Amen, Inspiration without preservation is confusion!

Dang I wish I found these guys sooner :(

Thank you both for your explanation. May I ask why you haven't posted in a while?

top notch podcast, you two are dynamite together :-))

Around 45:17, I agree 100%! I was thinking about this exact same thing the other day. If you look at it from this perspective, the CT position is one to absolutely avoid at all costs. If you hold to a position like the CT position, it will eventually produce bad fruit (i.e. doubting, tearing out scripture, rationalizing everything, having no faith, leading to liberal theology etc.), I just can't see that position as being blessed by God. On the other hand, when you have a position like ours that produces faith, sound doctrine, love for Christ and living a holy life and has wonderful charitable fruit. I see God using and blessing this like he has in the past. Not saying that all who hold to the CT position aren't Christians and don't live holy lives, just that I see this type of thinking, when followed to its conclusion, leads to bad and corrupt fruit. Just wanted to say love you guys, blessings! Hope all is well :)

Keep doing these, Taylor and Dane!!!

I also have another idea, Could y’all do another episode on the history of the scholars behind the critical text? Scholars such as Dr. Westcott and Dr. Hort, Dr. Aland, and Dr. Bruce Metzger!?!? I think if more faithful people in the pews understood this history they would be very cautious of using these modern versions. If the other side comes after our scholars, why can’t we go after there’s?

Towards the end, Pastor Dane made an interesting comment over the relationship between the Critical Text and the rise of female Pastors and the revoice movement... Could y’all do an episode on how the modern Critical text has specifically led to the rise of female Pastors and other things like homosexuality? Thanks

What happened to this channel? Are you guys putting up more content?

The KJV translators foresaw the modern "text critic," calling them _"self-conceited Brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil"_ (KJV, Dedication, par. 5). God Bless..

Content suggestions: the reformed view and use of the Septuagint

7:45 question, who is claiming these things? Do you have sources for those who say that the text was "corrupted"? I've read a lot. Graduated from seminary and so forth...but not heard anything from conservative believing scholars who aren't supportive of the TR

In the second premise of the TR position, regarding the preservation of the TR readings prior to collation- does this result in less of the Critical Text's premise- the church still lacked a historically visible document with the collated autographic equivalent to the work done by the KJV translators reflected in the text critical decisions collated in Scrivener's TR? That is, confessionally, the equivalent to the TR existed somewhere, or at least was accessible to some region of churches, to the churches as a collective, but wasn't historically visible? Thanks for the guidance. I'm trying to think about the positions and been listening to you guys, Riddle, Van Kleeck, White, Ward, Letis... it's been an adventure!

Keep it up

Hello would you sell your NASB in touch wide margin in black cowhide please.

Remember when the modern evangelical leaders advertised the ESV for God’s people? Leaders such as Dr. David Platt, Matt Chandler and several others individually posted their videos with the black screen in the background? The idea behind this marketing move was if it’s good enough for us than you should read it too. Why don’t we counter that with an advertisement of our own with the KJV? A black screen in the background with Taylor Desoto’s face recommending the KJV. LOL

The doctrine of preservation is pretty irrational when you think about it. The Church proceeded with errors in the Septuagint for hundreds of years before Jerome's vulgate. On that basis, textual criticism and preservation are not in conflict; otherwise you would need to prove a full and accurate Bible throughout the entire age.

A major doctrinal change based on a variant in Mark 1:1 is Son of God. If it isn't there it would support Adoptionism that, you could argue that Jesus only became Son of God at baptism. Not a good place to go. Blessings.

can you make a video of old testament textual criticism?

.... but first, what have you been reading? ;)

A quote from Saul Lieberman's introduction 'Greek in Jewish Palestine/Hellenism in Jewish Palestine' pg ix. "Scholars have always studied parallel rabbinic texts in tandem, in an effort to learn how different versions of the same material might clarify one another. This is good scientific procedure. It is not revolutionary. It is also devoid of pitfalls, unless, of course, one starts emending one text on the basis of the other when, in reality, each is being faithful to the source from which it was drawn. There may be only one historical truth, but the truth of a text is the truth peculiar to its own literary or oral tradition. One should not, for example, emend a passage of the Jerusalem Talmud on the basis of a reading in the Babylonian Talmud; nor should a reading in the latter be changed to conform to the text of the former. A rule of thumb might then be: whoever emends one textual tradition on the basis of another, changing a reading according to what he deems to be the historical truth, is, in effect, corrupting a tradition with a methodology that is flawed. "

If you know that the KJV is the most accurate English text available to us, this argument then becomes moot. Just preach the word, reading from the KJV, or the Geneva Bible. We know that the truth is able to defend itself. 2 Tim. 4:2-4 The word of God will never return void, but it will accomplish what God sent it to do. Just preach the word. I am reminded of Gamaliel's words to the pharisees in Acts 4:33-39. If the words of modern text critics are not of God, they will fail. We know that what we believe is truth, therefore they are the ones who are fighting against God. Don't fight fire with fire. Pour the living water of God's Word upon them. It will do its work! Stop beating a dead horse. Peace in Jesus name.

Allot to comment on here gentlemen. Let me start by saying People need to read and understand history regarding the origins of the TR and CT. I have heard James White and can’t believe that he supports the CT Bible versions because he believe the proponents were practicing good scholarship. As smart and learned as he is, I believe he is wrong on this point. These discussions are to often over simplified by Pastors saying “the Greek says this”. The problem is which Greek manuscript are they referring to. At the risk of sounding self righteous, most people are theologically and biblically ignorant. Blessings in Christ.

No sources for your claims about the CT position...makes us TR people look foolish.

I’m not really seeing a positive historical argument for your position.