Adam contacted me and said that he meant to say "Andrew Wilson" instead of "Colwell"

It's so weird that this came out today. I had never heard of Adam Boyd until about three or four days ago, when I encountered the "American Standard Version: Byzantine Text," which is an edition of the famous ASV (1901) but in accordance with the Byzantine (Majority) Text. And then, a few days later, this video comes up!

Very interesting! Would be fun for you to host Mr. Boyd and Jeff Riddle to discuss Byzantine Text versus Textus Receptus issues, and even divine preservation...

The "not yet" in John 7:8 is found in P66, and P75 the earliest yet some CT folk reject it.

It is very well preserved in the Byzantine text, meaning for meaning. The only text I see a case for word for word preservation, is family 35.

It is acknowledged in the footnotes. I can appreciate the Byzantine priority view for it is still a text critical position.

Knew a guy nicknamed Joe the Body. His surname was Boyd, but it was so often misspelled as body on envelopes addressed to him that the nickname was coined.

I am not a Greek scholar, but I do use helps such as Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. It's very helpful for me. I prefer translations such as the KJV, NKJV over most modern critical text based versions, because I see too many inconsistencies between many of those versions even though they are mostly based on the same critical Greek texts. For instance, John 7:8 in the LSB reads, "Go up to the feast yourselves; I am not yet going up to this feast because My time has not yet been fulfilled." Yet the NASB leaves out the word yet, even though the LSB is basically a revision of the NASB. The 1984 NIV has the word yet in that verse, but the 2011 NIV leaves it out. I do use some of the critical text versions from time to time such as the ESV, but for overall trustworthiness, reliability, and faithfulness, I stick with the Byzantine text based versions.

re. Jn 7:8: the first “not yet” is not in the NA28 text or THGNT, but it’s in 𝔐 and B (Vaticanus) and the early papyrus (P66, P75 and all others, also: LSB, ISB). Only the mss.: 01 (Sinaiticus) D (Codex Bezae) K 1241 it syr^c,s cop^bo read “not” instead of “not yet”.

Totally recommend his critical new testament translation is sound unique with translatable difference between various Greek New testament

He doesn’t hold to divine preservation…hm…yeah I agreed with him up the this point.

Thank you, Gentlemen 🌹⭐🌹⭐🌹

Thanks for the video!

Is there a translation from that platform that you would recommend?

It would be nice to get the list of 105 verses. I've seen the number bandied about. Those bandying it are generally honest folk but I haven't seen the list.

John 7.8 was rated C uncertain by Metzger - I don’t think reasoned eclecticism stand or falls on that, because the critical text could easily be amended to align with the majority text in this instance

You guys have actually red Greisbach's shorter reading formulation? (which is actually "Prefer the shorter reading when... and prefer the longer reading when..." I.e its not at all a simple "always prefer the shorter reading" or even "prefer the shorter reading more often than the longer reading")

The Word of God given to man itself defines how important it has to be in its exact information, both old and new testaments. It's that exact information that God through his Word tells us that He preserves, we don't have to speculate if he preserves it or not. This exact information can come in any mankind language. If we look we can see examples of God directing this in Hebrew, Greek and English etc., especially with the king james Bible. Even if mankind only had one Bible from the beginning that mankind didn't corrupt we still would argue over various understandings and have a number of different churches. Things would be like they are now except we wouldn't be looking for scraps in the ground. No doubt we already have what God promised he would give us.

What versions are from Byzantine?

I would agree with both these gentlemen that mistakes in copying are much more likely to leave things out, and thus make the reading shorter and harder to understand, than to add and make the reading longer and easier to understand. Yet the Critical school assert the contrary, which seems to go against both common sense and common experience. So, we have an argument here in favour of the Byzantine Text-Form as it is generally longer and easier to understand; as if it is preserving a better or 'more perfect' original text rather than mushing it up. The manuscripts of the Byz T-F are also much more homogenous in their whole text and distinctive readings. But how do we account for that? A 4th-century church recension is what Dr Hort dogmatised about as the source of the Byzantine text. This sent Dean John Burgon almost into a fit of contempt, for Hort had just sprung that idea out of his head. But Hort's disciples, such as Souter, deemed Hort as 'almost infallible'. Time has shown that Burgon was right. But did we go back to the Byzantine text? No. Instead, a deep-seated prejudice among many textual critics tried to salvage Hort's text, but this time without his theory of a recension to explain the source of the Byzantine text. They came up with the process theory of how you get the homogenous Byzantine text: different (unconnected) scribes - not a group working together through an official recension - making different errors in different places would somehow bring forth a text easier to read and understand and longer and clearer in its distinctive readings; and practically identical in its distinctive readings too, as they would be moved (somehow) to perfect and make more orthodox what was sloppy and a little less than orthodox. This is very bad reasoning and there is no evidence for it at all, yet Metzger and Aland were full of it. How could this be done? How could the result of the non-collaborative exercise of unconnected scribes be imposed on everyone everywhere? Were Aland and Metzger there when the copyists made changes? Did the copyist make such changes? How could Aland and Metzger know? It is all really just surmise, supposition, and (I have to say imagination) to save Hort's text and at least part of his 'almost infallible' theory. Bart Ehrman has been more explicit and turned this theory into something like a 'Conspiracy Theory" to overturn the Critical text (which is seen as original) and corrupt us with the admittedly more orthodox Byzantine text (which is seen as less original and the outcome more orthodox Christians) who were prepared to change Scripture to make it more orthodox! This has brought wrath down upon Erhman's head, though, from Daniel Wallace and others who still prefer Hort's text. But I am not sure how long this can go on for. The Byzantine text is certainly more orthodox, slightly longer, easier to understand, and clearer. Its manuscripts do not diverge from one another and so do not diverge from their archetype. So, what is their archetype? The Process theory at least tells us that it was not a 4th-century recension. So what was it then? Something earlier than the 4th century? Something earlier than the 3rd century? Something earlier than the 2nd century? And we cannot get any earlier than the 1st century.

Greek/Hebrew words can either be alphabetical or numerical, the scribe would add up the characters in each row and then total all the rows, if the checksum did not match the page being copied the page was burned and then recopied until the checksum matches.

Can you name one doctrine missing or changed in the "critical" text? Also, the Byzantine superior argument always ASSUMES the critical text is missing something. It could be the Byzantine text ADDED something. There are instances where marginal notations have ended up in the main body of the text. That said, no doctrines have been changed in either text. It's good to scrutinize the textual variances, but don't use it as a hammer to divide the faith.

Hi, Dwayne. I thought I submitted a comment here a few days ago, but either I did not hit "Comment," or it got deleted somehow. Here it is: Is there any way I can get in contact with Adam? Or perhaps you can relay this message to him. There is an error in the ASVBT, of which he is the editor, in Acts 4:28. It should read "thy counsel" and not "thy council." This is a common error in many electronic editions of the ASV, but all print version have "thy counsel." Thank you!

Great video brothers

I ordered the book. But I found no information like font size.