The Reliability of the New Testament | James R. White
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 апр 2022
- Dr. James R. White is interviewed by Pastor Jason Wallace on the Critical Text and how it seeks to be most aligned with the earliest Greek manuscripts. The Word of God as we know it didn't just arrive at the time of the Reformation. God has given us His Word and it's His words we seek to know in the Canon of Scripture.
I enjoy it so much when Dr. White speaks about this topic. I've been listening to the same conference in various places and it's like I am listening to the same solid thing and at the same time it's always new. And this one has new stuff to ponder. It's just a blessing.
Best summary of the topic ever. Excellent questions, incredible answers.
PS: Dr White is AWESOME! Had me in tears there at the end when he explained why the book of Jeremiah was n third short. Didn't know that fact like most of what he said. But that truth hit hard 🙌🏼🤍✝️
Thank you for sharing this!
“There are many people who would trade truth for certainty.” Dan Wallace
Brother, if you have looked into Dan Wallace's translation, you would have to conclude that he is confused as to where the "truth" is found. The NET is a mess!
@@Pastor-Brettbyfaithcould you give an example of "mess" in NET?
@arcrue
Just read the entire New Testament in the NET. If you know anything about textual criticism, then you know the difference between the Byzantine Text and the Modern Critical Text (MCT). I have a copy of Dan Wallace's NET. It is as porous as the Codex Sinaiaticus from which it was translated. Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53 - 8:11; Acts 8:37 and 1John 5:7 are just a few examples of where Codex Sinaiaticus/Vaticanus removed the Byzantine Text readings, choosing to follow their own understanding, based upon their intellect, rather than trusting what we had by faith.
I walk by faith, not by sight (2 Cor. 5:7). If you follow Dan Wallace, James White, and other MCT advocates, then you are truly walking by sight. I can show you evidence that proves Islam has a hand in on the Codices, as they have worked with Greek Orthodox and RC Churches since their beginning. I do not use conjecture or ad-hominem to prove the truth about the corruption in these manuscripts. The evidence is available online. Just do a Google Earth search of the St. Catherines monastery at Mt. Sinai in Egypt. Not only will you see Islamic symbols and a Mosque in the courtyard, but the well known fact that Islam has protected that monastery for over 1,000 years. How can you trust a manuscript that is full of pseudepigrapha and protected by Muslims? That is the blindness caused by our own human understanding. I trust nothing that comes from the hand of Islam! 2 Cor. 6:14 -18 should speak loud and clear. I hope that helps. Thank you for your question. God's best to you and yours, in Jesus name.
Thank you. Very helpful.
Enjoyed it.
The majority of the comments remind me of king Solomon's expression when he claimed it all to be vanity... Proverbs 16 : 20 is all I really need to get me through this temporary two second slice "Blessed is he who trusts in the Lord". Thank you for providing us your word dearest Lord, to You all the power, and dominion forever in Jesus mighty name amen 🤍✝️
I would love to debate James White on the Comma Johaneeum.
Around the 1:17 mark, Dr. White talks about conjectural emmendations. Codex Sinaiaticus is full of these changes; yet he continues to trust it as truth. I find this to be a major contradiction.
First question- Do you believe that one word, one letter of what the apostles wrote in the New Testament has been lost to the church today?
-No.
The context discusses theories behind potential scribal errors in copies of biblical manuscripts. It mentions that scholars like F.H. Scrivener reconstructed the original text based on analyzing thousands of manuscript fragments. While some words or passages may have expanded over time in copies, the original text is asserted to still be preserved either in the main text or marginal notes of modern critical editions. James White brings a critical edition of the Greek New Testament to reference.
-Yes all of the original words are mostly likely preserved.
-The type of text that underlies many modern Bible translations like the NIV or ESV is the Nesialan text.
-The Greek text that is referenced as having about a 2% difference in length compared to the Textus Receptus is the Nesialan text
The argument for having many copies of a text scattered in different locations is that it makes it difficult for any one person or group to corrupt the entire text. This is because finding biblical texts hundreds or thousands of years later that match earlier translations helps confirm that the text was not altered over time.
2nd- Bart Ehrman claims that there are more textual variants in the New Testament than there are words. Some people believe this means we cannot be certain about the contents of the New Testament, while others believe we need a perfect text to refute Ehrman's claim.
James White explains that while there are many variants, the choices are between small differences that don't affect the meaning, like "Jesus said to the man" versus "the Lord Jesus said to the man". They give an example of Ehrman speaking on a webcast to an atheist, where the atheist expected Ehrman to say the Bible was about strange things but Ehrman affirmed it was about Jesus. Ehrman's conclusions are wrong, though his facts are valid. Ehrman has admitted the original meaning is preserved.
Ehrman's "big examples" of variants were the variant in Mark 2, where Jesus, instead of in compassion, in anger, healed the leper, and in Hebrews chapter 2, where there are a few manuscripts that say, apart from God, rather than by the grace of God. The listener argues that these examples do not impact the meaning of the New Testament. Ehrman knows that what the New Testament teaches is firmly established and has admitted that there is really nothing that significantly impacts the meaning of the New Testament.
How can you reconstruct the original text from the late 1st century when the first manuscripts that are of any use to historians appear in the 3rd century?
I would even agree with you that we can reconstruct the copies from the 3rd century to a relatively high degree.
What is that critical N.T. called and where can I get it?
The critical text is in translations like the NASB, ESV, RSV, and the new LSB. Virtually most newer translations are.
In the Greek it’s called the Nestle-Aland 28th edition. It’s like a hundred bucks on Bible Software sites. You might be able to find cheaper somewhere else.
Ecclesiastes 3:15: “That which is, already has been; that which is to be, already has been; and God seeks what has been driven away.” The “natural man” cannot grasp that, for to him reality is based only on the evidence of the senses. The man of reason could justify the verse’s end, saying if it has any meaning then the writer must mean recurrence. The sun comes every day and the moon completes its cycle and the seasons come and go. If we took a picture of the universe today, the scientists can compute how long it will take to return to this point in the picture. So the intellectual man could justify the verse; but that is not what is meant, for it is addressed not to the man of reason or the man of sense, but to the man of Imagination. What is it all about? “That which is, already has been; that which is to be, already has been, and God seeks what has been driven away.”
A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible. But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles?
Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?
Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.
His overarching question is "What did the authors originally write?". But he starts from a point that he never proves - that the original text is in Greek. How does he know that? Where is the proof for this? The original text could just as easily have been written in Aramaic. And actually, the Greek shows this to be the case in many places. But does White ever address this? I have never heard him do so.
@LightThatCigar Really? Proof? It is true that Greek was A lingua franca of the time. But not THE lingua franca. The West used Greek as the language of commerce and culture. But the East used Aramaic. And has used Aramaic for many hundreds of years by that time. The land of Israel spoke Aramaic as the mother tongue. Not Greek.
@LightThatCigar You can believe what you want - but it's not true. Many supposed experts are wrong about a great many things that have been assumed for centuries. Greek was not the lingua franca of Israel during biblical times. There is much evidence. And it's evidence the experts CHOOSE to ignore. The best evidence is in the works of Josephus where he states several times that Greek was not the mother tongue and Aramaic was. Look it up, if you dare to have your assumptions challenged.
@LightThatCigar Sure you are. You admitted it by saying to accept the opinions of others without doing due diligence to check things out for yourself. I don't reject historical information - I seek it out and study it as a good Berean should. I am a scholar and a published author. So, yes, everything I claim can be backed up by existing sources.
@LightThatCigar Just like them, you stick your fingers in your ears when you don't like what you hear.
@LightThatCigar LOL. You are the one that blindly follows others without doing any kind of evaluation. Have you read Josephus yet? Can you explain away the portions where he says Greek was not the mother tongue of the Jews?
Neville Goddard is the best on bibles meaning is not by literal person in the story's that are not history, your not awaken till David calls you Father. You can't believe your that by reading first you classic chritians are great but don't know you reborn in skull that hinted about where God Kingdom is in man, Imagination is God in man. You live in states good and evil but never lost.
Did the Christians in the early Church reading Paul's letter to the Church of Laodicea, know it was not Holy Scripture?
No Protestant actually practices Scripture ALONE, especially James White, as James White places his own fallible interpretations above the infallible Holy Scriptures! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
If the Apostles knew when they were writing Scripture under inspiration, then why wouldn't their readers also be able to differentiate?
Why don't you give us an example of James White placing his own interpretation above scripture?
@@tolsen8212 I agree, as not all Paul's writings are Holy Scripture.
Protestants claim Scripture ALONE is the only infallible authority. Yet, Jesus Christ teaches the bread, WHEN BLESSED, "IS MY BODY ", ( Matthew 26:26). James White says "infallibly".. "no it isn't ". So much for Scripture ALONE being infallible! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 So you're a Catholic who is into the Eucharist & you're mad that reformed Christians debunked the literal re-sacrificing of Christ in the Mass and the literal transubstantiation of the bread & wine?
Ok.
You put in quotation marks the word "infallibly", yet I've never heard JW use that term about himself.
Can you tell me how many times your popes have spoken infallibly, ex cathedra? Because I hear different answers depending on which Catholic I speak to.
@@tolsen8212 no, I am not mad at all at Reformed Christians who place their own fallible interpretations above Holy Scripture! James White says his interpretation alone is the only correct interpretation of Holy Scripture, thus making him infallible.
Jesus Christ teaches the bread, WHEN BLESSED, "is My Body ". Reformed Christians add the words Symbol and represents to the words of Jesus Christ! What year did Holy Scripture become the only infallible authority? And where does Holy Scripture teach this? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true
@@matthewbroderick6287 So James White never claimed to be infallible, you just inferred it. Yet we can't infer infallibility for Scripture which claims to be the inspired Word of God, fit to teach and correct to make us complete, equipped for every good work?
Is veneration of and prayers to Mary a good work? How about penance? Or confession to a priest?
You didn't answer my question, so I'll ask again...
How many times has the pope spoken infallibly, ex cathedra?
What I absolutely fail to understand about these apologists is why they are not shocked to realize that their "God", omnipotent as they claim Him to be, failed, over the centuries, to ensure that His book, the bible, is the perfect "Word" in all copies and translations. It would have been EASY for Him to do that. Why do these apologists completely ignore that question?
This is all just so much BS. The "Lord" has NOT been taking care of things! Talk about Bart confusing things! He doesn't hold a candle to this guy when it comes to confusing things!
Well since the NT talks about magic, its reliability is already down the toilet. There is literally no reason to think that a book that talks about magic as a central part of all its stories has any reliability.
I’ll go out on a limb here, but if you believe the impossible, that everything came out of nothing, then you believe in magic.
@@stephencortez6953 I'm going to go out on a limb here, you have absolutely no idea what the big bang says. Why do I say that, well it's simple, you used a strawman that shows that you have no idea what the big bang theory is.
@@darrylelam256 So let me get this right. You believe nothing created everything?
@@danielbaker7196 No, that is a strawman of the big bang theory. Please stop using that BS
Yours is a strawman as well. You pay no attention to the historical accuracy and the words and teachings of Jesus being preserved for his followers today. You use that silly excuse of "magic" to dismiss the validity of scripture (Jesus never claimed to be doing magic) Yet you get mad when the same thing is done to you.. oh the irony