HomeОбразованиеRelated VideosMore From: Robert Paul Wieland

Modern Textual Criticism: Is it Reliable? Part 4

23 ratings | 713 views
Two part video. Part 1 answers a question by Jackie from Northern California, "Why is Textual Criticism important for the Christian?" Part 2 lays down some principles of Reformed Textual Criticism.
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (8)
MrMindpeace (2 years ago)
Another edifying video. I fully agree the biblical manuscripts and codex etc should be examined by the Christians and I would also say a shared responsibility with Jews who believe in the Old Testament scriptures.
kingair001 (2 years ago)
the word "church" does not appear in the greek text
Edward Woods (4 years ago)
Brother, I have a question slightly unrelated to this video but more so to some of your comments on the Puritan board. First of all, I agree in many ways to your opinion on modern textual criticism. Though I don't not think the TR is a great manuscript but I think the Majority text as a whole should be weighed as much as codex vac, codex sin. That being said I prefer translations from the tr or majority text. I hold the kjv very dear. But there are some inconsistencies and errors in it. Why are you reluctant to recommend the NKJV ,personally I think it is a find modern update to the KJV. I think it is more accurate in many places then the KJV. Could you explain why you don't like the NKJV and Why you put so much weight on the KJV ,in terms of accuracy, not the beauty of its language. What makes the KJV so accurate? I assure you  I am in no way being sarcastic but am genuinely interested in your answer.
Edward Woods (3 years ago)
Its okay brother
Robert Paul Wieland (3 years ago)
+Edward Woods Mr. Woods: I cannot read the whole of your reply, so, I am unable to answer it. Sorry, RPW
Edward Woods (4 years ago)
+Robert Paul Wieland Thank Robert for your reply. Yes, I am aware that the NKJV is not a mere update of the archaic language of the KJV. I have been studying some textual criticism lately. I actually enjoy the footnotes of NKJV. That being said i understand how they could be a problem in terms of witnessing. I think they are often fair in their footnotes and most of the time simply state the variation. For instance in Mark 16:9-20, the NKJV footnote states as follows "Verses 9-20 are bracketed in NU-text as not original. They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other manuscripts of Mark contain them." Personally I see this as a very fair footnote and when I read it I would even say that the NKJV translators seem to hold this reading as genuine. To say such footnoting is unnecessary, well, I would disagree. I think it's merely honest, did not the KJV have some similar footnotes in their original text. I realize there footnotes did not contain all the same information that the NKJV does. In regards to some translation issues in the KJV, which many are well noted at this point because of the KJV's age. Here are a few examples of translation in the KJV, Daniel 7:9 "I beheld till the thrones were cast down" Which actually the literal translation is opposite of this. Geneva bible for instance has "I behelde, till the thrones were set vp" And most other translations are similar. That's one example and there are a few others like this. Another would be there are some inconsistencies in the way they translated the same greek words, into many different english words. I am aware that sometimes this is warranted and translating is not so black and white but instances like ghost and spirit are kind of inconsistent. Not differentiating hell and hades is sometimes troublesome. Thou shalt not kill or thou shalt not murder is an issue in consistency. Gal 2:21 is problematic "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." Is dead is an obvious error "died in vain" would be much more appropriate IMO. By the way, I by no means am trying to attack the KJV. It is actually my translation of choice. I don't really have any issues myself with the archaic language it was a fairly easy hurdle to overcome for me. But I must admit some of the errors I've seen and found in the KJV and the language barrier I suppose could be an issue for some, have made me second guess my use of it. I am in school to be a preacher and am seriously considering my translation of choice to preach from. Do you have a video or any comments to defend the KJV or maybe reassure me that I have made a good choice with the KJV. I guess I don't want to create a stumbling block in my ministry by use of the KJV. I must say the mere fact of KJV's longevity impresses me. No other translation has lasted and impacted Christianity like the KJV, it's battle-tested so to speak. Unfortunately most of the defenders of the KJV are irrational cultist, which you by no means seem to be. So who are some respectable defenders of the TR/KJV besides yourself. This is a serious issue for me my translation choice, I believe it's a vital decision. I'm a fairly new reformed christian and want to obtain accurate and logical information. If could respond to some of my questions that would be great. If you like you could email at [email protected] That's if you wouldn't mind some further discussion on this issue and maybe others. I would appreciate it.
Robert Paul Wieland (4 years ago)
+Edward Woods Greetings Mr. Woods: Thank you for your kind and sincere comments.  When it comes to English language translations I believe that the KJV is the best translation.  If someone says to me that he/she has a problem with the vocabulary and syntax of the KJV, then I would, reluctantly, recommend the NKJV. My reluctance concerning the NKJV is that they did a little more than change the "thee's" and "thou's" in the text. They utilized some of the Modern Theory in their translation. For example: They will footnote verses like 1 John 5:7,8 and the last 12 verses of Mark as questioned by the false philosophy. Such footnoting is unnecessary and detrimental to the text.  If you are trying to witness to an unbeliever, and you use these verses in the NKJV, then the unbeliever could point out the footnotes, and then claim that "we really do not know what John or Mark wrote, now do we?" A whole textual issue discussion has to then be engaged the result of which two things will happen, 1) It is silly, because the Modern philosophy is simply wrong, 2) It derails the conversation, and undermines any presentation of the Gospel that saves souls. Finally, I do not know what inconsistencies and errors you are referring to, but I would like to see them, and, maybe, I will address them in a future video (if they are in Stephens 1550 as well).  Thanks again, and may God richly bless you, Rob.
Steven Hayes (5 years ago)
Brother Wieland, your discussion of the NT church as being the "pillar and ground of the truth" is an incredibly important point in the discussion regarding textual criticism and the identification of the genuine text of the NT.  I've followed both sides of this argument for a long time and have rarely heard this point made (I did hear a comment on it by Doug Wilson once, if I recall correctly).  Thank you!

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.