textual criticism

Textual issue in Isaiah 3:12: the Hebrew word for 'women' may actually be 'creditors' — the consonants are identical, only vowels differ.

How Women Could and Couldn’t Lead in the Old Testament： Women in Ministry part 3

Textual criticism — comparing thousands of manuscript copies, locating them geographically, and dating them — has demonstrated that every New Testament book was written within the first century, much earlier than 19th-century skeptics claimed (~200s AD). It also shows the biblical text has been transmitted with remarkable fidelity.

Here's Me Using the Bible to Prove the Bible

The Bible is supported by thousands of manuscripts. Comparing them reveals only minor variations — spelling differences, word order — not substantive theological changes. A reader can trust modern John 1 reflects what was originally written.

Here's Me Using the Bible to Prove the Bible

Winger argues Ehrman's book creates a false impression of radical biblical change by using technically true statements in a misleading way. When pressed in an interview, Ehrman himself admitted the Gospels 'pretty much say exactly what they say in your Bible now,' undermining the impression his book creates.

Here's Me Using the Bible to Prove the Bible

Winger's favorite counter to 'the Bible has been changed' claims: ask the person what specific doctrine or belief should be different based on their view of how the text has been altered. He says no one ever answers because the manuscript tradition is so stable that no theology would change.

Here's Me Using the Bible to Prove the Bible

Around 650 AD, Caliph Uthman collected competing Quran versions, created a single authorized text, and destroyed all variant manuscripts. This means the Quran — a later document than the Bible — has a worse manuscript tradition because independent confirmation of the original text was deliberately eliminated.

Here's Me Using the Bible to Prove the Bible

Refutation of Jim's Gospel dating: scholars date Mark to the 50s–70s AD, and John to the 60s or 90s AD — not 170 AD; P52 papyrus (100–150 AD) proves John predates Jim's claim by decades

Atheists Can Be Gullible Too

Jim's claim about the longer ending of Mark: the final verses of Mark 16 were added in the 13th century by a Jewish council to harmonize it with other Gospels

Atheists Can Be Gullible Too

Refutation: early manuscripts from well before the 13th century already contain the longer ending of Mark; the addition was likely scribal, not conciliar — probably constructed from Luke, Acts, and Matthew to give public readings a more complete feel

Atheists Can Be Gullible Too

Recommendation: Mike has a three-video playlist on translations and complex textual issues related to the Bible, covering topics like the longer ending of Mark and textual variants

Atheists Can Be Gullible Too

Anderson is King James Only — his church's statement of faith lists KJV without error as first article

Steven Anderson vs The Biblical Gospel

Update on the Passion Translation review project: four interviews done with scholars, more coming; Brian Simmons took unusual liberties especially in Revelation and Song of Solomon.

20 Questions with Pastor Mike (Episode 14)

Q&A: John 8:1-11 (woman caught in adultery) is very likely a true story/memory of Jesus but probably not originally part of John's Gospel. It appears in different locations in manuscripts. Most translations bracket it.

One effective way to show people God REALLY exists (with objections answered)

The JW blood transfusion example actually comes from Watchtower proclamations, not biblical interpretation. John notes the Bible's manuscript tradition makes it more reliable than modern media like video. Even supernatural direct knowledge could still be questioned by skeptics.

4 Weird Questions That Should Not Make You an Atheist

Mark 16:17-18 (signs accompanying believers) — Mike thinks the last 12 verses of Mark are likely not original (earliest manuscripts lack them). Even if original: (1) the signs may apply to SOME believers, not ALL; (2) picking up serpents refers to unintentional encounters (like Paul in Acts 28), not deliberate snake handling; (3) Jesus said "do not put the Lord your God to the test"; (4) if healing applies to all, every Christian should be in hospitals — but nobody does this, revealing inconsistency.

Q&A with Pastor Mike Winger

The interpolation view: verses 2-16 don't belong in the Bible

All The Head Covering Debates (1 Cor 11)： Women in Ministry part 10

Question 1: Does this passage belong in the Bible? The interpolation argument

All The Head Covering Debates (1 Cor 11)： Women in Ministry part 10

The manuscript evidence for the passage is overwhelming -- no textual basis for removal

All The Head Covering Debates (1 Cor 11)： Women in Ministry part 10

Introduction of View 1: The Interpolation View