About the King James Version
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 май 2022
- In this video I ramble on, sometimes incoherently, about the background and influence of the King James Version of the Bible. You can find the two editions of the New Revised Standard Version that I recommend towards the end of the Bible at the following links:
www.amazon.com/Holy-Bible-con...
www.amazon.com/New-Oxford-Ann...
For those who might be interested, I also discuss the use of the King James Version within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as part of a review article on Thomas Wayment's translation of the New Testament for Latter-day Saints here:
scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/v...
You save me so much tuition, I love you brother. Keep sharing and shining 🌟.
You have addressed so many questions I have had over the years about how we came to have the Bibles we have. Since I speak a second language I could totally understand how some things may not be translated correctly! Thanks for this!
If God is perfect, why couldn’t he translate it perfectly? Christians say that he doesn’t make mistakes. In all honesty, I’m just wondering.
@@privatepilot4064The Bible may or may not be inspired by God, but it was written by man. It contains mistakes and contradictions. It just does. Sorry. See Bart Ehrman for fuller explanation of a New Testament scholar.
Why couldn't he translate the esv? Nasb?
4:14 "(William) Tyndall got into a lot of trouble.". He was convicted of heresy, strangled then burned. So yeah, quite a lot of trouble.
I really like your style of communicating about religion and academia I could probably listen to you talk for hours. Looking forward to longer content and deeper dives.
Excellent and well researched video. I have studied history and religion most of my life, but found and learned something new with this video. I very much appreciate that 😊
obsessed with your work, dan! keep up the excellent work!
Thank you so much for the valuable information, although an engineering major I have always been interested in learning as much about philosophy and religion as possible. Being Protestant I have spent many nights exploring The Catholic Faith as I find much of it fascinating. You have peaked my curiosity now to explore more biblical history.May God bless you for your work as a vessel for keeping this magnificent compilation we call The Bible grounded in form, as true to God's revelations as possible.❤
Beware the Romans (and unfortunately, the Orthodox, though for somewhat different reasons) my boy, they are shiny and attractive on the outside, and have many persuasive arguments for their organization, but when you look closely, they are not The Way. To be sure, many of the protestant churches have issues as well for a variety of things, but you are more likely to find the straight Gospel of salvation through them than any of the ones that have been buried in rigamarole, hocus pocus and fancy robes and ornate ceremony.
Think on what the first century Christian beliefs and worship was like, the closer you can get to that (aside from running and hiding for your life) the better of you will be. And, they might be bringing back the lions before long also -- things are starting to get sketchy again. 🙏✝️🙏
I ordered the new Oxford annotated on your recommendation. I love all your commentary
I appreciate the kind words, Jim, and I hope you enjoy the volume!
It’s a great Bible! Got mine on eBay for $6!
Hi Dan, I am an intern at BYU-I I am actually working on a digital project for the Special Collection here on campus on this topic. This video was super helpful for my research.
Glad to hear it! Let me know if there’s any other info about the KJV you’re trying to track down. I’ve got access to quit a bit.
@@maklelan @Dan McClellan Hi, how does one contact you to get information for a better understanding of certain Pauline passages? Thank you.
@Dan McClellan so a question? Am I misunderstanding overall what I've seen from some of your videos. The Bible has no meaning or authority. What is one to read then following faith.
@@mattterrell7890 the Bible has authority in so far as you believe it to. That’s all that he means from my understanding. Objectively, I think the best we can say about the Bible empirically is that it holds incredible value, significance and importance for many people around the globe. But inanimate objects do not have “authority,” in the sense that they compel obedience or can do anything. The Bible only has authority in so far as people wield it as such. The Bible is would have been lost to time if there were no body of believers (the Church) to take its contents seriously and pass it along. The Bible and the Church are inseparable. You can’t have one without the other. That’s all he is saying from what I understand.
@@mattterrell7890 If only there were apostles and prophets to guide us in these latter days. The prophets and apostles who wrote the Bible would probably disagree that the Bible "has no meaning". Revealed scriptures orients the reader to Jesus Christ, who created the earth and redeems mankind from sin, if they "Follow Him". While Christ gave authority to apostles and prophets to act in his name, "just" reading the Bible does not confer that same authority to another person.
When I was a child, one year for Christmas my parents gifted me a book called "The Space Shuttle's Operator Manual". While informative and interesting to study, the book did not confer upon me the title of "Astronaut". In that same way, God calls His representatives and mouthpieces here on earth. Not because one reads a book, but because someone has the authority to act in the name of God.
14:49 Very important part of the story of the KJB's rise to prominence is that it was illegal for the Geneva Bible to be either printed in or imported into England. It's not as if there wasn't demand for the Geneva Bible or that many didn't prefer it over the KJB: the fact that the KJB gains massive popularity when it's the only English Bible available isn't a point in its favor.
24:44 Always nice to be reminded that everyday things we take for granted -- like the omission of the Apocrypha in Protestant Bibles -- were decided for us by a company concerned with keeping its costs down.
I learned more about English Biblical translations & scholarship in your presentation than I have picked up in my entire life. I do think that meditation & practice are probably the most important aspects of religion (bringing to wholeness).
Translating bibles to fit the needs of powers that be
What a splendid overview! We have vastly differing religious.outlooks, but your scholarship, your honesty, and your deep understanding of the texts and histories are refreshing and informative.
I honestly don't know what his religious outlook is ;)
But if you really want to learn about something, it is useful to look at it from different angles.
He's a pretty obvious and well spoken atheist.
@@ErraticFaith He has mentioned LDS/Mormon stuff as his "co-religious" group. So I suspect he is a theist (though maybe fairly diestic) and probably at least raised in that tradition.
I wouldn't be surprised if he came from a theist or philosophical family background. Or had some form of interest. But he flies quite well in our community via Tiktok (China and international) and his arguments and topics - that some have posted on other channels (apologists) have been met immediately with [atheist] accusations. So I don't think it's just myself.
It's not a critique. I am Chinese with a few LDS friends who live in Shanghai. Of course you can imagine trying to teach American boneheads that we've got Christians and other faiths here is like hitting bricks. So I don't waste my time. We do however see the likes of Dan frequently as they graduate away from what they (likely) believed or were taught growing up - into discerning scholarship. He clearly sees traditional perspectives (Jewish) as the political junk it is. As well as prescribing the same to failing nations like the United States. Which is great, since American theology is something we'll all celebrate being gone (the beliefs and culture).
In the end, we are all just a work in progress. And he's clearly doing well to escape the Church and their desperate rewritten drivel.
@@ErraticFaithDo atheists normally speak like Neanderthals? 😅
I appreciate you going through this rundown for us.The Bishop’s Bible was “extensively revised” around 1572 based on what I can find. There were too many changes early, early on for us to know what was actually happening. I personally recommend doing research via Biblical historians. Many highly reputable, scholarly historians are available here on RUclips. Some go book by book.
Thank you for this information I am in the middle of my own research on the subject. I am rereading a book that I came across about 30 years ago called which Bible by David Otis Fuller. Unfortunately, it is out of print and it had to be ordered through eBay. I highly recommend the book. I have not come to a personal conclusion, even though I have taken the time to memorize multiple chapters from the king James version of the Bible. The Bible compels me to take action, and to serve God fervently. This month I will turn 71 years old, and I am more excited about studying the Bible and serving God than ever before, the Bible that I study is the king James version.
I am adding this comment. The great power of God’s word consumes me. I memorized Hebrews 11 so I could refer to each verse during the course of my work day. As I witness to a lost person I often quote 10 to 15 verses from the king James. I see the power of those verses shake their souls with Holy Spirit conviction. If God can create this universe and give us eternal life then he can also provide us with a copy of his precious Word, AKA The King James Version!
You can't go wrong with the KJV, there can be other good translations, but the KJV 1611 is a Great translation. The (very) few and minor points where it could be improved on do not detract from the Gospel and the message of salvation.
Jesus Christ is Lord 🙏✝️👑🙏
"I hope that has given you something to think about." 🤣 More like a BILLION things to think about! Excellent video and super helpful information, especially for someone such as myself who worships with a congregation that basically only uses the KJV. Ordering the New Oxford Annotated right now! Thank you!
I have my KJV that my parents gave when I was 6. The poetry, especially in Psalms and Song of Solomon, is extraordinarily beautiful. However, for reading, I use the Amplified version. It translates all the meanings of words from their original languages.
Thank you for the long form explanation, excellent as always.
Thank you for the recommendations.
This is the best explanation yet! Thank you.
My Grampa was a KJ Only pastor from the 20s through the 60s. He called the RSV the “Devised Version”! Great!
There are two main streams of manuscripts. Antioch and Alexandrian. Alexandrian comes out of Egypt and is corrupt. We know what the Bible tells us about Egypt. And this is where the new versions come from. The Antioch manuscripts (where they were first called Christians) are not corrupt and it is where the King James Bible and previous Bibles come from and are derived. Isn’t it strange that most of the new bibles have come on the scene in a little more than 100 years prior to the antichrist making his appearance? And the very first attack Satan made in Genesis was an attack on God’s Word? The more things change, the more they remain the same.
Most of those added verses, with perhaps one or two exceptions, are included either directly in the text within brackets, or in the marginal notes in most English Bible versions. Now, having said all that, while I am favorable towards the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society Greek New Testament, I would argue that you will discover if reading the KJV Bible that the main trust of the New Testament message being the Gospel is not missed at all to any degree. Far more important that we read and come to know the Bible than that we overly concern ourselves with which version we choose. Excellent review of the KJV history, much I was not aware of, thanks for your time and effort.
Thank you Dan for this Awesome and informative video!
Dan this is a thorough breakdown!!!
I really enjoyed the video. I prefer the NRSV myself but often end up using the ESV because of its popularity.
Thanks Dan I have heard so many arguments about the translations and this video was of great interest. I picked up the Oxford a while ago not realizing the value and so I now have to use it. I enjoy the Revised Standard as it was the bible I was introduced as a new christian in the 70s and still read it and also NRSV along with NKJV. This used to be a jumble to me but now not so much.
A great video and thank you for putting it together. My late mentor received his doctorate from Duke and then taught OT Theology there for many years. His preferred translation was the NRSV though when we studied together he generally had his own translation for the text which I wish I had a copy of today. For me, I generally use the NRSV for preaching on Sunday morning. I tend to prefer reading the RSV for my daily reading. I have been recording and uploading daily devotions to RUclips for several years and for those I have tended to use the RSV as well. For whatever reason I just like reading the RSV a bit better. Again, a great video!
So much great explanation here. I had never realized the NRSV was a revision of the KJV.
The NRSV was translated from Greek manuscripts, much better manuscripts than those used in the predecessor to the KJV
How about the Interlinear Hebrew and Greek bible? How is that for study and understanding? Thank you.
Explained it very well Thank you.
Great job explaining this. Thank you
Just a quick correction. Daniel Webster was not the Webster's Dictionary Webster. That was Noah Webster.
Websters 1828 dictionary was mandatory to be used in my school growing up. We used the "principle approach" and glorified puritans and founding fathers as great heros of the faith. Needless to say the headmasters son is now married to another man, the principal has two lesbian daughters who teach the demonic art of yoga and the list can go on and on like that.
Noah Webster, the guy who had the ark, filled with dictionaries.
@@curtisrobinson7962 yes. Two of every kind of common dictionary and 7 of each kind of clean dictionary to sacrifice to the gods of language arts
Would it not be filled with _synonyms,_ instead ... 🤔
He also did a light revision of the KJV in 1833. It was originally called The Common Version, but it's now known as the Webster Bible.
Nowadays, the KJV is neither straightforward to understand for the modern reader nor particularly faithful to what the original authors are thought to have written. It is however an important historical document which represents a milestone in both the development of our understanding of the Bible and of the English language.
What a fantastic summary of a very important subject! Thanks.
Every time you say textus receptus, I hear it in my head in the style of the choir from The Omen. Tex-toos! Recep-toos!
It definitely has given me something to think about. 😮❤🎉
You just undid 4 years of LDS seminary 🤣 Thanks for your content! I've been reading the New Oxford Annotated for 10 years now, very helpful for understanding the historical context of the Torah and New Testament.
If your seminary teacher was saying the KJV is somehow inspired in a way other versions and translations aren't, they were operating off the reservation.
...Though that's not surprising, whether in our denomination or others, people teach what they think, assuming it is the orthodox and even official position.
I'm confused by the statement didn't you only study The Bible For 2 years in submarine like I did? I'd loved Seminary... I don't remember coming away thinking that The Bible was perfec😊
Old law new law the same with the new great lake of fire is not going to help people believe in such torture that no man had ever commited such a crime to deserve.
@@TheFranchiseCA one: off the reservation is a racist term. Secondly, this was a common doctrine taught in the LDS church. It might no longer be a popular belief, but it was a wide belief none the less.
Excellent video. Thanks. The one characteristic I don't remember you mentioning is the deliberate use of outdated language such as "thou" and other constructions that made it sound "olden" even at the time it was written. Also, if you could again mention todays most accurate translation. Thanks again for your work.
Right, 'you' had already supplanted 'thou' as the preferred second person singular.
Well, yes and no. I'm from Yorkshire and, while it's much rarer these days, thee/thou was incredibly common among working class Sheffielders in the 80s when I lived there. So it lasted a lot lot longer than the early 17th C.
Excellent as always and an important subject
I still have my KJV from Bible class when I was 7 years old. I'm agnostic/atheist, but there's something about the poetry of the language that I still find beautiful.
Now that I'm older, I find the old testament fascinating just to dive into the thoughts of our ancestors.
@Eric Jones Please don't take offense, but if you don't have jewish ancestors, your statement seems appropriation to me. It seems to be a natural for Christians, however, I suggest you look at how Judaism views the Old Testament, esp the 1st 5 books or the Torah. Hopefully it will adapt your perspective.
WOW not only do we have misunderstand do to language changes we have problems with understanding Shakespeare's English differences with our modern American English.
@Janell Evans I have been looking into the jewish perspective, I also know there is some mistranslations. I find it really intriguing on how our ancestors thought. And no, I don't take offense and thanks for sharing.
You must love Shakespeare
Another example is Conversation. We think of it as being two or more people talking together, but back in 1611 Conversation meant lifestyle in general.
Just dropped The New Oxford Annotated Bible into my Amazon cart.
Very interesting video
Thank you.
Nothing about your ramblings were even remotely incoherent! This might be one of the most concise and accessible videos on the history of English Bible translations. Thank you!!
Really good example @19:30, thanks!
Awesome video! 🔥
Thanks! Where may I find trnscriptions of some of your youtube videos?
I am gratified for Mr. McClellan to mention the revisions to the King James Version. Too many supporters of the KJV tend to claim the work unchanged ever. Too many supporters of the KJV tend to assume that version is how the Bible was originally written in Jesus' time. Too many supporters think the English language of the KJV is unchanged in current meaning.
I would also like to see an essay or video by Mr. McClellan or someone similar explaining how and when the chapters and verse determinations were added. That each verse is a stand alone message. Like any literary work, the Bible must be read in context. In other words, a verse is commonly dependent (for meaning) on the verses leading up to that statement.
I disagree with Mr. McClellan's choice of 'best' Bible for normal use, preferring a later translation. However, it must be one translated by reasonable unbiased scholars, not those with a pre-determined viewpoint to prove.
As a hard nosed Christian believer of some seven decades, I like this review in the main.
Can you link any material I can read about the words that were altered? I’m referring to your example of congregation and church priest and elder. I’d like to learn more about those few other select words! Thanks for the great video!
There's a RUclips channel by Mark Ward that has videos on those and what he calls "false friends" (words whose meanings changed over time to be different than when the KJV was composed) that gives good information on that
This video is amazing for understanding the english bible translation history, tysm
I wonder if the KJV translators or Erasmus had access to the version of the Bible used in the Greek Orthodox church? Am I correct in assuming that the Vulgate was translation from the Greek Orthodox text?
What an amazing video!
Are the chapter and verse breakdowns of the Bible based on the Textus Receptcus, then?
It's always refreshing to see good, accurate, honest information. Thank you! By the way, how do you ever make it though a typical Sunday school lesson without going insane?
I second this observation and inquiry 😜
We've all been there
If you're going to "Sunday School" in 2023 then you might want to consider psychotherapy......or a lobotomy.
And I would say the same about the 800 million Hindus that worship Monkey Gods and Elephant Gods. Or the 1.4 Billion Muslims that believe in their particular superstitious nonsense.
I mean as I went to a Canadian small city Catholic Sunday School as in the Church basement and mainly it was arts & crafts and Veggie Tales. As somebody who is now an animation/illustration-focused artist with ASD and ADHD, that was preferable to the mass upstairs.
And surprisingly enough, the thing that got me even interested in Christianity again was in-fact Xenoblade, which too many passed off as anti-religious, when at worst it is critically against the idea of organizations positioned under religion dictating life in 2 (where their God is chill) and in 1 their God was just a Yaldabaoth archetype.
My question is dose these revisions effect salvation? Romans 1:16, 1 Cor 15:3-4 and Eph 1: 13-14. Please advise.
Excellent video. I use NRSV (Harper Collin’s Study Bible) for study and teaching. But as a lector (reader during church services) NRSV can read “flat” due to the translation principle that discourages the use of synonyms. One example: Is. 9:2 - reads: “The people who lived in darkness have seen a great light - those who lived in a land of deep darkness - …”. The choice to repeat “darkness” is accurate but flat. By contrast, The New American Bible” translation (Catholic) adopts the synonymous “… those who lived in a land of gloom, on them, a light has shined.” Easier to proclaim in a lively manner with no real loss of meaning or intent. The translating principle, articulated in the NAB first edition Introduction makes it clear that the translation was shaped to be used in worship. Some of their choices are excellent for that purpose.
Brilliant, thanks for the information.
Do any bible editions include the gnostic texts, such as Dead Sea Scrolls AND Nag Hammadi Library?
terrific video. thank you
I think you’re spot on Dan!
This is one of the best introductions/summaries about the KJV and where Textus Receptus came from. Even though I'm familiar with most of what you said it was a great summary. A lot to retain like the fact that the English Bible is in a lineage of translation from Tyndale on. The KJV was archaic on its arrival and yes it can put people off and have inaccuracies in places. Anyway its poetry is unrivalled but for study purposes something in the language we speak today.
The KJV is truly wonderful and I have long used it as my default Bible.
However, we should remember that it too is sometimes responsible for introducing poorly translated passages. In this respect it sometimes paraphrases ideas.
Dr Daniel Featley, was one of the original 1611 KJV Bible translators. But in 1642, during a debate with the very first Baptists*, Dr Featley** pointed out that knowledge of the original Bible languages is needed in order to prove doctrine whenever disputes are raised.
Moreover, Featley pointed out that the Baptist arguments in support of their doctrines were based upon the inaccurate and poorly worded and misleading English translation of John 3:5 and Matthew 20:19.
(*The respected Baptist historian Leon McBeth proves that no "Baptists" existed definitely until 1641. Prior to that, anabaptists certainly existed between 1525 to 1640 who DID NOT require dipping of those baptized. But it can be shown that the implementation of dipping as A REQUIREMENT was introduced not prior 1641.
**Dr Featley addressed this matter in both during his 1642 public debate with these new sects, and also in his subsequent translation and exposition notes, which he published in 1645).
It should further be noted that the KJV made use of the Textus Receptus, which was originally sourced from an edited version of the Greek text by Erasmus. Erasmus utilized the Byzantine text type which has been shown to be the New Testament providentially preserved and used by the church for the past 2000 years. However, there are some 6000 manuscripts which represent the Byzantine text type and Erasmus' Greek new Testament made use of only 5 MSS. This was problematic because by not having access to a larger sample of the Byzantine / Majority text, Erasmus introduced some unsupported variant readings (Such as Revelation 1:11).
Dean John William Burgon, was a defender of the TR in the sense that it does reflect the majority text. Nevertheless, in the 1880s he already acknowledged that the TR needed revision, to essentially reflect the majority readings found consistently in the larger part of the Byzantine text type, and this is correct reasoning.
Sadly, whilst we have a few excellent English translations today, none of these are based upon the Majority Byzantine text. And a new version based upon this is surely needed.
@@mathete9968 I very much am opposed to Textus Receptus. It contains the inauthentic longer ending to Mark.
How should additions be dealt with? I favour inserting a bar before and after and a footnote explaining the section is not contained in such and such MSS. An appendix can be added at the end of the Bible which goes into more detail for those who want it.
I do not favour taking John Ch8 out of its current place.
Obviously the footnote and appendix should be fairly neutral in their presentation as there are strong feelings about the additions. This does not apply to the Trinitarian reference in 1John which few maintain is valid. A footnote could just reference that older translations included .... and the reason it isn't retained.
@@cpnlsn88 The Textus Receptus is one thing. It represents a tiny sample and is somewhat eclectic.
But irrespective of the received text, what makes you think last 12 verses of Mark's Gospel are anything but authentic,
"The longer ending", as you call it?
I would like to hear the basis of your reasoning.
@@mathete9968 MSS evidence - it's not in Vaticanus or Sinaiticus and also its style and content.
@@cpnlsn88 "It's not in Vaticanus or Sinaiticus" - So what?
I didn't realise that we had built a golden calf out of these two highly edited and extremely corrupted MSS.
Or did I miss something here?
Since when do we deify any extant MSS?
The only reason that Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (א) are cited today is:
1) Because Westcott and Hort (WH) advanced these arbitrarily purely on the basis that they were very old uncials, allegedly from the fourth century. So what?
Marcion the gnostic heretic was more ancient than Athanasius.
Does greater antiquity BY ITSELF qualify anything or anyone for greater authenticity or orthodoxy?
I think not.
But consider this,
- The Apostle Paul predated BOTH codices B and א by around 300 years, right?
And The Apostle Paul was already complaining in HIS OWN DAY:
For we are not as MANY, WHICH
CORRUPT THE WORD OF GOD
(2 Corinthians 2:17)
So if the Word of God was being corrupted by whatever means available right under the noses of the Apostles, why on earth would anyone blindly and naively believe 2 Roman Catholic MSS purely because they allegedly appear in the 4th century?
What because WH said so? Or Kurt and Barbara Aland said so? Or because the UBS said so?
So why would we create an idol now of codices B and א ?
No rather, lets take the timely and appropriate warning,
Thus says the LORD:
Cursed be the man that trusts in man,
and makes flesh his arm
(Jeremiah 17:5)
Antiquity ALONE is not an argument.
Consider also these:
- Proverbs 30:6 predates codices B and א by around 1200 years and the inspired writer already warned of those who ADD to Scripture already back then. So why would we create an idol now of codices B and א ?
- Deuteronomy 18:20 was written around 1850 years before codices B and א and Moses under inspiration was warning about those who would corrupt the word of god then.
So why would we create an idol now of codices B and א ?
- Jeremiah 23:21-31 written 900 years before codices B and א, warning us that men would come and falsify the Bible,
So why would we create an idol now of codices B and א ?
The internal contradictions between codices B and א are greater than their own disagreement with the Byzantine majority text. So why would I go with them? Sinaiticus (א) has been so heavily corrected and rewritten by so many hands that it is of no value whatsoever.
But tell me, have you ever seen images of the place Mark 16:9-20 in either codices B and א ?
I have. And BOTH codices bear witness against themselves and speak of their own internal corruption here.
One of them, Vaticanus (B) has NO GAPS WHATSOVER throughout the entire Manuscript. But SUDDENDLY at Mark 16:9-20 it leaves a page BLANK, thus testifying to the fact that the scribe KNEW about the final verse but also that he deliberately left these out, He simply didn't want to upset the page order of the manuscript he was copying from which most definitely contained them.
The other one, Sinaiticus (א) is found to have tightly spaced letters throughout, preserving the valuable space in the pages. But not so at the closing verses of Mark chapter 16. Here codex א is found to SUDDENLY space out the letters very widely in order to make up for the new gap in the manuscript, in an effort to hide the deliberate omission of the verse 9-20.
And this fact that the redactors who wrote codices B and א KNEW about the EARLIER MSS which contained the complete chapter of Mark 16:1-20 should not surprise us. Why, the ancient Church Historian Eusebius, who was a contemporary of codices B and א documents this fact. Eusebius spoke about this as a well know problem already in his day. The early text corrupters had indeed attacked Mark 16:9-20 and Eusebius acknowledges that it was missing from several MSS. But also extant in others. AND Eusebius actually defends Mark 16:9-20 and argues for their authenticity and canonicity
(Burgon, J., 1871, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of Mark)
Indeed, some early redactors were eager to harmonise the Gospels. But in their inability to harmonise Mark 16:9-20 with Matthew 28:16-20 they took the easy way out and omitted the ending of Mark. But in fact they are both a summative part of a longer discourse. Moreover a careful study of Peter's preaching on the Day of Pentecost and particularly his instructions in Acts 2:38, 39 agree with the theology of both Mark 16:16 and Matthew 28:19. And Mark 16:17 agrees perfectly with the testimony of Hebrews 2:4.
But you talk about style and content? I read Greek and I work with Greek grammar.
So don't just say it. Testify SPECIFIC examples of "Style"and "Content" or contradictory grammar?
But really, you want to question Content?
Look at codices B and א in the beginning of Mark 1:2, 3
They didn't even realise that Mark is quoting TWO PROPHETS , Malachi AND Isaiah and they blundered terribly by saying that Isaiah wrote both prophecies:
Codices B and א write:
'As it is written in ISAIAH the prophet:
"Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who shall prepare your way,
the voice of one crying in the wilderness:
Prepare the way of the lord, make His paths straight" '
But the Byzantine text records accurately:
'As it is written in the prophets:
"Behold, I send my messenger before Your face, which shall prepare Your way before You."
"The voice of one crying in the wilderness,
Prepare you the way of the Lord, make his paths straight." '
So the "CONTENT" is already messed up at the start of Codices B and א from the very outset and it is completely messed up at the end of these two corrupt MSS also in verse 16:9-20. I would not trust them as far as I could throw them.
But really, "Style and content"?
How on earth can Mark be considered a Gospel with NO RESURECTION FROM THE DEAD ?!
IF CHRIST BE NOT RISEN ... YOUR FAITH IS ALSO VAIN
And IF CHRIST BE NOT RAISED ... YOU ARE YET IN YOUR SINS
(1 Corinthians 15:14, 17)
How on earth can Mark be considered a Gospel with NO ENDING?
No great commission ?
2) But the second reason for all this is the Modern seminaries controlled by Frankist / Masonic anti-Bible interests will only ever promote theology and textual criticism theories favourable to their agenda of the destruction of confidence in the Bible
(Kurz, R., 1991, Feminism and the Church, OMNI Publications, USA
Watch a Former "WH" trained Pastor expose this. he points out that you will NOIT be considered for academic teaching IF you go against the WH agenda at seminary, irrespective of the evidence.
ruclips.net/video/5-sncah18a4/видео.htmlfeature=shared
Love you on tik tok so happy to find you on YT!
An excellent video, Dan. Thank you. Like many, I grew up with the KJV and still enjoy reading from it occasionally, especially the Psalms. Although I enjoy many different modern translations (NLT in particular), I definitely favor the NKJV. Have you done any Bible reviews on the NRSV? Will you be doing a video on the new NRSVue when it becomes available later this year? I'm very interested in your thoughts on this update.
BTW... if that's you when you're rambling and incoherent, then you must be impressive indeed when you're focused and coherent!
So beautiful my favorite is Psalms 137:9
Psalms 137:9 is the cry of a painful heart to God. I’m sure you have had a troubled heart from time to time. You can speak to God freely. Even if what you are saying is abhorrent. Speak it to God and let him sooth your heart.
Dan you are my professor!
That's an interesting recommendation there at the end. I recently had occasion to compare the RSV and NRSV versions of the gospel of Mark. I have to say I found the RSV far clearer than the NRSV throughout. There did seem to be loads of changes for their own sake and several places where the text has been smudged back into what traditionalists expect, but this is less the case with the RSV, for this one gospel imho anyway.
I'm not a scholar though. I have several English translations I dip into, including NIV and GNB, and I also sometimes check the Westcott-Hort Kingdom interlinear English translation, which is the closest I can get to the Greek, not reading it myself.
For a study bible, though I'm not sure this qualifies, I like Early Christian Reader by Steve Mason and Tom Robinson. It includes the NRSV of the whole NT as well as translations of the gospel of Thomas, the Didache, Barnabas, 1 Clement and the epistles of Ignatius, along with all the introductions, essays and footnotes related to those.
Is the New Oxford Annotated comparable to the Jewish Annotated New Testament you have also recommended?
We are very fortunate to have many homilies, reflections, treatises, and tractates from early Church Father's on the New Testament. I wonder, if from those sources, more context can be gleaned for translation purposes. In particular, concerning your reference to John.
I have that new Oxford revised version. Very good Bible
This is BRILLIANT
I feel like every bible should come with a qr code linked to this video lol, great explainer
When you say that there was no Greek New Testament for Erasmus to use, do you mean in the western church(es)? Because it seems to me they might have gone to Constantinople (not Istanbul) or somewhere in the Orthodox world, and obtained a copy.
I’d like to hear your take of on the LDS Article of Faith that they believe the Bible to be the word of God as long as it is translated correctly. Is the King James version a correct translation in your data opinion?
You mentioned the derivation of New Testament text in KJV in detail but only touched on the Old Testament and Apocrypha. Can you do a short video explaining, please.
What about the Byzantine, vrs Orthodox vrs Coptic vrs Alexandrian Text?
Thanks for the video, Dan. Any chance we could get some more info on where we see things written in margins then ending up in text? Just hoping to find some of those little details
Thank you - and thank you
Would love to hear your comment on the King James Version/New King James Version parallel Bible. I find it very helpful, but it seems to be in very short supply & not sure why!
7u
@@karlcolgren5108 7u???
To use one of the world's greatest terms-Thank you.
No mention of the Douay-Rheims?
I just did. See the LDS says they Are not Prostantant, They are reformers, but rather they are restorers as the rest of Christianity is the Heritics.
Yet they support the KJV, the gold piece of Sola Scriptura. But they say they are Not Prostantant
Thanks, Dan. Growing up Mormon, I always thought the KJV was the most correct of the incorrectly translated. I was surprised not a single other church represented by various ministers in my DTh program thought that was the case and no one else even used it. I appreciate this information very much. I downloaded and have been reading the version you recommended. It reminds me of the dialog in “The Chosen” series. I wonder if the writer for that series uses that version , too.
Interesting that Joseph Smith said the German bible was the most accurate. Don't have citation but it is around. 😊
That sounds like the "KJV-onlyists" in certain American Protestant sects. These groups believe that version was somehow inspired in a way that translations and revisions before and after aren't. It's not clear why, but they're super-certain.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints uses the KJV for a few reasons: (1) the vocabulary used has a great tone that is also used in our other scripture, (2) our printings use the KJV, and (3) we've used it much more than others. It is not the most correct but there are plenty of members who assume it must be, because of the above.
if God can't keep a correct version then how all powerful of this sounds man made no doubt. we all want the honest loving true creater but do this instead is so wrong to think any new comer is going to jump in to it unless they are ignorant or dishonest.
@@trafficjon400 This assumes keeping perfect scripture is a priority to God. In my experience, some amount of struggling for truth is good for us, collectively and individually.
@@TheFranchiseCA any idiot knows that. but a loving honest creater God lets then sit pray and think about it .
Is it true that other Bibles are also used as and when needed, not only the Bishops Bible?
When the instructions were made to follow the Bishops bible except where it conflicted with the original text, what on earth was the original text? Can i get a copy of the original text? That would be great.
The understatement of the past 2,000 years. “The original text”, takes the forms of copies of copies of copies of copies of ancient manuscripts amounting to some 6,500 documents or part documents. There is no one “original text”.
Hi Dan,
What are tour best couple books to get the best info on the bible academically like this? Also the quran?
Tyndale sounds like a translator with scholarly integrity. I notice how those changes to his terminology serve the institutions and traditions of his time, not the text. It was ever thus !
In 1502, in Spain, Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros had put together a team of Spanish translators to create a compilation of the Bible in four languages: Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and Latin.
Why would they choose Aramaic
@@basedgamerguy818Maybe because that was the everyday language of Israelites in Jesus’s time. Also, a few parts of the Bible are in Aramaic.
What is your opinion on the NET Bible?
Where might one find transcripts of some of these deliveries?
I wish I knew more about your background. You speak with incredible authority, but then again so do William Lane Craig and Ken Hovind. I would sincerely love a brief biography. Or if there is one, can you point me to it?
An amendment/addition to my original comment: I still use a NLT Bible for getting through a big chunk of Scripture at a time, to get the main gist on a macro scale. But when it comes down to in-depth study, I still depend on the KJV.
The NRSV was the curriculum standard for Theology and Biblical studies courses at my University. Is that common or does it vary from place to place?
Also, this was fascinating. Fantastic work.
Could you talk more about the reasons they removed the apocrypha?
They changed enough for educated who know scripture in context becoming critical thinkers .
Dan I wanted to ask about your thoughts on the NKJV?
CS Lewis noted that archaic language in liturgy, as well as in the bible, is very uplifting and special to many people, and that is part of its charm and effect
It makes it sound more 'magical'.
Absolutely.
It’s pretty hilarious the KJV says all who revise the word of god will be written out of history - yet king James is still living rent free
I remember my dad after he became a borne again believer ,he went to a charismatic church who were pretty much King James bible readers. My dad would tell me to get the old king james.I was reading it and was like what the hell does this English even mean.So I got the NIV 84 version when I started going to local churh.Now I have the ESV and might switch to the NKJ and I also like the CSB bible I like the way John 1:18 reads ,No one has ever seen God.The one and only Son who is him self God and is at the Father's side he has revealed him. This was the best video on the king James bible and its history and explains why we now have so many English versions.
Interested in your comment about John 1: 18 .
Have you checked Strongs Greek concordance for that verse, because that is very different I think.
How did the names get translated to names that are being used when the translation occured..the names seem to be recent non middle eastern if i may say?
Because a lot of recent names are surprise surprise.. based on old names
How does the Nag Hamadi discovery fit into this?
Wow! What a fabulous and informative video! Thank you!
I would wait for the new oxford annotated NRSVue 2021.
Any idea when that will be published and available?
@@guymontag349 Most of the works based on the old NRSV should get updated soon to change to the NRSVue 2021.
In seminary, I was taught that the Texts Receptus was composed of hundreds of documents and that older texts were unreliable readings found in trash cans and basements and the like. Your video explanation sounds very different! Could you clarify this or recommend where I can do some further reading on the texts? Thank you!
Hi, Sarah! No, it's critical texts today that are created by consulting hundreds of different manuscripts. The Textus Receptus originally started from just seven recent manuscripts. One of our earliest complete manuscripts of the New Testament, which likely dates to the fourth century CE, was indeed originally discovered when somebody visiting St. Catherine's Monastery in the Sinai noticed a bunch of parchment leaves in a trash can, but that manuscript (Codex Sinaiticus) is now one of our most valuable witnesses to the New Testament. Excavations at garbage heaps in places in Egypt have also turned up hundreds of New Testament papyri from the second century CE and later. People discarding manuscripts, for whatever reason, is one of the best ways for them to be preserved for us to discover. A good book on this would be Brent Nongbri's book, /God's Library/, Larry Hurtado's book, /The Earliest Christian Artifacts/, or Bruce Metzger's book, /Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament/.
@@maklelan Thank you! I will be checking some of these books out!
@@sarahgoodson9406
Dr. Daniel B. Wallace and Dr. Gary Habermas are extremely knowledgable New Testament scholars. Another is Dr. Michael Heiser. They have books as well as videos here on RUclips that lay it all out.
@@maklelanYou can make text italic on RUclips (or at least in the Android app that I am using, but I think everywhere), by surrounding it and any punctuation next to it with an underscore (_):
_Yes,_ but _No_.
The same parameters work for making text bold by using an asterix (*) on either side:
*Yes,* but *No*.
The slashes made the wonderful book title suggestions conceptually italic for me but not actually italic. Thanks for all you do!
Very interesting information
Hey Dan, I'm curious your thoughts on the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible. Was it accurate? And what's your view on it?
Jesse Stay
" I'm curious your thoughts on the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible. Was it accurate? And what's your view on it? "
We have over 66,000 ancient biblical manuscripts and not one of them has more than 26 verses in Genesis 50. That's the most glaring corruption of the text. The Joseph Smith Translation has 38.
Scientists have discovered the earliest known Hebrew writing - an inscription dating from the 10th century B.C., during the period of King David's reign.
The breakthrough could mean that portions of the Bible were written centuries earlier than previously thought. (The Bible's Old Testament is thought to have been first written down in an ancient form of Hebrew.)
Until now, many scholars have held that the Hebrew Bible originated in the 6th century B.C., because Hebrew writing was thought to stretch back no further. But the newly deciphered Hebrew text is about four centuries older, scientists announced this month.
"It indicates that the Kingdom of Israel already existed in the 10th century BCE and that at least some of the biblical texts were written hundreds of years before the dates presented in current research," said Gershon Galil, a professor of Biblical Studies at the University of Haifa in Israel, who deciphered the ancient text.
Even going back over 3000 years, Genesis only had 26 verses in chapter 50. Here are a few more.
John 1:1 King James Bible
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:1 Joseph Smith Translation
1 In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 Corinthians 15:40 King James Bible
40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
1 Corinthians 15:40 Joseph Smith Translation
[There are degrees of glory in Resurrection - 3 levels of heaven - telestial is a made up word for the lowest level of Mormon heaven]
40 Also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial, and bodies celestial; but the glory of the celestial, one; and the terrestrial, another; and the celestial another.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hebrews 7:3 King James Bible
3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
Hebrews 7:3 Joseph Smith Translation
[Melchizedek was a priest after the order of the Son of God. all those who receive this priesthood can become like the Son of God.]
3 For this Melchizedek was ordained a priest after the order of the Son of God, which was without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life. And all those who are ordained into this priesthood are made like unto the Son of God, abiding a priest continually.
Something interesting to note is that the Book of Mormon teaches:
1. The Book of Mormon teaches a more or less traditional understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity.
2. The Book of Mormon teaches that God has always, from eternity past, been God.
3. The Book of Mormon teaches that God is the sole Creator of all things.
4. The Book of Mormon teaches that God-and specifically the Father-is spirit.
5. The Book of Mormon teaches that human beings are creatures originating as physical beings here on earth.
This was roughly 1830 to 1839. His theology was a slow evolution to what it is today but it was around 1839 when things really started changing. The basic elements of Joseph Smith’s radically unorthodox and unbiblical doctrine of God emerged in 1843. The Book of Abraham, published that year, attributes creation not to one God, but to a group of Gods, and reinterprets creation as an act of organizing preexistent material: “They, the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth” (Abraham 4:1). Joseph Smith taught that same year that “the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (Doctrine & Covenants 130:22) and that faithful Mormons would “be gods” with “all power” (132:20). God, then, is apparently a man, with a physical body like ours, and we can become omnipotent gods like him.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Genesis 50:24-26 (King James Version)
24 And Joseph said unto his brethren, I die: and God will surely visit you, and bring you out of this land unto the land which he sware to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.
25 And Joseph took an oath of the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you, and ye shall carry up my bones from hence.
26 So Joseph died, being an hundred and ten years old: and they embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt.
Genesis 50:24-38 Joseph Smith Translation (JST)
24 And Joseph said unto his brethren, I die, and go unto my fathers; and I go down to my grave with joy. The God of my father Jacob be with you, to deliver you out of affliction in the days of your bondage; for the Lord hath visited me, and I have obtained a promise of the Lord, that out of the fruit of my loins, the Lord God will raise up a righteous branch out of my loins; and unto thee, whom my father Jacob hath named Israel, a prophet; (not the Messiah who is called Shilo;) and this prophet shall deliver my people out of Egypt in the days of thy bondage.
25 And it shall come to pass that they shall be scattered again; and a branch shall be broken off, and shall be carried into a far country; nevertheless they shall be remembered in the covenants of the Lord, when the Messiah cometh; for he shall be made manifest unto them in the latter days, in the Spirit of power; and shall bring them out of darkness into light; out of hidden darkness, and out of captivity unto freedom.
26 A seer shall the Lord my God raise up, who shall be a choice seer unto the fruit of my loins.
27 Thus saith the Lord God of my fathers unto me, A choice seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins, and he shall be esteemed highly among the fruit of thy loins; and unto him will I give commandment that he shall do a work for the fruit of thy loins, his brethren.
28 And he shall bring them to the knowledge of the covenants which I have made with thy fathers; and he shall do whatsoever work I shall command him.
29 And I will make him great in mine eyes, for he shall do my work; and he shall be great like unto him whom I have said I would raise up unto you, to deliver my people, O house of Israel, out of the land of Egypt; for a seer will I raise up to deliver my people out of the land of Egypt; and he shall be called Moses. And by this name he shall know that he is of thy house; for he shall be nursed by the king’s daughter, and shall be called her son.
30 And again, a seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins, and unto him will I give power to bring forth my word unto the seed of thy loins; and not to the bringing forth of my word only, saith the Lord, but to the convincing them of my word, which shall have already gone forth among them in the last days;
31 Wherefore the fruit of thy loins shall write, and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together unto the confounding of false doctrines, and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to a knowledge of their fathers in the latter days; and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord.
32 And out of weakness shall he be made strong, in that day when my work shall go forth among all my people, which shall restore them, who are of the house of Israel, in the last days.
33 And that seer will I bless, and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded; for this promise I give unto you; for I will remember you from generation to generation; and his name shall be called Joseph, and it shall be after the name of his father; and he shall be like unto you; for the thing which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand shall bring my people unto salvation.
34 And the Lord sware unto Joseph that he would preserve his seed forever, saying, I will raise up Moses, and a rod shall be in his hand, and he shall gather together my people, and he shall lead them as a flock, and he shall smite the waters of the Red Sea with his rod.
35 And he shall have judgment, and shall write the word of the Lord. And he shall not speak many words, for I will write unto him my law by the finger of mine own hand. And I will make a spokesman for him, and his name shall be called Aaron.
36 And it shall be done unto thee in the last days also, even as I have sworn. Therefore, Joseph said unto his brethren, God will surely visit you, and bring you out of this land, unto the land which he sware unto Abraham, and unto Isaac, and to Jacob.
37 And Joseph confirmed many other things unto his brethren, and took an oath of the children of Israel, saying unto them, God will surely visit you, and ye shall carry up my bones from hence.
38 So Joseph died when he was an hundred and ten years old; and they embalmed him, and they put him in a coffin in Egypt; and he was kept from burial by the children of Israel, that he might be carried up and laid in the sepulchre with his father. And thus they remembered the oath which they sware unto him.
Yeah that would be interesting. But I also think Joseph Smith only could translate what he had to work with, And what God felt was really important for him to add. The hard part we always have a hard time understanding is God doesn't want to change our free will and he has to speak to us on to our own understanding
@@clearstonewindowsyou mean the con-man beaten to death by an angry mob? The guy who was jailed charged with treason against the state of Illinois?
The Puritan"s had a saying: "If it's new, it isn't true" and if true, it isn't new". That saying is more important today than it was then. "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.".