Bart Ehrman: What Kind of a Text is the King James Bible? (Manifold Greatness exhibition opening)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- On January 24, 2013, the traveling exhibition Manifold Greatness: The Creation and Afterlife of the King James Bible opened at the William H. Hannon Library at Loyola Marymount University.
The keynote talk for the opening: "What Kind of a Text is the King James Bible? Manuscripts, Translation, and the Legacy of the KJV" was presented by Dr. Bart Ehrman, James A. Grey Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at UNC Chapel Hill and New York Times bestselling author.
![Yailin La Mas Viral, @kreizyk.official - Dale 2 (Remix) [Video Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JaYHBzgqz94/mqdefault.jpg)
Lecture starts at 9:30
^ hero!
An introduction for the introducer. Sigh. Thank you sir.
you know you can use sponsorblock to skip it, right?
our savior
Never mind fundamentalists who think the King James is the best translation - I've met people who think the King James is the actual original bible. They don't realise it's a translation of the original Hebrew and Greek. From what I've been told, this is quite a common misunderstanding in the USA.
Yeah, the KJV-only crowd are a strange bunch, typically hyper conservative. There's one KJV-only pastor I know about who regularly prayed the imprecatory prayer when Barack Obama was president -- essentially praying for his death.
In the Baptist church I grew up in, everyone was very insistent on KJV :/
@@EnglishMike Wow - that is really something. Whatever you think of his politics, Obama is obviously a sincere Christian, and a decent, moral family man. And this pastor is literally praying for his death. While he supports a man who is the living embodiment of the Deadly Sins of Lust
, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy and Pride.
What this presidency has brutally exposed is the way that for so many Americans, Christianity is just a mask for intolerance, racism and smug superiority. The hypocracy is jaw-dropping...
@@tullochgorum6323 Obama's unforgivable sin in the eyes of that pastor is that he is a liberal.
@@EnglishMike Not to mention that he is black...
I've watched many videos with Bart Ehrman; this is certainly one of his best. Thanks for uploading this, LMU Library
Probably his most entertaining.
s b f
"I've watched many videos with Bart Ehrman".
I am here confused and wondering..........
Was Bart sitting on your left or right side when you were watching the video with him? Were both of you sitting on a couch or sohva?........Now I can understand the dilemma and difficulty the scribes went through. No doubt there so much discrepancies in the bible.😇😇😀😀
Yes -- but with north of 300,000 viewers by 2022, isn't he entitled to the courtesy of a competent recording?
Bart Ehman didn't make that echo: it was created by the people who decided to record a speech against a hard, sound-reflecting background. If you're not going to take the trouble of learning the art and science of audio （which would mean you could get away easily -- just a decent microphone） then you owe it to us all to put up curtains on the walls and padding and carpeting on the floors.
Seriously: you have just shown hundreds of thousands of people that LMU library does not take its public presentation of itself seriously.
Just assign a couple of people to learn audio recording, OK?
@@TheDavidlloydjones calm yourself, please. This was made near a decade ago; be glad that it is audible whatsoever.
@@grantlauzon5237wfb (
The coolest thing was to hear the Bible text read by Bart Ehrman! :) ...and the lecture outstanding as usual
Pure Dr. Bart, 9:34 and on.
Thank you.
Fascinating talk. I actually went to the same school in Oxford as William Tyndale - it's still going and is over 700 years old now.
NB I wasn't there when Tyndale was!
Skip to 9:26
Monkof Magnesia thank you!
Am glad I helped.
Hero!
Thank you.
@aaronsdavis no kiddin!!
The betrayal, arrest, imprisonment, and execution of William Tyndale is the quintessential true story of a profound and noble martyr. Tyndale could read, write, and speak 8 languages. He used his prodigious skills for the betterment of the common Christian through the production of an English translation of the Bible. For that magnificent gift to the English speaking world, crafted in poverty, Tyndale was tortured and murdered.
I think his executor is a Christian.
@@Downlead No authentic Christian would have executed Tyndale. Any claim to the Christian faith by a Tyndale executioner would be in name only. In other words, except as a bloody example of hypocrisy, such a claim is absolutely meaningless .
@@arthurmontana8791 No true Scotsman fallacy.
@@arthurmontana8791 How do you keep it all straight who's true or not? Many, most even, legitimately THOUGH they were defending God's work and intentions, time and again.
No good deed goes unpunished.
Whether u agree with this guy or not; he is HIGHLY educational, and an INCREDIBLE lecturer!
Mnkmmmjkm8n
Kk v0 mmmjmn mñ9n jnk ñmnnmnk nmmm mnmn9mim bnjnmm nkmn9mnnnn8m0 0
@Charles Edward Cheese Oh YES he is, and he knows an awful lot ABOUT the Bible; he just doesn't KNOW the Bible!
Would have to categorize him as a Latin apologist with a pseudo Logic that belies a revisionist bent that is after all the stock in trade of all theologians and especially those of Roman bent.
Wisdom of God and wisdom of man, 2 entirely different things.
I am glad Ehrman went over exactly the examples and types of later additions to the biblical texts and the way the interpreters' biases affected the word choices.
A very fun lecture!
Several of these mistranslations have formed the basis of an entire sermon of various fundamentalist preachers I have heard. Amazing ignorance out there. Thanks, Bart.
Typical rejection of expertise in favor of folk understanding. It's the Republican way!
@@jonathannorburg1376 "Typical rejection of expertise in favor of folk understanding"
Would that be typical rejection of expertise in the translation and interpretation of unproven supernatural claims in favor of folk understanding of the translation and interpretation of unproven supernatural claims?
@@jonathannorburg1376
Christian Republicans: Genesis is meant to be taken literally, earth is 6000 years old, Adam and Eve existed, Noahs flood happened.
Christian Democrats: Genesis isn’t meant to be taken literally, it is a story about the human condition and the sinful nature of man.
Atheists: Genesis is clearly meant to be taken literally... but it’s just wrong, like so many other parts of the Bible.😂
What I see is the obvious of The Bible presenting to us a MORAL LAW which is the 10 COMMANDMENTS. A MIRROR for our behavior in LIFE. And that IS A SPIRITUAL DISCERNMENT. FOR ME CHRIST DIED SO ALL OF US WOULDNT END ETERNALLY AT THE FINAL JUDGEDMENT IN THE LAKE OF FIRE. FOR NOW THOSE WHO COMMITTED HORRIBLE CRIMES ARE IN SHEOL( God's underground PRISON) AWAITING FOR THE LAKE ETERNAL FIRE FOR NOT REPENTING NOR TRUSTING IN A SAVIOR. THE REDEMMED BY JESUS WON'T BE IN THE SAME PLACE AS THE CRIMINALS, ETC.
Just like on earth WE have JUDGES WHO ARE SENDING TO THE GAS CHAMBER, OR ELECTRIC CHAIR THOSE COMMITING MURDERS. GOD WILL GIVE WHAT HE SAYS THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH. WHAT YOU SOW YOU WILL REAP.
53:29. They literally produced a manuscript about the trinity and added to it even though Erasmus never found one!
Trinity a mystery n mask inf the face of the true … faith
Bart is such a pleasure to listen to as his presentations are clear and precise - not loaded with jargon. Bart didn’t mention the (yes incomplete but still extremely important) Wycliffite translation (into English), which predates Tyndale by *well* over a century - I know his wife (being a superb medievalist) and colleagues and friends have probably reminded him of the Wyclif Bible etc (it’s a big deal for medievalists!). There are also translations into Anglo-Saxon but hey we medievalists can’t have everything…
He does ...13:25 ...and it is on the slide for several minutes ...
You know what English linguist types call “Anglo-Saxon”? Old English. Sooo…there are partial translations, in English, that predate Wycliff by more than 300 years. They predate the Norman Conquest by around 50 years. But pretty sure he’s referring to “English” as either late Middle English to Early Modern English and readable as such by modern understanding rather than Old English.
Kinda ironic that the "Canonical" KJV is 92% a copy from a text by a guy who was burned at the stake for his translation of the Bible.
Bart is an interesting person... whether you agree with him or not.
DeadKoby he’s a liar.
@@snowsnowy5039 you're religious i take it... that's what religious people call him without explanation of quote.
Snow Snowy going to offer anything to back that claim up?
@@snowsnowy5039 some basis to your claim would have added some credibility to your comment.
everytime I watch Bart I have to lisen to 15 minutes of the introduction. Please already!
Same.
Um. You can skip. It's a video. Lol
@@jkm6112 do
I listened to the whole intro too, thinking it would just take a moment. I know now to jump to the comments and look for the shortcut that someone inevitably posts.
Apart from the KJV in particular, I found a good discussion of NT textual criticism that mentions Bart Ehrman a few times. It's posted on RUclips May 6, 2020 with the title Avoiding Big Mistakes in Defending the Bible: Interview with Dr. Peter Gurry.
Suggested rewrite and improvement of his joke: "As it was a revision of the RSV, I recommended to the committee that they call it the RSVP, but they never got back to me."
FOOL AND KNAVE, leave the old reading!
Winner
First page missing. "All characters and events in this book are fictional and any resemblance to real persons is entirely coincidental."
Why is that?
As a Hebrew speaker, this is fascinating to watch!
"The inerrant word of Bart" I'm kidding! We love you Bart!
CONCLUSION: Both the old and new testaments are FAULTY, not "God's Word", but an ancient collwction of human legends and folklore, Period!
+Brother Charles No version of the bible, none, was ever written with the help of a god. God is not real.
+Brother Charles prove god is real if you can, but of course you can't so i just take a hike with you arrogant ignorant opinions. See how easy it is?
+Brother Charles that's called begging the question. e.g. the bible is the word of God.
how do you know?
because it was written by prophets.
it's circular reasoning.
+Brother Charles interesting how you post such assertions in a Bart Ehrman video. he knows 1000x more than you will ever know about the prophecies etc, and yet he believes it's all man made.
kinda like the book of Timothy saying the only way for women to be saved is to submit to her husband, stay home and have children.
sounds like "god's" word to be.
+Brother Charles also pretty interesting there are any Jews left considering this great evidence you claim. LOL
Introductions are over by about 9:30
I have seen a copy of the 'Vinegar Bible' on display at a church in Derbyshire (England). It is a huge tome.
I can't tell if there's been a correction about "target," but its older meaning is "shield," (especially a round one), not javelin.
Wycliffe followed the Septuagint and Vulgate and translated it as "target" and noted it as "gorget" from French, which means "a piece of armor to protect the throat." However, most scholars agree that "javelin" is the correct translation.
Ah, should have looked at a concordance. The Hebrew word usually meant javelin. Target was a distraction. Thanks.
All that textual criticism and he still threw the towel in. Just goes to show, it's the heart that must change not the head.
‘Meet’ as far as I understand was used as we would now use ‘appropriate’. A number of the expressions quoted as now gone out of use are sill used in English English (or as we Brits like to call it English) though are not now used often.
I don't enjoy any Bible more than the KJV. A few others are good, but for readability, KJV is the most enjoyable.
James snapp ya what does Bart know he has only devoted 30 years of his life to this study and started as a practicing christian and training to be a pastor. Which I dare say is much more cred than you have in your young earth creationist years. But yeah lets disregard what Bart preaches and lets run with your theories which you have tirelessly spent your past 30 years researching ! Cant wait to hear them
Paul Osbourne,
You're assuming quite a bit. When you have evidence to correct any of my critiques, rather than just petty rhetoric, let me know.
James Snapp, do you speak fluent ancient Greek and Hebrew?
@@exillens : Silence
His claim around the 22 minute mark that the translators could speak Greek fluently, and read Hebrew texts like the newspaper, was surprising. I have no grounds on which to dispute the claim, but I must confess that I do wonder if the translators' reliance on earlier translations was rooted in them being unsure how to render certain texts.
The kjv translators could have asked jews to help, but instead, do to antisemitism, chose to mistranslate some passages. I doubt they were that fluent. Maybe they could speak it, but how well is debatable.
They relied even on English translations. So the claim God hovered over them to make a perfect translation seems ridiculous.
I am a Christian. I have read some of Bart's books just out of curiosity. The only thing I can say is I think a Christian has to have faith even in the face of someone telling you it is not true. "We walk by faith, not by sight". If it was EASY to believe you would not need faith at all.
Faith is what people use when they have no good reason to believe. Tell me something horrific I couldn't believe using faith to justify it ..
So, you are saying that you are going to pretend to believe things that are demonstrably false?
Bart Erhman should have legend status! The man is brilliant!!
actually he has his own 'cognitive bias'
@@termikesmike So does everyone else.
@@kiabvaj5656 wrote " So does everyone else."
Let's not forget - when it comes to 'interpretations' ...
The Bible says if the blind lead the blind they will both fall in the ditch ,look for God,yourself ,and you will find the truth !
Where can I find textual critics like Ehrman but for the Quran? Would love to learn more. Or are those guys still being burned at the stake these days?
John the Baptist had the word of God in his mother's womb before scholars came along. Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants You have perfected praise! Who has ever given to God that God should reward him? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things .. Grace and Peace to you all!
Sorry I forgot this - Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
@@NorthernGate777 the second reply was needed. I was really worried until I saw the second reply, that really cleared things up.
Bart is slanting everything toward the extreme skeptical view. For example, the reason the Greek Septuagint translates Isaiah 7: 14 "almah" as "virgin" is because in Israel an "almah" is an unmarried woman, and if not a virgin she would have been a harlot. For example, Genesis 24:43 is using "almah" clearly referring to a virgin. In fact in every case where the word "almah" is used in the Hebrew bible it is ALWAYS referring to an unmarried virgin. So why it's true that "almah" isn't specified as "virgin" in the context of every other passage in the Hebrew bible it is ALWAYS referring to a virgin.
For example if I said "I bought a car at the new car lot" your impression wouldn't be, "oh that must mean a used car" even though there might be a used car on such a lot from time to time that would be an odd understanding of the context. Same for Isaiah 7:14, nobody would assume this woman is a young widow or something of that nature unless specified as such.
And it should be noted that the Greek Septuagint was translated by Jewish scholars before the New Testament was written. So the understanding that an "almah" is synonymous with "virgin" wasn't a Christian invention, that is how the native speakers of the Hebrew language translated the text. But why?
Look at the CONTEXT of the passage "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin (almah) will conceive and give birth to a son, and[ will call him Immanuel."
So if Isaiah 7: 14 merely means "young women", as Bart love to assert, how is that a sign to king Ahaz from God? That interpretation of that passage would be completely unremarkable and a sign to nobody.
Matthew is quoting Isaiah using a kind of typological parallel, much like Jesus compares himself to Jonah and we see similar comparisons with say Isaac and Joseph in Genesis, the Isaiah story in is also a prophetic parallel.
Septuagint was written by Romans who did know good Hebrew
Funny, the Hebrew scholars, from the people who actually wrote the book, would disagree with you. What are your credentials to say these things, or are you just making stuff up
@@danielsnyder2288 Have you considered the New Testament writers themselves were bilingual Hebrews? Bart Ehrman is arguing with the understanding of native speakers of the language. Find a single example where "almah" definitively does not refer to an unmarried virgin in the bible. You can't, I've looked at every example. Bart is even arguing with the translators of the Septuagint, native speakers of both languages. This while Bart himself admits he gets around in Greek and Hebrew with a concordance in one hand, as do most scholars. I appreciate his honesty.
This is my favorite ehrman lecture
You keep making blatant assertions. I've given you the evidence, and you haven't dealt with it. I've given you the evidence of the empty tomb, the genuine belief of the disciples in the resurrection, the genuine belief of Paul, the genuine belief of James. We've been over all of this. We've been over why simply lying about it wouldn't work-we're dealing with this in a Jewish context. Meaning it's foolish to think these people would lie and get brutally persecuted for something they knew
Prove that they were executed for their beliefs, and maybe you'll have something other than soppy whining.
When or where it said beware of getting tricked or deceived has sure come to be!
As a social experiment, why not ask your local English speaking butcher, gardener, fisherman, handyman etc ... to write something approaching the quality of Shakespeare in French .... sounds crazy, huh? Well, that's how plausible it is for lower class, Aramaic speaking fishermen to write high-class, intellectual, rhetorical Greek of the NT.
Up until about 2 years ago I'd never heard of Bart Ehrman ,I first came across him via youtube in a debate with William Lane Craig, I was really taken with his easy to understand speaking style, he has a wonderful ability of being able to communicate with his audience with consummate ease. He can bring history back to life. A great speaker.
Thanks so much. Serious subject discussed in an easy manner. Well done.
If these translators of the KJV were so well versed in Greek and Hebrew, how did they make so many mistakes in translating. John 1:1 is a very good example of purposely mistranslating something to fulfill a bias. Matthew 24:3 is a deliberate inserting a word that was never used in the text, again to fulfill a bias. It was obvious that these men were not as concerned with producing a faithful word of God as they were in producing something that King James would find useful in controlling people and factions.
There's also a passage in the KJ version that glosses over slavery
Because translating from one language to another during the same time period isn’t a direct 1:1 translation. A word in one language could be multiple in another. Take the modern English word “left”. You’d need to know the context of its use to know if its a direction or past tense of leave. If you’re translating a text that’s centuries old to a foreign language, a lot is lost in translation.
As a matter of fact, there are no extant manuscripts that render mark 14:62 as "you say that I am". I just checked the NET translation, which mentions all the alternate greek renderings. The ESV footnotes don't have this either. You may be confusing this with another verse.
So the chef prepares a meal and on its way to my table the waiter decides to add some other seasoning to it. Does this mean there is no more nutrition to the meal? Is the taste of it totally repulsive? I don’t think so. I still think there is spiritual and moral value to the scriptures.
Anything of "moral value" in the Bible can be found in countless other literary works. The Bible is preceded by the Code Of Hammurabi.
@Daniel Paulson You got that right.
Making fun of the word of God and adding to the Bible is heretical and scripture says let him that does these things be accursed. So I need to point out that this needs to be repented of to get into right doctrine.
Yeah but as the bible is man written
@@scoops2382 2. Peter 1:20-21 KJB 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
@@vaksehund2 yeah but the bible is man written
They’re not making fun or mocking “the word of god”. They’re having a laugh at the English language during the time period a group of scholars plagiarized the another scholar’s work that used words and sentence structures of his time when translating from manuscripts using words and sentence structure of their time when copying manuscripts from a time when that language was much different. If it’s the word of god, why is it so difficult to know the exact translation from ancient Hebrew and Ancient Greek? An infallible god shouldn’t be writing in a way that’s left up to translation, interpretation, and interpolation of the person reading it in that moment.
What about Martin Luther Bible, translated in German language. Similar errors or misinterpretations/translation took place???
Did any of you guys see that Bart misquotes the bible here? 41:24 he quotes 1 Kings, not 2 Kings. Scribal error!
EARTHQUAKE!!!!!!!!!!!! ITS THE SECOND COMING!!!!!!!!!!!! OH WAIT. Its just the camera man/woman.
I was a victim of this religion for 40 years. I am sorry to everyone I proclaimed it to and argued on its behalf with. I truly apologize.
But you can be proud that you changed your mind after 40 years. Changing your world-view after 40 years is a heroic feat not many can accomplish, whether it's related to religion or not. These days you usually see the same stubbornness in politics.
You might be a victim of man's stupidity, but I don't see how forgiveness and other teachings of Christ made you a victim. So exactly what made you a victim. America is based on Judeo- Christian values. Of course the biggest problem just like anything written people interpret and twist meaning whether on purpose or accidentally.
44:54 But this happened because that part of Daniel was written by Arameans, not Israelites, and it is a true story regarding Israelites; this is why it was included, with the rest of Daniel, in the canon of the "Ketuvim" (Writings) of the Hebrew Bible. The Arameans were polytheistic (believed in many gods).
A Brief History of Bible Translation 10:10
The Making of the King James Version 19:18
Problems with the KIV 43:01
Later Revisions and Editions 58:06
James Snapp, your credentials and scientific evidence is where? Oh right, they are non-existent.
rst789, I'm sorry; I thought I was addressing people who believe that the veracity of one's statements should be measured by how well they correspond to reality, not by how many degrees one has beside one's name. As for scientific evidence, I presented it plainly in my critique. Where are your corrections of anything I said? Oh right -- they're non-existent.
There is nothing in Galatians 1 and Acts 9 that directly contradict. Just b/c Acts 9 doesn't mention Arabia doesn't mean Acts is wrong-an argument from silence is simply fallacious.
As a matter of fact, there is no king in the sky. But there is a King who inhabits eternity, and is omnipresent, and in whom all things hold together. So I'll ask you again: if you stand before Him, and your theories are shown to be baseless (again, no scholar agrees with you), what would you do?
I appreciate very much this talk and efforts to get a good basic reconstructed early text of the New Testament.
Erasmus was of course great as was his constructed Textus Receptus. Nevertheless there were significant corruptions to the text that have been dealt with but somewhat half-heartedly.
This is especially so with the ending to Mark which simply isn't authentic and, sadly - because it's a wonderful story - the woman taken in adultery.
These aspects of recovering the NT text ought not to be controversial and should be the basis of newer translations.
Is that going to change anything about the fact that only 144,000 celibate Jewish men are going to heaven according to Revelation?
@@schmetterling4477 Doubtful
@@cpnlsn88 The correct answer is: absolutely nothing. I still wonder what they were thinking to put Revelation into the canon. :-)
@@schmetterling4477 True. It's a strange book.
@@cpnlsn88 So is the whole collection, but that's probably what happens when religion is produced under deadly distress.
Good for Bart. He found a way to cash in.
this guy never refers to any notes! What a very knowledgeable man
Matthew's point in quoting Isaiah is not to say that Mary was a virgin in fulfillment of prophecy. Matthew had already established that Mary was a virgin on historical grounds in his narrative. Matthew was saying that in the virgin birth way Isaiah's prophecy would be fulfilled that a son would be called Emmanuel. Other parts of Isaiah 7-9 point to a son who would be the Messiah, not just the son who was born of Isaiah's prophetess wife (cf: Isaiah 9:6 leading into 9:7's "he will sit on the throne of David forevermore" - this is a different son, and seems to be the Messiah). The parallel to Matthew's saying that in the virgin birth way a son would be called Emmanuel ... is Luke 1:35, see NIV footnote. For Matthew, being born of the Holy Spirit made Jesus Immanuel. For Luke, two things: being born of the Holy Spirit made Jesus holy (or the holy one) and being born by the overshadowing of Almighty God made Jesus the Son of God. How he was born is interesting, but the focus is on what Jesus would be called - his titles - because of the way he was born. The great report is not that a child was born without the mom having sex; the great news is that one was now among us who is God with us, the Holy One, and the Son of God. The titles of Jesus mean that this finally is the Messiah that Isaiah and others had foretold!
Had Matthew been writing the Gospel in Hebrew, I am certain he would have used the Hebrew word almah when quoting Isaiah's prophecy, and almah does not demand that the woman be a sexual virgin. It would not have changed Matthew's point one bit.
Memorable phrases in the Douay-Rheims 1582
'Am I my brothers keeper'
[6] And the Lord said to him: Why art thou angry? and why is thy countenance fallen? [7] If thou do well, shalt thou not receive? but if ill, shall not sin forthwith be present at the door? but the lust thereof shall be under thee, and thou shalt have dominion over it. [8] And Cain said to Abel his brother: Let us go forth abroad. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and slew him. [9] And the Lord said to Cain: Where is thy brother Abel? And he answered, I know not: am I my brother's keeper? [10] And he said to him: What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth to me from the earth.
[11] Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: [12] Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you. [13] You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing any more but to be cast out, and to be trodden on by men. [14] You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. [15] Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house.
[41] Watch ye, and pray that ye enter not into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh weak. [42] Again the second time, he went and prayed, saying: My Father, if this chalice may not pass away, but I must drink it, thy will be done. [43] And he cometh again and findeth them sleeping: for their eyes were heavy. [44] And leaving them, he went again: and he prayed the third time, saying the selfsame word. [45] Then he cometh to his disciples, and saith to them: Sleep ye now and take your rest; behold the hour is at hand, and the Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of sinners.
ruclips.net/video/rCMgwwDkFxE/видео.html
Not interested in your post.
This seems to be a good sketch and outline of how the KJ translation came into being and how it relates to all our other English translations.
I wish that in addition to explaining how the word meanings change over time in a particular language, he had also explained how one language, (a dominant language), can influence the word meaning of another language. For instance Greek under Alexander the Great influencing the meaning of certain Hebrew words or Americ words. Or an English translation influencing what the true meaning of what a Greek or Latin word really means.
Obviously there is no god
What has God to to with the King James translation ?
Yes there is a God.
They're discussing a book and not the existence of God.
A lot of Algonquin-speaking indigenous people read the Bible. For example, the Nipmucs of Massachusetts took to it so thoroughly that they were known as "the praying Indians." (ref. the introduction at 06:32)
Starts at 9:30
Religion is inherently opposed to intellectism - Me
I think Bart E. is a wonderful scholar and have watched all of his videos and am waiting for more. I am not a christian and I'm not an atheist either. However, I am surprised, that out of 66 comments (at this time) no one picked up on Bart's little error starting at 0:43:25 when talking on Daniel 3:25 ... The KJV clearly states ... the fourth IS LIKE the son of God... he left out the words ( is like ) nobody I know would think that was talking about Jesus.
I don't know what it says in the 'original' text, but the many English languages translations use like '... God', '... an angel', '... a son of the gods', '... the Son of God', so as a Biblical scholar, Ehrman may have a different interpretation from the KJV. Note that the first English version was Tyndale's, and the KJV took about 90% of that without change.
1st Timothy 3:16 kjv and so many more explains that he is God in the flesh snd the son of God.
Once again, I want to ask you. What if you stand before God one day, and all your theories are shown to be absolutely baseless? (And they are-no liberal scholar would accuse Paul or the disciples of simply lying) What would you do if you stand before the King that day?
And when you die if you discover all of your beliefs are based upon the errors of others?
The title seems very misleading. I thought he was going compare Textus Receptus to some other text. Instead, the lecture is aimed at people who need concepts more basic than that explained to them. (Including the fact that the New Testament was written in Greek!)
And Jesus almost certainly did not preach in Greek. Jesus preached in Hebrew (in literate circles) and in Aramaic to the general public. Equally most of the Disciples were not literate in Greek (with the probable exception of Matthew).
As a matter of fact, I haven't found one quote of Irenaeus nor have I found a single scholar that would suggest your view.
"You are gods" was about how God called those whom the law came to gods, establishing their supremacy over creation. Perhaps as judges as well, but that's irrelevant.
"I am" in the Septuaging is Ego Eimi, which is the title God applies to Himself in Exodus 3. All jewish literature from the Dead sea scrolls demonstrate that "I am" is a title used to represent God. cont..
Besides, there are manuscripts of Mark that render 14:62 as merely, "You say." The more appropriately echoes his answer in Matthew and Luke. It's likely that this was the original verse, altered by those determined to introduce a "high" christology.
Someone needs to tell Bart that Hampton Court Palace was built by Cardinal Wolsey. Elementary history I would have thought.
He’s a biblical scholar not a historian of Britain.
Have ejoyed many of Dr Ehrmans lectures .. Too bad the audio is so bad on this one I can't even listen to it.Sounds like the Mic is somewhere in the back of the room
LoL... Almug is a word that appears in BOTH the NIV and the NAS. It's a kind of tree not an archaic word
I haven't researched this seriously, but if you mean 1Co 10:4, it doesn't say Jesus, it says "o christos", the anointed. Moses was annointed, as were all prophets and kings of Israel. Yeah "ha-meshiah" is the Hebrew version of it. The term "Christ" does not have to mean Jesus Christ in every single solitary instance. Paul can mean those people followed the anointed, and you christians have anointed to follow.
My point was that Paul certainly believed his message-this is what Ehrman would say, what atheist NT scholars would say, what every single scholar and the field would say. The disciples certainly believed their message. James believed his message. Unless you want to say all of these guys just happened to hallucinate, and the disciples had an impossible group hallucination, you really have no grounds for asserting that Christ didn't rise from the dead.
A minor point but Hampton Court was originally built by Cardinal Wolsey and given to Henry VIII when Wolsey fell out of favour with the King.
Wow - what an ingenious response to a flawlessly logical comment.
As a matter of fact, Irenaues never taught that the Christian Church is God. I can't find one scholar, or one of his writings that says that. Irenaues was actually the first church father (on record) that used the word Trinity synthesize what was already being taught. And the "you are gods" part couldn't apply to Jesus, because that occurs in the book of John. In the same book, Jesus claims to be "I am" (John 8:58), a term understood by the Jews to be a name of God and God alone.
Stale urine was also used to soften wool fibers before you pounded them with your feet on a deal floor or with your forearms on a table. You also brushed your teeth with it (yuk). Also, "thou" and "thee" are the second person singular forms. "You" is the plural form that is used to show (deliberately false) respect in English, French, and Scottish Gaelic (that I know of). In Latin and Italian, it's the third person singular and in German the third person plural. Our relationship with God is personal and the false form was eschewed. That's why we say, "Our father, who (Thou) art in heaven..." That's not formal. That's how you used to speak to a lover, spouse, child, relation, etc.
Not in Aboriginal groups arsehole
You have clearly shown that industrial, hygienic, and linguistic practices change.
While I'm generally in agreement with Ehrman, he bends the facts a bit ti suit his narrative. Tyndale was executed not for translating the Bible but for heresy, specificallly denying transubstantiation.
Most authentic? It's really a difficult question to answer. I suppose one (admittedly imperfect) way to get close is to use the Nestle-Aland platform for the New Testament, and something like Rudolf Kittel's critical text of the TaN"aKh for the Old Testament.
*
However, I myself believe in the so-called "Deuterocanon," so even I would say that alone would still remain woefully incomplete.
Bringing. Please stay tuned.
So you checked a couple of bible translations and they don't mention it, so that means they don't exist? Sorry, that's ridiculous. Some manuscripts definitely render the verse as "You say." Period. No I am.
In point of fact, I e-mailed a trained historian, and this is her response: "what is history if not a collection of facts about the past? If it were just a "well-supported proposition" then it would just be a story or legend--fodder for playwrites or Disney movies. (Which reminds me of the movie Brave: "Legends are lessons, they ring with truth!"). How do we know the difference?
These quotations are frustrating.
Maybe it is because the Douay is a Latin to English translation not Greek to English.
The first and second editions of Erasmus’ Greek text did not contain the Comma. It is generally reported that Erasmus promised to include the Comma in his third edition if a single manuscript containing the Comma could be produced. A Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy) forged a Greek text containing it by translating the Comma from the Latin into Greek. Erasmus was then presented with this falsified manuscript and, being faithful to his word, reluctantly included the Comma in the 1522 edition. However, as has now been admitted by Dr. Bruce Metzger, this story is apocryphal (, 291). Metzger notes that H. J. de Jonge, a respected specialist on Erasmus, has established that there is no evidence of such events occurring. Therefore, opponents of the Comma in light of the historical facts should no longer affirm this report.
Evidence of an empty tomb? That one of the Gospels claims that the Sanhedrin knew about it but covered it up? That it's weird for them to invent a woman discovering it? How is any of that relevant? I already explained, a long time ago, that there are plenty of logical explanations for an empty tomb and plenty of explanations for it all being a misunderstanding.
If you truly believe that Elvis will reward you in a future life, then you will die refusing to recant him. Doesn't make it true.
Now that you mention Elvis, the door to the tomb did rock and roll and allowed Jesus to sneak out.....
Bizarre how many Christians endorse only "their version" of the bible. Hundreds of variant versions today none match original source scripture of koine and hebrew....
KJV only is no more absurd than any other group who endorses their versions.
One fact that there is only one orthodox hebrew Tanakh in history which today matches the Dead Sea scrolls...
They all match word for word letter for letter...a true miracle.
Satyr is an excellent translation for the Hebrew שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) , in fact it was probably introduced to the Greeks by the Phonecians. What is wrong with dragon? What better word in English could you use? Wyrm?
I'm disappointed over the sound quality. I had to shut it off because I could not understand the words.
Laughing Dog
English is my 3rd language and I understood everything perfectly well, except for a few quiet questioners at the end.
was a sect full of heretics, since according to Jewish law (specifically deuteronomy), they were following a man that was "accursed by God". So he persecuted the church...but then he had an experience that convinced him that Jesus was in fact the Messiah. Also, we have the creed in 1 Corinthians 15 that demonstrates that James also believed that Jesus appeared to him. So, we need to make a hypothesis that accounts for these facts. What's the best one?
Personally I'm a fan of the New English Bible. I use the 23rd psalm as a point of comparison and in my opinion the version in the NEB has the best balance between clarity (meaning that it makes sense)and poetry (meaning it is pleasing to the ear). And, no, I'm not an Anglican. I'm an agnostic.
King James is the way to go
@@Man-lw1vp Sure, if meaning is not of any particular concern.
@@Man-lw1vp Why? And where are you going?
@@alanthompson8515 Because of the facts....that are readily available to those who seek!!!!
@@Man-lw1vp Sorry TMan. I've been there, done that and even got the (Scripture Union) medals for it. The fact that the Almighty waited until the 17th C to decide that British English was His post-Babel language of choice was "readily available" but hard to account for. Can you explain it better than my parents and pastors?
The Trinit was being taught since teh apostles...this is evident in the early church father's writings. It became a crystallized doctrine because of all of the heresies that were sprouting up...and the Church didn't need 1:John 5:7-8 to establish the Trinity. It wasn't in the manuscripts at the time
Kinda strange that a cult leader would deny himself, and take on pain? Most cult leaders gained materially, Paul didn't. And all the evidence from Paul's letters, as well as the dead sea scrolls, and Josephus demonstrate that the Pharisees believed in final judgment. So it would be very ad-hoc to say, "Oh Paul just tossed out that belief" because ALL of the evidence points in an opposite direction.
Goa?
A smaller state in India. A ship's radio officer from there told me he sees many from his home state in the same occupation (neither of us could figure why.)
Amazing audio, crispy-clear and absolutely professionally recorded **slow clap**
You can hear the words. The venue wasn't set up for good sound. Ok. So?
As a matter of fact, Ehrman takes a minority view on Mark's gospel. His view is taken from Rudolf Bultmann, that whenever Jesus refers to the Son of Man, He's talking about someone else. This is a VERY marginal view, and you'll see why once we exegete in context. First of all, it's important to understand son of man in relation to the text. In Daniel 7, "one like a son of man" refers to a divine figure whom God shares His glory with. This is unheard of in ancient Judaism. God's glory is His
The Gospel is found in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. Read it, believe it, and live.
You are aware that most of that is a pre-Pauline creed, recited by Christians who had no way to verify any of it? The whole thing is a piece of biblical hearsay that Paul is passing on in this letter.
John 6:66 Upon this many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
You know the chapter and verse divisions are not original to the text, right?
Actual talk starts at 9:45 ... that's a lot of introductions....
Dr Samuel Gipp, Th.D would disagree. There's not much difference between Nestle & TR text, no matter what spin is put on it. It makes for selling alot of books and giving lectures.
You obviously weren't following our conversation very closely. There are several posts in which I say it is Jude 5.