Bill Mounce: Are the New Testament Manuscripts Reliable?

No video

Bill Mounce: Are the New Testament Manuscripts Reliable?

Рет қаралды 13,433

Күн бұрын

seedbed.com
Seedbed's mission is to gather, connect, and resource the people of God to sow for a great awakening. // Find out more and join the awakening journey! seedbed.com
Download the PDF group discussion guide:
my.seedbed.com...
What reasons should we have for trusting the Bible? Today’s culture often casts doubt on the trustworthiness of the Gospel accounts and other testimonies of the in-breaking of God’s kingdom in the New Testament. It is common to hear claims that there are over 400,000 differences in all of the manuscripts we have of the New Testament. If we cannot even know for certain what the original documents in the New Testament said, how can we trust the factual claims it’s making about the life of Jesus and his apostles? When presented truthfully, the facts actually paint a much more generous and accurate portrait of the New Testament’s textual transmission. It’s important to know what the implications really are, and how this makes a difference.
Listen in on Dr. Bill Mounce in this Seven Minute Seminary.

Пікірлер: 41

@ministerinbrasil 3 жыл бұрын

Thank you. Praise the Lord!

@chessward4832 6 жыл бұрын

Home run, Bill. Excellent words. Many thanks.

@SecretGarden1963 9 жыл бұрын

I'm not sure even Ehrman calls the variants "mistakes", but Dr. Daniel Wallace, a leading textual critic, explains the types of these 400K variants, so I highly recommend Christians searching out his videos, and he has shut Erman's mouth, in at least two public debates, by asking if any of these variants affect a single doctrine of Christianity, and Ehrman is forced to confess they don't.

@felizzhappy5276 8 жыл бұрын

i recomend u to check new testament textual criticism on facebook most of the member are professionals textual criticis and christians... if you have any question you can post it there

@turnoutjim 5 жыл бұрын

Oh my God! I'm transferred back to that little Christian University in Azusa. It's good hearing your voice and it's great hearing your teaching again.

@MM-ek9vt 3 жыл бұрын

3. Exodus 20:7

@Packhorse-bh8qn 4 ай бұрын

@turnoutjim "Oh my God!" "“You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain. " (Exod 20:7)

@brotherjim5904 Жыл бұрын

Excellent commentary. All the more reason I became by default (not knowing the existence of the Wesleyan theological methodology at the time) a quadrilateral believer in my approach to and formation of personally held doctrine. (The addition of the witness of the S(s)pirit, when He gives it, further enlightens--perhaps that's the "sound judgment/mind" of 2Tim.1:7??)

@RevRMBWest 6 жыл бұрын

The widest differences are between the very few manuscripts which survive only from Egypt in the main and which are represented by merely several codices such as Aleph, B, Alexandrinus, Bezae, Ephramus and a few others. If we look at the close consensus of the vast majority of manuscripts, however, hailing from many eras and areas, then we get something very close to the kind of text found in the Greek Church today, and in both the Authorised Version and the New King James Version. Thus the woman taken in adultery and the long ending of Mark are very well attested, indeed, throughout the whole ages of the Church and its geographical extent.

@Packhorse-bh8qn 4 ай бұрын

"Thus the woman taken in adultery and the long ending of Mark are very well attested, indeed, throughout the whole ages of the Church and its geographical extent." No, they are both late additions.

@RevRMBWest 4 ай бұрын

@@Packhorse-bh8qn You cannot show that on empirical principles: Mark 16 is cited as scripture from the mid-second century and this could not have been done if it was a fabrication: and the woman taken in adultery passage is in all scriptures and translations of the church universal, which it could not have been if it was imposed on the faithful, to begin with, in just one locale.

@lazybearish 8 ай бұрын

A look at John 5:7 should dispel the notion that verse 4 doesn’t belong. In John 5:7, after Jesus has asks the man if he wants to be healed, the man says, “Sir, I have no one , when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool, but while I am coming, another steps in before me.” Now, all manuscripts that include John 5 have verse 7. What do we learn from the man’s answer to Jesus? 1. That there was healing in the water, 2. While it was “troubled” or moving, 3. But only for the first person stepping into the water. Where in the context do we find the explanation that covers all those points? In verse 4!!

@Packhorse-bh8qn 4 ай бұрын

@lazybearish "What do we learn from the man’s answer to Jesus? 1. That there was healing in the water, 2. While it was “troubled” or moving, 3. But only for the first person stepping into the water. " What we learn from the man's answer is that the man BELIEVED this. We don't learn that it was TRUE. Since that is not something that we have ever seen God do, it's much more likely that this was a local legend, NOT that it was actually happening. But either way, the information is there in the man's answer, and is not at all dependent on verse 4.

@lazybearish 4 ай бұрын

No. What we learn is that verse four of John 5 explains the man’s notions. Whether he believed it or not, the obvious contextual guide is verse 4. As usual, critical textualists go out of their way to ignore the local context in favor of unsubstantiated, inserted contexts to fit their viewpoints. And as far as what God can do or has done, I’d be cautious if I were you. The Sadducees were so-called “literalists” who said they believed in only the Pentateuch, but at the same time, they denied the very existence of angels.

@Packhorse-bh8qn 4 ай бұрын

@@lazybearish "Whether he believed it or not, the obvious contextual guide is verse 4." Verse 4 adds nothing to the passage which cannot be interred from the man's statements, and that is almost certainly the origin of it. Somebody thought that elaboration was required. It was not. "As usual, critical textualists go out of their way to ignore the local context in favor of " There is no "ignoring of context" here. There is simply following the facts. It's a later addition and it is completely superfluous. It is not "context" that is required - the information is obvious from the man's statements. No, "context" is required for any person of normal intelligence. The information is all right there.

@lazybearish 4 ай бұрын

Wrong again. Your statements of supposed certainty about it being a later edition is based on your bias for so-called earlier manuscripts, two in particular, Siniaticus and Vaticanus. But what you do not understand is that (1) any reading is older than the manuscript it is in, (2) there is no one on the planet who has ever been able to establish and identify even ONE direct line of transmission between an exemplar and its copy. Theorizing won’t get it. Even Bart Ehrman, preeminent scholar, and James White, wannabe scholar, had to admit in their debate that it is extremely rare to find any manuscript that has been proven to come directly from another. That means we need to respectfully consider ALL manuscript traditions in the evaluation of readings, not just less than 6% of the vast evidence contained in the Alexandrian manuscripts. By the way, Dr. Harry Sturz proved that most papyri is mixed in readings, not simply majority Alexandrian. So their are plenty of Byzantine readings in those ancient papyri, which I’ll remind you, predate the great uncials. Nevertheless, ALL evidence needs to continuously be considered in doing textual criticism.

@Packhorse-bh8qn 4 ай бұрын

@@lazybearish "Your statements of supposed certainty about it being a later edition is based on your bias for so-called earlier manuscripts, two in particular, Siniaticus and Vaticanus" Ah, the standard KJVO disinformation.' /sigh/ No, the source of the 4th "verse" is quite well established. It was a rather late scribal note, which was later incorporated into the text.

@KingdomCome641 Жыл бұрын

what about the Johanine comma? That is a pretty significant doctrine introduced that isn't in the original manuscripts.

@brotherjim5904 Жыл бұрын

Are you a Jehovah's Witness? (Rhetorical. Does the reader see how the asking of a SEEMINGLY innocuous question can carry with it an underlying connotation, which is often divisive and unprofitable?) 1Jn.4:7-8 in the "completeness" found in most translations, is not at all a necessary element in the belief of trinitarian doctrine. A moot point in this thread.

@brotherjim5904 Жыл бұрын

Another example would be the "drive-by shooter" whose comment elsewhere here, without offering credentials or so much as even a basis for rebuttal says he is not sure the speaker knows what he is talking about. Such is why I make no provision for comments in my twitter timeline.

@Packhorse-bh8qn 4 ай бұрын

@KingdomCome641 "what about the Johanine comma? That is a pretty significant doctrine introduced that isn't in the original manuscripts." No, while it IS a significant doctrine, it is not a "doctrine introduced". The doctrine of the Trinity is found throughout Scripture, both Old and New Testaments. It is not at all dependent on the Johanine comma. It can be, and has often been, demonstrated quite apart from that small insertion. Tertullian writes about it being, "the settled faith of the Church" long before the Johanine comma showed up.

@AntwanRSmith 4 жыл бұрын

Good job!

@souldesire5932 4 жыл бұрын

Actually supposedly it was in Greek originally and the Greek manuscripts were redone..none of the disciples supposedly spoke Greek and it was much more rare than what's commonly known..It was all spoken in Aramaic according to most historians and there's good evidence for this..It really requires Aramaic or Aramaic to english for good accuracy I've learned..The Greeks were at odds with many believers..Their culture was paganistic, although obviously there were some Greek believers.

@Packhorse-bh8qn 4 ай бұрын

".none of the disciples supposedly spoke Greek and it was much more rare than what's commonly known..It was all spoken in Aramaic according to most historians and there's good evidence for this" This is incorrect. Thanks to Alexander the Great, Greek was spread over the entire region, and became the common trade language. It was spoken widely among all classes of people. In fact, the Scriptures which were read in the synagogues were the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT. The were read and understood by the common people, in Greek. Also, the 4 gospels ALL give internal evidence of having been written in Greek. Obviously, Luke was, because it was written by a Greek TO a Greek. The same is true of the book of Acts, of course. Paul's epistles were written to Greek audiences. Really, the only one that MIGHT have been written in Hebrew (not Aramaic) was the gook of Hebrews. We have no historical or manuscript evidence of it being written in Hebrew, but it makes sense that it MIGHT have been, given the audience.

@terryautry6493 3 жыл бұрын

The errors are spelling errors mostly

@johnellis7614 6 жыл бұрын

BORN AGAIN Angels in heaven are created with the freedom to do everything under the sun except commit suicide. For doing harmful sin kills the spirit and forfeits eternal life. And so, why would angels being careful to not do suicidal sin, show any kind of loyalty or love? Loyalty toward God is the same thing as faith toward God, for it is faithfulness to the will of God. Which is using our time, energy and wealth to act in harmony with his laws and moral requirements such as helping the poor. Surely, loyalty, faith and faithfulness are not love, as they only give back to God a small portion of what he gave us. "We love because he first loved us." Because God gave us existence, life and being, because he gave us everything we are and everything we have, it is impossible to love God unless we give him something he does not have, something he cannot create and something that only we can create. The most painful and mind paralyzing experience known to man, the pride destroying admission that we are not a self-sufficient man that can take care of himself, that there is no way that we could make it on our own. It is the most degrading humiliation of achieving the self-effacing mindset of excepting a debt load of gratitude impossible to repay. Such that never again in clear conscience can you own anything, that everything you have belongs to those who have less and most guilty do you feel it ever you miss an opportunity to give all you can give.

@JamesSnapp 5 жыл бұрын

I am not convinced that Dr. Mounce knows what he is talking about.

@endykakiay6657 4 жыл бұрын

why do you say so, dont mind me asking

@JamesSnapp 3 жыл бұрын

@@endykakiay6657 , Where to start? Lemme give one example: as he's talking about John 5:4 (around the 2:45 mark) he says that John 5:4 was added "a few centuries" after John actually wrote. Well, in real life, if one reckons that John wrote the Gospel of John around A.D. 90, Tertullian must've had a time machine, because he refers to the angel at the pool while writing before A.D. 220. If a viewer asked, "What about Tertullian's reference in On Baptism, chapter 5?" the response would be a dumb stare from Dr. Mounce, or an admission that his claim is impossible. Another ridiculous claim from Dr. Mounce is that "the vast majority of scholars are absolutely convinced that 99% of our Greek manuscripts are authentic," while advocating English versions which adopt readings that are not supported by over 80% of the Greek manuscripts. Also, you see Dr. Mounce discuss Mark 9:29 (in minute 6) but you don't see him discuss how many manuscripts support the inclusion of "and fasting" (including P45).

@Packhorse-bh8qn 4 ай бұрын

He's referring to objective facts that can be independently verified.