Can the New Testament be Trusted as Scripture?
The manuscript evidence of John 9:38 and John 20:28 (my lord and my God), say no! These core, essential proof texts are missing. The video explains it all…
Click here for YouTube Mirror (if the above Facebook player does not load).
and God knows best.
It is odd that top textual critics do not refer to these alleged missing verses in their academic work. For example ‘The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament’ by Bart D. Ehrman contains an exhaustive survey of NT manuscripts and does not mention a problem with John 9:38 and John 20:28.
The New Revised Standard Version (a translation from the Greek manuscripts most preferred by scholars) does not mention any textual problems at these points.
You might have a stronger case if the experts in the field (rather than nonspecialists) also recognised that ‘essential proof texts are missing’. They apparently do not.
This gives one case for concern.
Top critics do refer to these issues, unless you do not accept the NA28 to be a top academic work? How does that reasoning function? Furthermore, I do not believe Dr. Ehrman’s work was a critical edition with a critical apparatus, so why expect tea from a wine house? We’re dealing with two different genres of TC literature completely and the conflation is odd at best.
Neither the NRSV or NET mention these points because they’re not critical editions, but translations based on them, they have TC, TN and SN notes, not TC critical apparatuses.
Specialists in the field do recognize these omissions, as per NA28 which does, as per the CNTR, and as per Dr. Philip Comfort’s work (which I previously mentioned to you), who is a recognized and major scholar. Credentials seen here:
Recognized as a major scholar by Larry Hurtado here:
Not to forego the recommendation of his works by Dr. William Varner, Timothy Mitchell (PhD Bham Uni and Associate Editor for Scripture and Interpretation at Eleutheria Graduate Student Journal), is used by the Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary for courses on NTTC, as well as by Dr. Stephen Carlson (https://irci.acu.edu.au/people/dr-stephen-c-carlson/).
The list goes on and on…
This is ridiculous. Please watch James White’s gracious rebuttal:
Will you be responding to James White on this one?
“The last time he challenged me on these topics was via an email list that contained scholars both Muslim and Christian. Dr. White did not respond to my arguments then and I duly received plaudits from our scholarly Muslim colleagues for the well referenced arguments I put forward.”
is this group you are referring like b hebrew discussion group?
I already did:
One cannot talk about “scriptures” without taking into account the aramaic manuscripts. Especially the Khabouris Codex : http://www.dukhrana.com/khabouris/files/Khabouris%20John.pdf
John 9,38 : “He said, I believe, my Lord ! And, falling, he adored him.”
John 20,28 : “And Thoma answered and said to him, My Lord, and my God !”
The Khabouris Codex is a handwritten duplicate of an original canon written as early as 165 AD. Hence, it predates (by more than a century) the oldest known Greek canons of the New Testament.
… and God knows best !
It’s a vorlage dating based on philology. It’s not realistic and I’m not aware of it being cited often if it at all in NA28.