Anybody watched the below documentary
- Thread starter Ajay
- Start date
- Status
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Ajay,
It helps to preface a video post, especially lengthy ones, with some motivation about why the video is being posted in the first place. Have you viewed it? What is it about? Why is it worth watching?
It helps to preface a video post, especially lengthy ones, with some motivation about why the video is being posted in the first place. Have you viewed it? What is it about? Why is it worth watching?
Ajay
Puritan Board Freshman
I watched first 10 mins of the Documentary. The publisher said it is a sequel to a documentary "A Lamp in the dark". In the synopsis publisher wrote
Information covered in this documentary:
1) The history of the Revision of the Bible in 1881.
2) The objections of Dean John W. Burgon concerning the “new Greek text” invented by Anglican scholars, B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort.
3) The analysis of George Sayles Bishop, R.L. Dabney and William G. Blaikie who likewise opposed the Revision of Westcott and Hort in the 19th century.
4) Proof that the purpose of the Revision was to overthrow the Received Text of the Protestant Reformation.
5) The warnings of Dr. F.H.A. Scrivener who declared that the theory behind the new Greek text was based on conjecture and fantasy.
6) The “Romish” doctrines of Westcott and Hort, as revealed in their letters, along with admissions of willful deception and heresy.
7) The warnings of early Church fathers concerning the corruptions of Gnostic heretics who altered ancient manuscripts in the early centuries.
8) Examples from the Critical Text of what are believed to be Gnostic influences that currently influence the majority of modern bibles.
9) How the work of Westcott and Hort was transformed into the Nestle-Aland Greek text, used by the vast majority of Bible colleges and universities, as well as most Bible translations.
10) The beliefs of Dr. Kurt Aland (the chief influence behind the Nestle-Aland Greek text) who denied the apostolic authorship of the New Testament, and suggested that Jesus may have been a mere “phantom.”
11) The influence of Dr. Bruce Metzger, a leading Bible critic of the 20th century (who worked on the RSV and NRSV translations) and his denial of the authorship of Moses in the Old Testament.
12) The influence of William Cameron Townsend, founder of Wycliffe Bible Translators, and Dr. Eugene Nida, father of the dynamic equivalence method of Bible translation (i.e. paraphrase).
13) The development of “bridge bibles” and what they mean.
14) The discovery of the Bodmer Papyri by a Jesuit priest.
15) Proof that the discovery of the Bodmer Papyri is associated with ancient Gnostic groups from the Nag Hammadi region of Egypt.
16) The influence of Rome, her Jesuits, and the ecumenical movement in the development of a single Greek text, as the “one world Bible” to unify all churches.
17) Discussion with Dr. James White (author of The King James Only Controversy) concerning his defense of the Critical Text and modern versions in general.
Featured Speakers: Dr. Phil Stringer, Dr. David Brown, David Daniels, Dr. D.A. Waite, Dr. Jack Moorman, Dr. Kirk DiVietro, Dr. H.D. Williams, Dr. Ronald Cooke & Dr. James R. White.".
I think its about textual criticism, maybe they want to prove wescot and Hort Greek text is a corroupt text.
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
Information covered in this documentary:
1) The history of the Revision of the Bible in 1881.
2) The objections of Dean John W. Burgon concerning the “new Greek text” invented by Anglican scholars, B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort.
3) The analysis of George Sayles Bishop, R.L. Dabney and William G. Blaikie who likewise opposed the Revision of Westcott and Hort in the 19th century.
4) Proof that the purpose of the Revision was to overthrow the Received Text of the Protestant Reformation.
5) The warnings of Dr. F.H.A. Scrivener who declared that the theory behind the new Greek text was based on conjecture and fantasy.
6) The “Romish” doctrines of Westcott and Hort, as revealed in their letters, along with admissions of willful deception and heresy.
7) The warnings of early Church fathers concerning the corruptions of Gnostic heretics who altered ancient manuscripts in the early centuries.
8) Examples from the Critical Text of what are believed to be Gnostic influences that currently influence the majority of modern bibles.
9) How the work of Westcott and Hort was transformed into the Nestle-Aland Greek text, used by the vast majority of Bible colleges and universities, as well as most Bible translations.
10) The beliefs of Dr. Kurt Aland (the chief influence behind the Nestle-Aland Greek text) who denied the apostolic authorship of the New Testament, and suggested that Jesus may have been a mere “phantom.”
11) The influence of Dr. Bruce Metzger, a leading Bible critic of the 20th century (who worked on the RSV and NRSV translations) and his denial of the authorship of Moses in the Old Testament.
12) The influence of William Cameron Townsend, founder of Wycliffe Bible Translators, and Dr. Eugene Nida, father of the dynamic equivalence method of Bible translation (i.e. paraphrase).
13) The development of “bridge bibles” and what they mean.
14) The discovery of the Bodmer Papyri by a Jesuit priest.
15) Proof that the discovery of the Bodmer Papyri is associated with ancient Gnostic groups from the Nag Hammadi region of Egypt.
16) The influence of Rome, her Jesuits, and the ecumenical movement in the development of a single Greek text, as the “one world Bible” to unify all churches.
17) Discussion with Dr. James White (author of The King James Only Controversy) concerning his defense of the Critical Text and modern versions in general.
Featured Speakers: Dr. Phil Stringer, Dr. David Brown, David Daniels, Dr. D.A. Waite, Dr. Jack Moorman, Dr. Kirk DiVietro, Dr. H.D. Williams, Dr. Ronald Cooke & Dr. James R. White.".
I think its about textual criticism, maybe they want to prove wescot and Hort Greek text is a corroupt text.
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
So much of the presentation of the issues--by whatever side of a controversy--misses or masks questions of a more fundamental nature. The presenters aim at persuasion by utilizing, consciously or subconsciously, things the listener already believes, or takes for granted are "just so."
Clear away all the technical matters, debates over which manuscript tradition is best, or who owns "copyright" on some Bible translation--indeed, some of these controversies could not even exist in some other era or social/legal framework outside the modern age, that's how parochial they are--and what you have left is a question of a man's will.
Will you listen to the Word of God? Can you hear Him well enough to believe and obey him with an informed conscience?
The incredible fuss over which translation of the Bible is most ideal in many cases (not all, but too many) distracts and takes energy away from simply listening to the Word and receiving the (true) story conveyed in its constitutive terms.
Obsessing over the quality of translation, people seem to care comparatively little over the quality of the ministry of their congregation--if they even maintain themselves in a congregation. Many of these folk care almost nothing about having the content of Scripture expounded and preached into their hearts.
And if they happen to hear teaching they are unfamiliar with, rather than use their God-given tools of patience and evaluation; they're more likely to knee-jerk-reject the doctrine as a product of the wrong translation and liberal seminary education. Being so smart themselves, they view training for the ministry as mere indoctrination. They dress up their anti-intellectualism in pseudo-spirituality. Their "clarity" is really pride.
So, even if their position on translation could be proved the best by some objective criteria, they lose the forest for the trees. They miss the Christ who is witnessed by his Word, promoting the obvious falsehood that all the rest of the translations (other than their own) actually proclaim some other Christ.
There are very poor quality translations, and some so-called Bibles not worth the name. There are liberal seminaries and teachers of false doctrine. And there are plenty of charlatans touting the KJV for the sake of gaining a following, who are twisting those words (as they do the rest of the Scriptures, 2Pet.3:16) to lead men astray.
Picking a church because their pastor reads "the best" translation may not help one spiritually at all, if the most faithful preaching of the truth is taking place nearby, even though using the "second-best."
Clear away all the technical matters, debates over which manuscript tradition is best, or who owns "copyright" on some Bible translation--indeed, some of these controversies could not even exist in some other era or social/legal framework outside the modern age, that's how parochial they are--and what you have left is a question of a man's will.
Will you listen to the Word of God? Can you hear Him well enough to believe and obey him with an informed conscience?
The incredible fuss over which translation of the Bible is most ideal in many cases (not all, but too many) distracts and takes energy away from simply listening to the Word and receiving the (true) story conveyed in its constitutive terms.
Obsessing over the quality of translation, people seem to care comparatively little over the quality of the ministry of their congregation--if they even maintain themselves in a congregation. Many of these folk care almost nothing about having the content of Scripture expounded and preached into their hearts.
And if they happen to hear teaching they are unfamiliar with, rather than use their God-given tools of patience and evaluation; they're more likely to knee-jerk-reject the doctrine as a product of the wrong translation and liberal seminary education. Being so smart themselves, they view training for the ministry as mere indoctrination. They dress up their anti-intellectualism in pseudo-spirituality. Their "clarity" is really pride.
So, even if their position on translation could be proved the best by some objective criteria, they lose the forest for the trees. They miss the Christ who is witnessed by his Word, promoting the obvious falsehood that all the rest of the translations (other than their own) actually proclaim some other Christ.
There are very poor quality translations, and some so-called Bibles not worth the name. There are liberal seminaries and teachers of false doctrine. And there are plenty of charlatans touting the KJV for the sake of gaining a following, who are twisting those words (as they do the rest of the Scriptures, 2Pet.3:16) to lead men astray.
Picking a church because their pastor reads "the best" translation may not help one spiritually at all, if the most faithful preaching of the truth is taking place nearby, even though using the "second-best."
- Status
