The WES HUFF debate was a REALITY CHECK for the Text Critical Discussion.

[@WilliamCovington-v6q]

I watched most of the Billy, Wesley debate and couldn’t finish it because of the moderator. I believe you’re correct. This is important for him to get out there and the textual critic is less important

[@iamjakebryant]

So good brother!

[@thefellowheirs]

I noticed when you picked up the empty mug, and then you cracked me up just takin a sip for show. Hahaha thanks man looking forward to this video!

[@kathymarie9933]

A video i heard Wes speaking in regards to the KJV was he has used the KJV and liked the language but he would not recommend it to someone new because of the Elizabethan language. So he really is not a hater of the KJV he is just not a KJV only guy.

[@alphonsofrett2757]

Can someone please explain the problem because I don't understand the problem however I would like to understand

[@kainech]

This is a good series of points. If someone isn't in, then this kind of thing is angels on the head of a pin thing. Even the Masoretic vs Septuagint is like that. I have a new catechuman I was asked to catechize, because she had no experience in Christianity at all. Her boyfriend asked, "Does she need to learn about the Septuagint?" "No. This is all new. The core message between them is the same. It would hurt her till she's grounded. We really do drive people off by focusing on stuff like variant readings to people who have no belief at all.

[@victoryak86]

Effectively the CT people are saying that the church did not have the “best manuscripts” until the 19th century. This alone is problematic to say the least. So in the spiritually strongest centuries in the church in terms of development of theology, gospel proclamation, etc, they are claiming that they did NOT have the best or most accurate manuscripts. And then in the 19th century, when the church is much weaker, battling w liberalism etc,we find the “best manuscripts.” From this all the cumulative confusion is added to the mix with the very foundations of Scripture being attacked and undermined. Simply put, God is NOT the author of confusion but we know who is. Why would God inspire His Word and then effectively not allow it to be preserved. All of this is to say the MT must be the safer and more reliable group from which the translations must be mined.

[@AndrewHodgeson]

This is exactly my argument. Well said.

[@victoryak86]

Has anyone done a good discussion about Westcott and Hort? I’m trying to avoid getting into the KJV only ish, but there are definitely concerns about those men and some of their “presuppositions.” The thing is if the church is to rely on those who are closely involved w determining the best, most accurate manuscripts underlying our translations, those “experts” must also be unconditionally committed to the authority and inspiration of Scripture. I know that W. and H. lived a long time ago but much of their work and thinking still effect biblical scholarship to this day. To me there is definitely an”elephant in the room,” when it comes to the integrity and commitments of those men.

[@akilahcopeland559]

It sounded like you said Rogan had 'Whaddo You Meme?' on, but I think you're thinking of Terrance Howard. He's friends with Billy Carson and has been on Rogan promoting the occult practice of Theosophical Mathematics. Although, he claims it to be something he invented lol.

[@Beefcake1982]

I don’t understand why we don’t have a good majority text Bible translation. We have so many translations and nobody cared to represent the majority text? The NKJV is the best we have because of the notes. Come on translators!

[@chrisa4583]

I’m going to say it…update the NKJV to the MT, move the TR to the notes!!

[@Beefcake1982]

@ I would love that!

[@AndrewHodgeson]

@@chrisa4583I could get behind this idea.

[@RevRMBWest]

Mark 16: 9-20 is (1) canonical scripture by choice of the early Church, the second century Church at the very least, likely because it is (2) inspired Scripture written by Mark. Some, not all, textual critics may query no (2) on the ground that only two manuscripts of the 4th century do not have it, but they cannot query (1) as a question of fact as that is embedded strongly in the history of the Church. And (1) is good evidence for (2); but I agree: this is an in-house discussion.

[@ancalagonyt]

Whether it's inspired or not, it wasn't written by Mark. You can see this for yourself by looking at the Greek text, even if you don't know Greek. All you have to be able to do is recognize the words kai and de, and the Greek letter equivalents match their shapes in English. The distribution of these words is markedly different between Mark 16:1-8 and Mark 16:9-20. Since everything in the long ending is orthodox, as long as you avoid misinterpreting the bits about drinking deadly poison and handling poisonous snakes, and nothing important from the long ending doesn't also occur in other parts of scripture, whether it's counted as inspired or not is relatively unimportant.

[@RevRMBWest]

@@ancalagonyt But the fact that you have made your input clearly implies and pre-supposes that it is important whether or not the ending of Mark is inspired and written by Mark. Moreover, you are also relying on mere internal evidence, which is highly subjective and somewhat relativistic. The case for the authenticity of Mark 16: 9-20 on internal grounds has been well made by others however - see John Burgon, 'The Last Twelve Verses of Mark" - Chapter 9. As for the outward evidence, the early Churches of the 2nd century, of both West and East, are clear about Mark's authorship and its inspiration. One must have very strong grounds, as a 21st century critic, to overturn that; and I would respectfully suggest that inward evidence is hardly sufficient to jump that hurdle, especially when it supports its Markan authorship and divine inspiration as deemed so by one of the best scholarly authorities on textual criticism.

[@ancalagonyt]

@@RevRMBWest The internal evidence in this case is not subjective at all, but totally objective. IIRC, there is only one word in that chapter which has a variant that could affect the analysis, and it doesn't affect it in a substantial way. It matters to some extent, otherwise neither of us would worry about it enough to have an internet debate on the topic, but there are many things that matter far more. I think you're conflating 2 things in a way that is not useful: inspiration and authorship by Mark. While apostolic authorship is important, it isn't the only question. Hebrews, for example, is by an unknown anonymous author, but that doesn't stop it from being canonical and inspired. You don't have to come to the conclusion that Mark wrote the long ending to come to the conclusion that it's inspired.

[@RevRMBWest]

@@ancalagonyt It is generally considered that inward or internal evidence is much less susceptible to objective evaluation and much more dependent on the subject who is evaluating it - his opinions, feelings, and prejudices; that is why all textual critics, of whatever school, wield it only as a back-up, or as a desperate measure to hold on to what they are too personally invested in. Dean John Burgon held that inward evidence was of this nature but also that it veered, decisively, towards both Mark's authorship of the passage and to its divine inspiration. I accept, of course, that, in principle, the two can be different; but not that in this case they in fact are. Your argument is based on the style of Mark's ending and that therefore he did not write it and that it is not inspired scripture. My counter-argument is that the style of Mark's ending matches the style of his opening of the gospel and in any case, it was accounted as canonical and inspired from the first: hence its predominance in the great tradition.

[@ancalagonyt]

@@RevRMBWest The internal evidence here is very much precise and objective. The inspiration of the passage is not at issue here. I have tried to demonstrate that if you are wrong in thinking it inspired it is not dangerous to you, and if I'm wrong in thinking it not inspired, it's not dangerous to me. I am instead focused on objective data. When you say the long ending matches the opening of the gospel, do you have a specific passage in mind?

[@Adrian_Mason]

What debate are we talking about?

[@Dwayne_Green]

It's the Wes Huff/Billy Carson debate.

[@Adrian_Mason]

@Dwayne_Green Thank You! Found it. I will watch that soon. I like Wes Huff.

[@helgeevensen856]

nice stream, Dwayne.... very good approach.... under those circumstances... and now i know: you are a bridge building diplomat.... 😄👍