Brother, your prayerfulness and slowness to speak, and deliberation, has been a great blessing I’m thankful for, this year. Thank you. Lord bless you!

Brother, I too recommend the Byzantine Textform, your videos are a tremendous blessing for the rich, healthy and useful information you provide in a clear and understandable way. I am very glad to see your position. Like you, I started from the Textus Receptus to the Byzantine Textform, and I thank God for it, in the Byzantine Textfrom, I see the preservation of God throughout the centuries and in a healthy way and free of human "dogmas". I find the Textus Receptus a very good edition, but in it there are minor errors of grammatical style, which those who love the Word of God, do not want to tolerate. Dr. Robinson (whom I interviewed very well) helped me a lot, on a personal level, with his patience and his impeccable method in which he combines Faith and Science, a true Christian example. I believe that the Critical text and its consequent translations omit small parts of the Word of God, and that hurts me, because I love the Word of our Good God and Savior, but even in the NIV, there is the Word of God, although I recommend going to a translation as close to the Original as possible. Thank you for giving your honest opinion and for your enriching videos, to your guests and to the Lord for guiding you in it. One text that helped me was Luke 1:1-4, the Evangelist himself, under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit revised everything to put it in order! I attach a detailed list of the differences you mention, anyone will see how minor these differences are and how the Lord's care is impeccable. A longer video giving more details would be great for those who are still debating their textual position. Thank you Brother for your work and your wisdom. God bless you! Greetings from Spain byzantinetext.com/study/editions/robinson-pierpont/

Excellent communication!! Well said.getting to the many truth points....no word salad!!!!!! Thank you!

Every video of your journey on this issue has been so helpful and encouraging- often feeling I have been journeying with you. During your hiatus and into now, I have studied, read, and prayed, as well. So, to hear you share where you have arrived is so appreciated! Thank you for being brave and vulnerable enough to "put it out there" for all to know and consider. I have yet to fully arrive to my own conclusions, but hoping I'll get there in due time. Until then, I would love to hear more on what led you away from a CT position and how you are applying the BT position in practical terms (e.g. what Bible and text sources you choose, how and what you teach and preach, etc.) Thanks again, Brother!

Thanks Dwane. I appreciate the fact that you actually sought the Lords guidance before you finally decided. Would love to hear more about the byzantine priority text in the near future. The Lord be with you.

Thanks for this video. It's good to hear some of your conclusions and I look forward to hearing more. I've found this whole series of studies and interviews really interesting and helpful. It's put me in a place were I'm definitely less confident about the CT position and more included towards the MT/TR. I don't feel under too much pressure to decide as I don't think we have 1 perfect bible and I got a lot of benefit from using both the ESV and NKJV regularly.

As a King James Onlyist, I am so inspired by the spirit you have in your videos. I’ve only recently discovered your channel, but it’s been a big help to me, thank you! I’m asking for clarity, not to demean, is the only practical application of your conclusion for an exclusively English Speaking person that you prefer the NKJV over the KJV? I was under the understanding that the underlying text of the two are the same, with the exception that the NKJV consults the Hodges Farstad M.T, and notes in the Margin where the C.T differs (like 1400 times).

The Critical Text never existed in history but is a text scrabbled together from different texts. I believe the Alexandrian text (which usually wins with Critical Text supporters) is a text that deviated from the Byz Text in Egypt and is a separate stream of tradition.

Made some good points, and there are many things that I agree with in this video. But I have to admit, you sort of lost me with a "seemingly" lack of rebuke (for lack of use of a better word) for the NIV and some of the other critical text versions. While I 100% agree, that God can use the NIV, the Message Bible, and other critical text versions to save the lost. And one can certainly grow in the Lord while reading these versions. But we simply cannot overlook the contradictions and the confusion caused by it. I believe this video is making light of this fact. And that's unfortunate. I have to say brother, that it is disheartening to hear you partly justify your stance by stating how you cannot tell an "old couple" that their spiritual lives are somewhat deficient because they are using the NIV. But that is not the issue! The issue is the differences! And I have noticed that many of these differences do in fact weaken our stances in some areas of evangelism and contending for the faith. I know that you mentioned that your points are not intended for everyone who may disagree with you, and I appreciate that brother. But we cannot lose sight of why there is a disagreement about these underlying Greek texts in the 1st place. And that is the differences in the scriptures and the confusion caused by them.

I'm considering the bynzatine, majority text (NKJV/robinson pierpont Zane hodge view). It seems that alot of guys are going this direction over against the critical text tradition and TR KJV camp tradition.

I think you were very fair in your assessments and the way you laid out your process. I would love to see the video on the differing meanings of preserving His Word as you did with the example in this video (I would just find it an interesting video).

Good to hear where you're at. NB - working through Matthew is good, but maybe after Matthew have a look at Revelation in a TR and the Byz

To be fair there is very few differences between MT and TR especially over doctrine

Well said Dwayne.

Great video brother! I have recently gone thru the same decision, thru much prayer. The only difference is that I was TR/Byzantine, but today I use both Byzantine and Modern Critical Text (Alexandrian). I must ask the question; which English translation do you preach from? I was once a KJVO, but biblical exegesis snached me out of that movement. After 32 years of in depth study, I feel like I have barely scratched the surface. That sir is evidence of the sanctification process. Still growing and as hungry for the word as I was 32 years ago. The LSB is my go to text in English. God's best to you and yours.

nice video, again... it is not every day one watches somebody coming to a decision on a textual preference, in real time, though it has been in the cards for a long time, that it would be the byzantine priority, so no huge surprise,... but it's always good to step down from the fence and find "the place to park".... so good luck... ☺

Your conclusion, Pastor Dwayne, seems reasonable. It was interesting to see the video posted by Pastor Matthew Everhard which detailed 25 reasons why he has come to favor the Majority Text position. It would be interesting to see a debate between him and a TR advocate. My guess is that the TR fan would be hard pressed to advance sound reasons to stick with the TR in light of the rationale supporting Pastor Everhard's position. Thank you for an interesting look at this issue!

Which English translation would you recommend for someone who also holds Byzantine priority?

Hi Dwayne, I appreciate this video, and wholeheartedly agree that the Holy Spirit can enlighten our understandings in multiple translations of the Bible and Greek texts. I gain much from Mike Winger who uses the ESV mostly, and I have my own problems with that translation. When I read the Majority Text Interlinear, God definitely speaks to me with it, although I am a TR guy. You are right to say it is an extrabiblical belief to hold to the TR on historical grounds but my own experience and reason tells me that it is a strong case for the TR, as God does work consistently in history and human lives, and the text of His Word is important. I can not aver that any TR edition is equal to the autographs as some advocates do as a matter of their own dogma, I would love to have that certainty but I can not without a clear and supernatural revelation, I have had a lot of recent "coincidences" that really seem to point me to Stephanus 1550, and even with some uncertainty, I feel it is best to treat this edition with the same reverence I would the autographs themselves. God bless you, brother.

Great work, brother!

The problem with being a BT guy is what Bible to use. The NKJV and KJV and MEV all use the TR. The rest use the critical text. Neither of these match the BT in all places., so what do we BT guys go in using an English Bible?

Off topic kind of…but have you seen the CT’s rendering of 1 Peter 3:18 vs the BT/MT reading of….made alive IN THE SPIRIT vs made alive BY THE SPIRIT? I think the CT is terrible here. RC Sproul had a problem with it as well.

Hey brother, really enjoy your content and hope you know that you're doing very important stuff here. Have you ever compared the Byzantine with the Patriarchal Text? In the examples(NT) I've seen, it looks like it lines up very close with the TR. Just curious about your thoughts, keep up the great work. God bless!

Dwayne, you mentioned Yon Kron or was it Yakron, in first part of your video, I was hoping you could provide the spelling of his name, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you

Love you Bro. Dwayne! When you say you lean more toward the Byzantine Priorities, is that the Majority Text?

Now, wouldn't it be nice if someone would do a major translation based on the BPT? Instead of a hundred more translations of the Nestle-Aland. And a major analysis of the Septuagint manuscripts, followed by a good translation of that as well? It is what I would like to see: all the traditions represented in good, modern English.

I’m so confused. I thought the Byzantine and Received Text were the same. Where am I off? I apologize if you’ve been asked this question a bunch of times.

A circumstantial case for the Comma of John: In 484 A.D. the bishop of Carthage with 400 bishops quoted the comma to an Arian Vandal king. Being the bishop of Carthage, he would have had access to the Scriptures of Cyprian, and he probably had a Vulgate, maybe a first edition. Also, Gregory Nazianzus wrote on the grammar, and he had a student named Jerome. Seems strong evidence to me. Blessings.

Why do sides have to be taken? Why can’t each text be presented in its own light? This, I believe is a problem with James White. In his effort t market the the NAS, he says some stuff that is not true or out of context and thereby causes division. Division I believe is the sin here. I also appreciate your statement on “sayings”, and God’s usage of other versions.

Dwayne, I am not really clear on this, but I think the KJV translators used the Textus Receptus. Are there any current bible translations that are based on the broader Byzantine Text? I use several different versions, and God blesses me through them all. If I understanding things correctly, my other versions (ESV, NASB, NIV and CSB) are based on the Critical Text which includes the Byzantine, Alexandrian and other text types. I was wondering if there is a translation that is just based on the Byzantine text. Thanks, Adam

"A friend of mine reassured me that even if I went down the road of holding a TR advocacy position... that he would still consider me a friend and stuff." 10:58 O how charitable of him. (laugh)

"Truth Is Christ" Website by Brandon Peterson shows the mathematical perfection of the KJB!

I prefer the textus receptus. i like its use of isopsephy.

What is your opinion of the ESV?

The phrase "heaven and earth" in MT 24:35 is a Hebrew idiom that has, as its meaning, the name of the covenant God made with Israel. ISA 1:2 and chapter 51:16 illustrate this beautifully. And then in ISA 65:17 we read where God was going to create a NEW "heavens and earth," which refers to the New Covenant. 2Pet 3:13 also brings this out using the same idiom. In MT 24:35, Jesus was saying that the Old Covenant system was about to be destroyed, but that His words and prophecies were true, accurate, and about to come to fulfillment.

Hey Dwayne. Let me first say that I appreciate you brother. I can’t speak for all, but I would say those who hold to the TR position would consider Bibles from the CT (Critical Text) to be God’s word, insofar as their readings are genuine readings. We believe God speaks in, saves and sanctifies his people using translations from the CT. We would only say that there are thousands of incorrect readings in those Bibles, and God does not speak through the readings that are not correct or genuine. But where the readings are genuine, God uses it and speaks through it. Also, to your point of a type of textual criticism or corrections being made to the text in the history of the church, we don’t deny that. But we believe that faithful copies were collated and corrections were made during the time of the Reformation. And that through God’s providence, the text came into a stable form, and God’s people accepted the TR as God’s word, equal to the autographic text. So we believe we have a settled text in the TR and that we can rely on every word of the text. My question to you would be if you don’t hold this position, when will textual criticism ever end and will you ever have a settled text? Also your point about Christians who use other translations not from the TR being deficient or the Holy Spirit not speaking to them-I definitely don’t believe like that. In the church I go to, the majority of people use the ESV and I don’t view them as deficient Christians in any way because they don’t use a TR translation. And to your last point, as for me, I don’t want to stand as judge over the text while I’m reading it, determining by my own judgment whether a reading is authentic or not. I choose to trust every word as given in the Received Text. As J.C. Ryle said, “All I would say is, that, in my humble judgment, notwithstanding some difficulties which we may not be able now to solve, the only safe and tenable ground to maintain is this, that every chapter, and every verse, and every word in the Bible has been "given by inspiration of God.” I just wanted to share these thoughts with you Dwayne. I appreciate your humility and for seeking to be led of the Lord regarding these things.

Where did you get that Augustine quote? Can you send a link?

Bro. Dwayne, what do you think about the World English Bible WEB? Its a Majority Text NT translation. I downloaded it on my phone. It also contains the Apocrypha.

Good video. I'm an American native English speaker. Created this way by God. The Holy Ghost sent my people group a English Bible that I can see his hand all over. The Bible he gave me was translated by William Tyndall. The Holy Ghost was involved in this translation. The Geneva, Coverdale and Kjv basically copied Tyndall. And surely the nkjv too. These are my primary sources. I took 4 years of Greek and a few phd seminars and Textual criticism is my hobby. I deeply enjoy and I grow a lot from it. I use what ever GT is at hand. I do check many English translations.

I have grown very fond of the 1901ASV after reading about the 1881 Westcott & Hort Greek text they produced. I also have two Greek interlinear volumes that use this text where the differences are easily determined. I'm actually a Critical Text guy, but this is the very earliest texts we have. And I believe that early is better and truer.

What Byzen txt are we talking about? The new critical edition?

“A James White Halloween” - The textual Frankenstein of modern critical text theory

Brother, I can totally understand you rejecting only-ism, whether TR or any other text. But what bothers me is that anti-TR-onlyism usually ends up going to an extreme opposite: no TR at all, which is equally unscriptural. Now supposedly, there is a 95% level of agreement in words throughout the gamut of textual transmission traditions, spanning from the Alexandrian through the Byzantine. If that be the case, why is there not more emphasis on WHAT the message is instead of which text is supposedly superior. Furthermore, there is much more agreement between the TR versions and the Majority Text than there is between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which differ over 3000 times in the gospels alone! The TR versions are not alone; they are some among others of godly texts that can and do lead people to Christ and guide in growth in Christ.

I go with the Majority Text.

I can respect your position it is after all a critical position. My question is , why do we need to decide on one when they all are a testimony to the tenacity of the text ?

I'm sorry, but I'm confused, so basically you're saying that you now are unsatisfied with the NKJV, you need 100 translations to trust the bible, and the Holy Spirit led you to this? Ok let me stop myself right here

It's all very easy for me. The King James Bible is THE HOLY BIBLE for all English speaking people in the world today.

Disappointing, a whole video advocating against specific acts of God's preservation.