Thank you for this lecture. I recently gave a presentation for my Rhetoric course at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary in which I argued for the Protestant orthodox preservationist view of Westminster Confession 1.8. My professor, who is a critical text advocate, said it was a great presentation. Much of my information and points came from past videos you have made, along with TBS and other Reformed authors. Keep putting up content like this!
The eclectic text was not the consensus text of the Protestant Reformation, only emerged in the nineteenth century, rejects passages like Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 as spurious, and now has produced a method suggesting there is no way ever to recover the original text.
@@beausie-woesieherewegoesie2548 Why did the TR have to be restored after 1500 years? And is it agreed that there is a perfect method to reconstruct the one true TR from all the TR versions?
Can serious work be done on the similarities in verse content between the TR and the Clementine Vulgate. Although the Douay-Rheims was used by William Fulke against the papists, I believe that the primitive Vulgate tradition can inform our defense of the TR. I also wish a Bible could be produced where every single verse had the church fathers who quoted it. This would be a monumental piece of scholarship but would put to bed the Bart Erhmans of this world.
I understand that in 1881 there was a reasonably wide consensus that the KJV should be updated. The men tasked were misled. One, I believe it was Scrivener, walked away when he realised that new texts were being introduced. It is a shame that it wasn't updated then, and that the NKJV would be the eventual update. However, I am led to believe that the KJV21st century is very good. I do think that today there exists Godly translators capable of making the tweaks that even Scrivener suggested should be made.
"We are not relying on scholarly reconstruction, we are relying on divine preservation." This is laughable. But also sad. Were not Erasmus and other editors of TR scholars who were attempting to reconstruct the text using available manuscripts? This is just a pitiful attempt to exchange truth for certainty. And a disservice to God and His Kingdom.
Hi Mykola, I respectfully disagree. Erasmus and TR scholars were not doing modern textual reconstruction. Truth and certainty are not mutually exclusive. Ad hominem is a signed of a failed argument (or no argument at all).
Thank you for this lecture. I recently gave a presentation for my Rhetoric course at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary in which I argued for the Protestant orthodox preservationist view of Westminster Confession 1.8.
My professor, who is a critical text advocate, said it was a great presentation. Much of my information and points came from past videos you have made, along with TBS and other Reformed authors. Keep putting up content like this!
Thanks for the encouragement Jacob and glad to hear your presentation went well and was well received!
Thank you for defending God's preserved text!
This message is fundamental the lack of assurance of what is the word of God has impacted preaching today
That is so true
Thank you for posting this! I will be sharing it.
Thank you for defending the inherent, literal and Preserved word of God.
Great presentation, thanks for posting.
An excellent first lecture. Thank you dear brother.
Great presentation Pastor Jeff.
Thanks for the encouragement DJ!
It is well spoken! Thank you for your insightful video!😊⛪📖🙏
Thank you for a wonderful refresher. One point, I think it better to speak of “Late Modern” rather than “Post Modern.”
So why do you believe that God has preserved the traditional text rather than the eclectic?
The eclectic text was not the consensus text of the Protestant Reformation, only emerged in the nineteenth century, rejects passages like Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 as spurious, and now has produced a method suggesting there is no way ever to recover the original text.
So you would have to say that Almighty God forgot His Words for five hundred years and did not preserve, but recovered them.
@@beausie-woesieherewegoesie2548 Why did the TR have to be restored after 1500 years? And is it agreed that there is a perfect method to reconstruct the one true TR from all the TR versions?
@@indy74 EXACTLY. Recovered, not restored.
@@beausie-woesieherewegoesie2548
The traditional text lived on before the 1500's
Can serious work be done on the similarities in verse content between the TR and the Clementine Vulgate. Although the Douay-Rheims was used by William Fulke against the papists, I believe that the primitive Vulgate tradition can inform our defense of the TR.
I also wish a Bible could be produced where every single verse had the church fathers who quoted it. This would be a monumental piece of scholarship but would put to bed the Bart Erhmans of this world.
it would also put to bed alot of protestant apologists as the church fathers were catholics
I understand that in 1881 there was a reasonably wide consensus that the KJV should be updated. The men tasked were misled. One, I believe it was Scrivener, walked away when he realised that new texts were being introduced. It is a shame that it wasn't updated then, and that the NKJV would be the eventual update. However, I am led to believe that the KJV21st century is very good. I do think that today there exists Godly translators capable of making the tweaks that even Scrivener suggested should be made.
"We are not relying on scholarly reconstruction, we are relying on divine preservation." This is laughable. But also sad. Were not Erasmus and other editors of TR scholars who were attempting to reconstruct the text using available manuscripts? This is just a pitiful attempt to exchange truth for certainty. And a disservice to God and His Kingdom.
Hi Mykola, I respectfully disagree. Erasmus and TR scholars were not doing modern textual reconstruction. Truth and certainty are not mutually exclusive. Ad hominem is a signed of a failed argument (or no argument at all).
Who would laugh at the idea of God preserving His word?
@@billyr9162 Heretics would.
@@tonyb408 HAHAHAHA
Yep
@@wordmagazine they certainly were. Have you read any of the notes of Erasmus?