makarov138 based on this logic you should follow Judiasm as the Old Testament is way older than your newer book.

[@makarov138]

@@7amadexplains477 Ah, but the Christ came and replaced that reprobate generation with His own permanent never-ending Kingdom of God. "In times past God spoke to us by the prophets, but has in these last days spoken to us by His SON!" It is the Son who is to be worshiped because He is worthy. No other man is. Ever!

[@7amadexplains477]

@@makarov138 But the Son never asked people to worship him. He in fact asked people to worship the father and the father only. He used to pray to the father himself. It seems like you read the Bible but didn’t focus on what Jesus asked people but focused on what the priest was telling you 👀

[@kimjensen8207]

Is that a 50'ies white falcon Gretsch lefty next to Dan in the back...? Dan is just a blessing; few can teach Ehrman like a kid, lovingly, goes without saying, in their debates, and Dan's among them. Takes a tough, eloquent, intelligent type of guy to deal with Ehrman, as he, to some degree, shares these characteristics... Dan's just tougher

[@user-yo2eg5hq1n]

The Book Of Acts is still being written.

[@karl7796]

Well if it has taken 2000 odd years and we still don't not know what God has said exactly well we are in deep trouble.

[@godloves9163]

Lots of liars and scribe liars are here in the last days. False prophets.

[@rolandovelasquez135]

I believe that the earliest NT copyists were most likely excellent Jewish scribes. Just makes sense. Amongst the hundreds of thousands of Jewish converts in the first century there would have been hundreds of Jewish scribes. In fact, hundreds of scribes that had been copyists of the Jewish Old Testament. Naturally these precise individuals would have been employed by the early church as much as possible to insure the accurate transmission of their all important scriptures. They would have been amongst the best manuscript copyists that the world has ever produced, being that the Hebrews had developed an absolutely exquisite system for copying their Scriptures to insure, in principle, absolute accuracy. History has demonstrated the amazing effectiveness of their system. These early Jewish convert New Testament copyists would have been part of that system. In the second century said effect would have diminished due to the phenomenal spread of Christianity into the gentile world and the gradual disappearance of these first scribes. Nevertheless the quality of textual transmission in the first century would have been of the highest quality. Think about it. Just makes sense. Praise God forevermore, and his Son. Come Holy Spirit.

[@alanr745]

There's an awful lot of speculation in your assumptions. Just because it makes sense does not mean it is necessarily true. The OT recording and transmission was most likely handled by the scribes who were part of the School of the Prophets or of that line of orthodoxy in post-Babylonian exile/return. Essentially, based on a thorough reading of the OT, what we hold in our hands is a minority report, but is nevertheless the Jewish bible since it became the MT thanks to scribes who sought to standardize their bible, but had no control of what they were given to pass down through generations from those 1st and 2nd century Jesus-hating Rabbis. Nevertheless, Yahweh limited what they could change...and modern scholars know what they have changed. The NT was not copied by primarily Jewish scribes. Most Jews in the days of the gospels could not read and write in Hebrew or Greek, but might could in Aramaic. And after the Bar-Kokhba rebellion, the church went pretty much Gentile. I say all of this not to prove you wrong, but to encourage you to study church history going as far back as you can, and to not assume out of ignorance when you have full-access to that history. Dive in Bro! Dive in!

[@guymontag349]

Interesting discussion, but I have three questions: 1. How are we able to date ancient manuscripts, like P66, with such accuracy? 2. If the critical text variants from the oldest manuscripts are so small, and no doctrinal changes are observed, then why the disdain for the Textus Receptus? 3. What does Dr. Wallace have against Oklahoma?

[@SaintRegime]

1. Language trends are checked against manuscripts that refer to specific events, years of a Ruler's reign, etc. If you read a document saying "Vincent Price is a cool cat and an ace actor with all the dames" probably wasn't written up in the 1990s. It was probably written in the 1940s. This matters, because we can then test the materials it is written on, and the formula of chemicals that make the ink and match it to other records that help us place them on the historical timeline. The methods used to make paper and ink change drastically over time and region because of local resources. This doesn't cover all the arguments, and likely someone can point to an argument to invalidate what I'll say here, but it's just a quick sketch of the general pattern of inquiry. 2. Personal Responsibility: Once it's accepted that the eyewitness accounts are accurately preserved, they have to contend with dozens of people keeping to 'their story' even through torture and death. People aren't given to die for things they know are lies. That means they then need to go to the argument that the Apostles were "Well meaning, but wrong." But, there is no theory that holds water for how dozens of witnesses could all get events wrong the exact same way. J. Warner Wallace does a great teaching on this (cold case detective). 3. Not everyone likes Musicals from the 40s. And that's okay.

[@annalinvalero1608]

1. First: 'paper' type. Second: uppercase/lowercase. Third: more distinct variations that have comparisons to manuscripts with known dates. Fourth: carbon dating (extremely rare, extremely expensive and usually destroys a part of that manuscript) 1. (continued) some manuscripts have been dated by the scribe, and not necessarily those of just the new testament. handwriting is the same for a scribe whether they're copying the NT or other ancient texts. those manuscripts have specific word and handwriting variations that are unique within about a 50-150 year period (and this is actually true of the printing press too). for example, if you look at the original KJV or Shakespeare, or any other written documents in english of a few hundred years ago, they may use wording such as "thou" or "thee," also "sunne' for sun and many, many other unique variations to that time period. they would also have things like the 'long s' like this ſ that looks like an f more than anything. if another manuscript does not have a written date by the scribe, but has the same spellings, letter shape, (manuscripts can be easily sorted into milennia just basesd on whether they use only uppercase font (magiscule - used in the early manuscripts before about 800-1000 BC) or a lowercase font (miniscule, used afterward). other ways are based on whether it is papyrus (before 300 - ish) or parchment (after 300-ish to 1400-ish) and then finally paper (after 1400-ish) 2. the disdain for the Textus Receptus doesn't really exist that I see much. the issue is actually with how closely some people hold to the Textus Receptus while insulting the practical scientific scholarship involved in other translations that are not done by people of just one confession. another sore point i guess is the the NKJV used only the Textus Receptus, even after they had access to all of the other manuscripts. check out this video on dans view of different translations, he still says that the KJV is one of the top ones kzbin.info/www/bejne/kJu2c6GQiMZkpbM 3. he's a Dallas Theological Seminary graduate and professor, I assume there's some rivalry. he's done the same for arkansas

[@RaphaelLinsangan]

May I ask where did the statistic that the NIV has a billion copies sold and it is the most popular translation?

[@peteryoung4974]

Can someone help break down the percentages Spelling errors Word omission Word addition Word order Thx you for helping me

[@kensmith8152]

The reason I think that the King James Bible is the better biblical is because it’s the only one from the Textus Receptus and wasn’t savagely edited by Wescott and Hort

[@su-mu]

3:31 Ephesisans/Galatians Dated AD 250 - AD 200

[@TonyDenton]

And even those less than .10 percent passages (like Mark 9:29 that someone decided is to be included in that small percentage) depends upon interpretation, for I don't believe the verse has anything to do with what people, as yourself, call "exorcisms." And, as you said, just include what's spurious. By the way, it would've been nice had you taken the time to touch on interpolations: 1 John 5L7b-8a, Acts 8:36, etc.

[@CJFCarlsson]

What is at stake with the reading 616/666 is what was meant by the apostle. "Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six." For one thing there are some instances of divination in the bible such as urim and tummin and the use of gematria, that seem out of place with the teaching. It is not a ha-ha matter. Someone is saying something important or doing something counter to patterns we recognize and we do not understand, we laugh and look stupid instead.

[@user-yo2eg5hq1n]

Consider biblical prophecy alone and how extremely accurate it is. Most prophecy (including all the Kingdoms of man) has already taken place in amazing accuracy. We are near the end of all prophecy. This proves alone the bibles 100% accuracy alone.

[@monicadhaliwal1791]

Please Help me I Believe Jesus Is The Son of God and God The Son of The Holy Trinity I Believe Jesus Shed His Blood and Died in my place to Pay for All my Sins He Was Buried Then 3 Days Later Jesus Arose From The Dead!!! But I am struggling with some Sins that I honestly don’t know how to quit I hate my Sins But I genuinely don’t know how to stop them Am I still Saved because of my faith in Jesus or am I Not Saved because of my Sins? Thank You For All your Help and Time God Bless you

[@clydekimsey7503]

Salvation is by faith alone by christ alone

[@jamessheffield4173]

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?

[@snazzy176]

That great Oklahoman and humorist, Will Rogers, was well known for his quip that, "I never met a man I didn't like." Dr. Wallace could learn a thing or two from Will.

[@TCgirl]

Since the first thing they thought appropriate was to remove God’s Name and replaced it with the common title “Lord,” and then pretend this is some sort of accurate translation, never mind that names should ALWAYS be transliterated, I don’t hold out much hope any of them care very much about getting anything right.

[@ianmonk6211]

I wouldn't be proud to admit working on the NKJV it has 1200 verses removed or butchered The result is it takes away Jesus divinity

[@bryanhobson8277]

1200 verses removed from what? The KJV? Why is the KJV the standard and not the manuscripts?

[@godloves9163]

@@bryanhobson8277 And who changed the word? Who changed the word: kzbin.info/www/bejne/iKKldqiufL5qeqs

[@guywillson1549]

The comments were turned off on your Erasmus Part 2. So I add them here. Why do you Americans focus so much on Luther? Erasmus, okay but Luther was a leading reformer. I understand that he initially cut out Hebrews and James because he thought they had too much 'works' in them. In my view it was Tyndale who translated the NT and that flourished after he was martyred by the Romish church and Henry VIII ordered the Great Bible placed on every pulpit in England. That act alone brought the masses into the churches to see for themselves. In the 1700s the age of legalistic interpretation came to an end and after the Gospel was properly proclaimed in England (Great Awakening in the USA) Apart from Zinzendorf's outreach to the North american Indians , there were no great missionary out reaches from Germany. However, by the later 1700s missionary movements broke out in England and with arguably more than 50% of English people experiencing the new birth, the British empire flourished, slave trade was abolished and the Gospel and God's Word went worldwide. Luther certainly affected Germany and wherever Lutheran churches are found in N Europe, he was anti-Semitic as well. I fail to see how Lutheranism flourished around the world. The Catholics were furious that the LMS had entered the Pacific telling the recently restored Bourbons to the throne in France "the heretics are in the Pacific" It was only the arrival of 'queen Emma in East New Britain with her German husband that the Lutherans entered the Pacific at all. These factors must be born in mind. The same passion was alive among Americans also as they too embraced the missionary call. So English prevails in the world for this reason. Luther was a very important reformer as was Calvin and Arminius. For me though, Tyndale holds the prime place with Erasmus as founders of the 16th Century Reformation.

[@californiahighdesertpreach2261]

No!

[@user-os5mq1ns5c]

I think you are underplaying the change. In the old scripts the word "Young girl" is written as "Virgin". Thats a big change. Chapter 16 of Genesis talking about Hagar and Ismael doesnt even exist in the old Scrolls. So much has been made up.

[@tearren1]

@313 I think you are underplaying the change. In the old scripts the word "Young girl" is written as "Virgin". Thats a big change. This so called ‘change’ you are referring is from Isaiah 7. Have you read Isaiah 7? In Isaiah 7 God is speaking to Ahaz. God is telling Ahaz to ask of him (God) for a sign. God tells Ahaz the sign can be as great as in depth or in the height above. Ahaz defers and tells God he will not ask for a sign. God says to Ahaz and also addresses The House of David, he (God) will give you a sign anyway. The sign shall be a virgin will conceive and bear a son. The Old Testament, in the Septuagint, is the Greek version of the Hebrew bible translated by 2nd temple Jews (or Jews from that period). The word, that was translated by 2nd temple Jews into Greek in the Septuagint, was ‘virgin’. Which was translated from ‘young maiden’ or ‘young woman’ in the Hebrew. So the Jews, during that period, who made the translation from Hebrew into Greek understood this to be a prophecy about a ‘virgin’. Also in the time this prophecy was given a young unmarried woman was expected (or could have been assumed) to be a virgin. Now let us consider the rationale of it not being a ‘virgin’, but just a ‘young woman’ in the passages. That means God is saying he would give a great sign, and that sign would be that a young woman will give birth. Young woman give birth all the time everyday. How would it be a great sign, that God himself says he will give, be a young woman giving birth? If God exists, and if he can do miracles, do you really think a great sign he would give would be that a young woman will give birth?

[@hayfieldhermit9657]

You are demonstrating the issue of reading, Hebrew, translated into Greek, then translated into English. First, Alma (the word in question) is never used of a married woman in the Bible. Second, In the Greek translation of this, they used the word Parthenos, which is used much the same way in Greek, as the Hebrew word Alma was used in Hebrew, when used in the scripture. And third, I can't think of a word in English, that is only used of young women before they are married, that would never be used of a married women, that would convey the exact same meaning, unless it's translated in a very dynamic way, something like "A young, and unmarried woman, who could be of marrying age, and is expected to still be a virgin"...... And there goes the translation, instead for an explanation. Virgin fits the meaning just fine. It's a young unmarried woman. Exactly as the Hebrew says. There is literally nothing to see here, and no point to your point.

[@tearren1]

@@hayfieldhermit9657 Thank you for taking the time to provide that detailed explanation and information. I appreciate it, even if the original commenter doesn't. Thanks!

[@Bengtsson1742]

Holman Treasury of Key Bible Words states, "According to Matthew, Jesus was born of the “virgin” Mary (Matt. 1:23-25). Matthew quoted Isaiah 7:14 as showing that this “virgin,” or “young woman,” shall “conceive and bear a son… Immanuel.” This passage has been greatly debated, especially since the Revised Standard Version changed the King James Version of “virgin” to “young woman.” The term in the original Hebrew is ambiguous. The Hebrew word ‘almah refers generally to “a young girl who has passed puberty and thus is of marriageable age.” Another Hebrew word, bethulah, specifies “a woman who is a virgin” - that is, she has not had sexual intercourse. The Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) translators, nevertheless, translated ‘almah as Parthenos, which does denote a “virgin.” And Matthew used the word Parthenos when describing Mary" (Carpenter and Comfort, 2000, 413). As you can see from the above, the Hebrew term almah does not mean, in its most literal sense, “virgin.” It means “young woman.” Yet, with that, this ought not to make us worry that a key doctrine is at stake. Matthew, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, when quoting Isaiah 7:14, used the Greek term Parthenos, which does mean in the strictest sense “virgin.” This should not surprise us. Many Old Testament ideas were expounded upon by the apostles in the New Testament. The mystery in the Old was made clear in the New (Eph. 3:1-6; Col. 1:26; Rom. 16:25-27).

[@hayfieldhermit9657]

@@tearren1 No problem! Glad to help! Just wanted to say that Rebekah is a great example for this situation too! She's the first one called an "alma" in the Bible, and the servant calls her an alma and a virgin, and clearly demonstrates during his prayer to God, and his later explanation, that an alma, is a eligible young woman, who is expected to be a virgin. Point is, the servant makes obvious, that men who want to get married, go looking for an alma.... alma's are not married, and if they are having kids, they are prostitutes, or having illegitimate relations in which case the Bible tends to refer to such people in a way to let you know, like as Rahab for instance. And this doesn't even take into account situations where historically, young unmarried woman, were called virgins, as a generic term for unmarried young women!!! A perfect example is also in 1 Corinthians 7:34. I'm going to put the KJV and ESV side by side for depth of translation. There is difference also between a wife and a virgin.(PARTHENOS) The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. and his interests are divided.(PARTHENOS) And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. Notice how Paul immediately explains that Parthenos is the unmarried woman as opposed to a married woman? This proves that in their day, it was totally normal to use that word that means virgin, to simply refer to unmarried women!!! This is the wrong place for an atheist to pick, for a place to attack Christianity. This argument against Christians just shows that the person doesn't know what they're talking about.

[@noelj.aldo.5234]

The K. J. Bible is the only Bible that has a seal of a king. I don't like a Bible 2ho have many commentators. I wonder why the people from the reform are giving there commentary in the king James version. Unbelievable......

[@bryanhobson8277]

The KJV Bible having the seal of a king makes it "more" authoritative? Why? Isn't God above kings? Why would a human king give MORE authority to something that the king of kings spoke, assuming that it is in fact the word of God. If you have ever read the forward of the KJV translators, you would know that they never thought that the KJV would be the final and only acceptable translation of the text, they knew more data would come along later and scholars would update the Bible the way it has always been updated throughout time.

[@CJFCarlsson]

All bible scholars benefit from being bounced off a wall. Ehrman more than Wallace.

[@williammemecraig1357]

Well, the intro made me deaf and I couldn't hear the rest of it. Dislike.

[@TonyDenton]

Really? "Woman-hours"? Doesn't "man-hours" already include women? You aren't "woke," are ya? :(

[@undarkwin]

in theology, it is good to clarify too often people forget the role of women in theology