My Review of the NIV Study Bible By Paul Williams on April 15, 2021 • ( 13 ) Beautifully produced but to be avoided like the plague! Like this:Like Loading... Related ‹ Leading American Christian apologist invites Rabbi Singer to debate – by insulting him!This is how the Muslim world views the West. Who can blame them? ›Categories: Bible, Blogging Theology Youtube
Boy am I going to have a field day burying you, Ehrman, your god, and profit due to your “review.” God willing I will be doing so sometime this weekend. So thanks for giving me more opportunities to destroy your god, profit, and your credibility for the glory of Jesus, your God, and Muhammad’s destroyer.
In the meantime, make sure to watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jaHr4o1ShY
As Purple Rain commented elsewhere on BT:
Well done Ken for your efforts to engage Sam respectfully.
I agree – ” His over the top bravado / chest thumping, and “come face me” and “you are a sissy” – actually seems to be compensation for deeper psychological issues”
So, Paul, you agree that Mark is the writer for Peter’s oral preaching?
So, Peter agrees that Jesus changed the kosher food laws?
Mark 7:19 – Acts 10-11 also concurs with this. (Peter’s experience with preaching the gospel to Gentiles – the food laws are abrogated.) This comports with early church testimony that Mark’s gospel is Peter’s oral preaching.
It is wrong of you and Ehrman to try to figure out the motives behind why Matthew wrote Matthew 15 the way he did. Just because Matthew 15 does not have the Mark 7:19 detail, does not mean that “he deleted” it. Neither you nor Ehrman have a way to back in time and know all the unseen and unrecorded factors as to why ancient writers chose to write the contents and style of what they did.
Modern scholars speculate too much as to motives, etc.
They are all harmonious with one another in apostolic authority (all 27 books of the NT).
Ryan’s comment was great “The highlight of this video was when Paul said, “I don’t have an agenda here . . . “
Oh Sammy boy, so contrary to both leading Conservative & Liberal scholarly majority view that robustly substantiate the authorship of the Greek Canonical “Gospel according to Matthew, was not authored by Matthew the disciple of Jesus – you Sam believe otherwise? 🙂
as in, you Sammy boy postulate that Matthew, the disciple of Jesus was the actual author of the 28 Chapters of the Greek gospel of Matthew found in your bible today? 🙂
Please explain yourself and allow me to have a field day burying you and your counterfeit god
Thanks for giving me more opportunities to destroy your tri-god and your credibility for the glory of Allah, your God Sam 🙂
The highlight of this video was when Paul said “I don’t have an agenda here… “
A great theme of Matthew is the gospel going out to the Gentiles (non Jewish nations).
Therefore, there is no contradiction to Mark or Peter, and no “deleting”.
more details here:
Combine this with the fact that virtually every Pericope in Matthew is shorter than Marks.
I fail to see why Matthew removed additional words to focus on the words of Jesus. Even if Jesus respected Peter he respects Jesus more…
“virtually every Pericope in Matthew is shorter than Marks”
good Ryan –
Yes. Scholars have pointed out that out (when Mark does have the same material as Matthew and Luke), they are longer in the details and more vivid, thus demonstrating eyewitness testimony.
The materials used to write the NT manuscripts were expensive, costly, and they had limited space. Therefore, because Matthew (and Luke and John) were writing more content and events and teachings that Mark did not include, they had to decide on how much to include in their documents, which were individual scrolls.
I avoid all, not just NIV, modern bible versions like the plague.
I have been and will continue to be KJV only.
There is nothing wrong with the NIV as a simple translation for those that English is not their first language, though I prefer NASB and ESV and sometimes NKJV. (when preparing for sermons and formal teaching, I use Greek and Hebrew as much as possible as time allows.)
I think the NASB is the best and most literal.
The KJV was great for it’s place in history, Tyndale’s work and others after him that laid the foundation for it and it’s history since then, and it’s beauty and poetic rhythm, etc. But we don’t talk like that anymore – so IMO, the NASB and ESV are excellent for today in English.
We have to be honest about the textual variants, and textual transmission history, etc. (and prepare Christians to respond rightly) and be prepared for the skeptics and liberal scholars, like Bart Ehrman, etc. and Muslims who use them, who bring up that issue.
“I have been and will continue to be KJV only.”
Better: “For many years I have been, and will continue to be, KJV only.