Road Trip Dividing Line: Eric Holmberg's Conversion Syndrome, Joel Beeke on the KJV

Well, greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line. My name is James White, and we are coming to you as live as we can be coming to you from... we are live, we are live. I'm doing all this myself again, which means I'll probably make a mistake somewhere along the line, but that's how it goes.

We are here in Missouri. By the way, I came this close to looking up the Missouri Department of Transportation. It's not the first time I've been in a situation where they divide the highway, and you can choose which direction you're going to go.

And I don't think it was the same spot before, but I went left, and you know, there's no exits there and stuff like that, and you know, the thought crossed my mind, you know, if you have a flat or something like that, you know, so I went right.

Oh my goodness, was that a mistake? It was about eight miles, and the first six and a half were okay, and then all of a sudden they shifted you right. It is not a passable road. I was down to 15 to 20 miles per hour, just to keep from disconnecting the RV from my truck.

It was that rough. I've never been... Louisiana is infamous for its horrible roads. Missouri took the lead with that one. I'm going to tell you, if you're the Missouri Department of Transportation, that's not even a passable road, and you all should know that.

Oh my goodness. Anyway, I feel better now. It was bad. It was... I wish... I probably do have video of it. You know, I've got that video thing. I don't know if it's already you know, recorded over that or not, but not good stuff.

Anyways, so we are here for our 23rd year at Covenant of Grace Church in St. Charles on Moogie Road, and I've been told that there's lots of new stuff to see. There's two new upstair bathrooms, new signs, because there's a massive amount of road construction outside the church, and so that's almost as exciting as when they got rid of the overhead projector there, which is in a museum now somewhere.

But yes, we'll be with Pastor Van Lees and the folks once again. Coming up on a quarter century, I sort of figure we really can't go past a quarter century. I figure once you do 25, at that point, just on the level of being merciful, we need to find these folks a much better speaker, someone of a much higher caliber that can talk about a wider range of topics than I can.

25 years should be enough, I think, probably. So anyways, we're here, and then this is what's unusual. This is what we haven't done before, but that's what having the RV is about. I'm going to be going to Sedalia, Missouri for Wednesday and Thursday evenings, and then in Kansas City Friday, Saturday, Sunday before I head home.

Long legs on the way home, because I need to get home in time. I'm taking my granddaughters along with my wife to the Messiah performance of the Phoenix Symphony Orchestra and Choir, and really excited about that, but I've got to get back.

So long, long legs ahead as far as that journey is concerned. And by the way, just if you're into praying for the trip and helping to support it and stuff like that, I've got a few issues we're dealing with.

We're going to have a repairman out tomorrow morning. I've got a little bit of a leak near the hot water heater. It's been cold. I actually have door open right now. This is the warmest I have experienced since I left Phoenix.

I've had wind chill of 14, and you go from 70 degrees to 14 degrees, and it can do stuff to connections, hoses, stuff like that. So we've got a repairman coming out tomorrow morning to work on that, and I also have one of the circuits in the unit that controls a number of the plugs, receptacles, that is popping.

It's kicking off. And we've replaced the GFI unit, and there's something more than that. So I'm not sure if the guy who's repairing that can take a look at that. We'll see. But right now, I'm having to run an extension cord to make toast and stuff like that.

And you don't need any extra stuff to be doing when you're on the road. So we press on. That's just the way this works. And there are people that fly that have to stand for hours and get reaccommodated and stay overnight in a waiting area and end up in hotels and have hot water.

So if you travel, things happen. Actually, if you're at home, things happen. Come to think of it, you know, water heater goes out, whatever. It's just sort of how life is. So what are we going to talk about today?

Well, there are a bunch of bunches of things that I know I haven't finished up. We've got the Muhammad Hijab's... And by the way, I wrote to Muhammad Hijab and he hasn't responded to me yet. I hope he's not offended or something, but I'd like to hear from him because I'd like to find out if he's coming to the United States, arrange something as far as debates go and things like that.

We need to continue with that. And that fits well with my preparation. I need... It's not easy to do, but I need to really be disciplined in trying to focus upon what's going to be relevant for February.

February is only a weeks away. And five debates, three of those debates with some of the top people in their field. So, yeah. And I'm not feeling overly prepared at this point in time. And it's just because I've got so many other things going on and things with apologia and, you know, just ministry is ministry.

There's things you got to do. So, I do need to start focusing more upon the things that would be relevant at that point. At the same time, there's just so much stuff going on. I owe Jared Longshore a further response.

And I was actually looking at his response article to me and there's some important stuff to talk about. You know, all the Moscow mood stuff going on right now. I'm sorry. I'm not overly into all that stuff.

The Kevin DeYoung article and stuff. I will say this. I do need to say this. And I think it is important because people just assume, well, you've spoken to Christchurch and you've done all this stuff with them.

You're just a Muscovite yourself. Well, obviously I'm not. Doug Wilson has not debated anyone more often than me. So, we don't hide our differences. And we have these sort of dialogues. We talk about stuff.

But there's something that... And I'm going to have to say some pretty strong stuff in response to Jared. I think there's some really concerning things that are being said. And in fact, there was a...

I hate when this happens. Twitter is great in allowing you to communicate quickly to a large number of people. But trying to go back and find stuff? Next to impossible. I saw a quotation. It was credited to Jared Longshore.

I didn't save it. At least, I don't think I saved it. Now that I think about that, I guess I should go back and look at my screenshots. But I don't think I saved it. There's something along the lines of when a Christian...

When a married Christian couple have a child, the church grows. And that's where the issue is. The idea that the promise to your children, and to all who are far off, the Gentiles, Jews and Gentiles. But the promises to the children drawn primarily from the Old Covenant, sort of mean almost a procreational regeneration promise.

And I need to find that. Because like I said, there were some things in the article that I need to respond to. And yeah. So that's not really part of what's coming up in February. It's a bit of a distraction.

But I started the response. I need to get back to that as well. So lots of things to be doing and getting back to. But one of the things I did promise to do, and I want to get to today. There's two things.

Biblical Classical Theism and the Roots of Theology

First of all, and by the way, this is going to be another distraction that I can't really avoid being involved with. But I'm going to have to be somewhat hesitant to be fully committed to it. But I believe December 17th...

December 17th is the Sunday. So it can't be a Sunday. So it would have to be December 18th, I think, is the projected date for the release of Geoffrey Johnson's new book, which contrasts philosophical classical theism with biblical classical theism.

And this is... The majority response could be mockery, as certain kinds of people tend to do all the time. But this is the distinction that I have been making for quite some time. It speaks the exact same thing.

What is the origin of your theological formulation? When people talk about philosophy as a handmaid to theology, does the handmaid determine what the queen can say? Is the fundamental concern protecting the philosophical system, or is it something more than that?

Where's the origination of your theology? And Geoffrey Johnson's written excellent book. I reread it on the way out here. Listened to it on the way out here. There's going to be sections that are going to be hard for people because he gives a lot of background information.

Really important stuff like pseudo-Dionysius, that the impact that pseudo-Dionysius had on the development of medieval theology, and hence a lot of philosophical classical theism, cannot be underestimated.

The impact of neoplatonism, pseudo-Dionysius, mysticism, and all these things have to be brought under the scrutiny of the Word of God. Of course, there are some of these folks who would say, you can't.

You start with philosophy and that's your foundation, stuff like that. So anyways, that's going to be coming out, and I highly, highly recommend that people obtain it and read it, and I think it'll be useful to folks.

Eric Holmberg, Roman Catholic Conversion, and Justification by Faith Alone

Anyway, the two things I want to try to get to today, and I've got to hurry up here. A lot of folks are not aware, I've been aware since it happened, that Eric Holmberg, who helped to write and produce, and he was the host of Amazing Grace, the History and Theology of Calvinism, came out a number of years ago now, but was a very popular DVD back in the day, swam the Tiber River.

He swam the eastern portion of the Tiber River, I guess he would say. People who join the eastern rites that are still under the authority of Rome like to emphasize that. I remember Stravinskis did in our debate, but became Roman Catholic, and we're seeing lots of folks, I see lots of folks on Twitter.

Isn't it interesting, I've noticed this for many, many years, when Roman Catholics leave Roman Catholicism, they talk about their conversion to Christ and the gospel. Over and over again, I hear people say, I grew up as a Roman Catholic.

I never heard the gospel. It was never explained to me in any way that would require me to repent and believe and to to actually come to Christ. It was always the church, the church, the church, the church, the church.

When Protestants become Roman Catholics, what do they talk about? Their conversion to the church, the church, the church, the church. When Roman Catholics become Protestants, conversion to Christ. It's regular.

I mean, I see it all the time, and if you just watch it and sit back and listen, you know, listen to the the Coming Home Network and read all the Surprised by Truth volumes, it's almost the same thing.

It's not a conversion to the gospel. It's a conversion to a church. And so Eric Holmberg has swum the Tiber, and he is answering a question. This was from November 19th. So really? That's his last edited.

I think it was before then. I don't see the date here, but it was a little before this. It's been at least a month. And he's answering the question, doesn't Rome call Christians a curse to believe they are saved by grace through faith in Christ alone?

And of course, what that's referring to is the anathemas of the Council of Trent, which was a counter-reformation council, which led to the burnings of many Protestants for refusing to embrace the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist, transubstantiation for affirming justification by faith alone through grace alone, grace alone through faith alone, that kind of stuff.

And he provides a response. I just want to just run through it real quick. Responding to people who've left, who claim they once knew, especially individuals like this. Every time I talk to a former Calvinist who's become a Roman Catholic, I just look them straight in the eye and go, I want to know what would cause someone, because you must understand, Rome does not believe that your relationship with God is based upon the imputed righteousness of Christ.

And normally what happens is it's immediate shutdown. I believe what the successors of Peter teach, and it's immediately to authority, and they don't even want to talk about it. They do not want to go there.

Because to exchange the righteousness of Christ for the righteousness that Rome offers, which is unquestionably made up of the righteousness of Christ, Mary, the saints, and the righteousness as a result of your own penances and priestly absolutions and everything that goes along with that, then you get into indulgences, and you get into purgatory, and thesaurus meritorum, and it's extremely complicated.

And the reality is when you stand before a holy God in the final analysis within Roman Catholicism, you stand in a multi-patchwork quilt of righteousness. It's not just the righteousness of Christ. There's much more that's involved, including satispassio and things like that.

So they don't want to get into that. They don't want to talk about that, and I understand why. I understand why, because that is the essence of what you've denied, of what you have said is untrue. And normally they've come to that conclusion through the acceptance of authority arguments, and so they'd much rather be talking about that, even though we live in the day of Francis, and I just don't know why any Roman Catholic—I don't know why anybody converts today.

What you gotta do is look at Francis and ask yourself a simple question. Does this man teach and believe what every pope 100 years ago and earlier taught and believed? And the answer is no, he does not.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. And he is making fundamental changes in the system. Now, I'm hearing he's not well. You know, I've always speculated that he might go ahead and resign at some point, but if he just up and croaks, he has already made the preparations for changing how his successor is chosen, and packing the College of Cardinals, and locking the Roman Church into a direction that it's going to continue to go to affirm his perspective on things.

And that's a big thing. That's huge. It really is. So anyway, back to Eric Holmberg here. He says, first, while Rome is technically right because it's where the seat of Peter resides, tell Cyprian that.

I know you and most Protestants, particularly the Reformed variety, use it, in other words, like papist, as a pejorative. No, it's just identification of the Roman Catholic system. Certainly reject its claims, but.

So instead of Rome, let's just say, according to the apostolic faith as expressed by Rome, Peter, Antioch, Peter again, Alexandria, Mark, Jerusalem, James, Constantinople, Andrew, and 99 of the Catholic Orthodox world.

Okay, that's an argument of authority, and it's historically laughable. It truly is. I mean, this is assuming so many things that you cannot even begin to prove. I mean, it's picking and choosing. Well, I'm going to take what this person said, and that person said, and put it all together here and have this wonderful foundation of authority.

It doesn't work. There are so many contradictions in trying to put these things together between Constantinople, Andrew, Constantinople. You can prove this? Well, this person said this, and that person.

If you just, you know, maybe read a lot in Neuro Church Fathers, you'll keep running across all sorts of stuff that you go, really interesting. Where'd that come from? Anyways, but you'll perhaps be surprised to know that they would have no problem with your formula as long as it was properly exegeted and understood.

In other words, as long as it's properly redefined. As long as it's not in the context of the Reformation and what sola gratia meant, over against the saints, over against the mass, over against Mary, and as long as it's not dealing with what sola fide means in the sense of the nature of faith, deadness of man and sin, the sacramental system of Rome.

You know, if we can put all that stuff aside, then yeah, we can say that. So he says, for sure, it's all sola gratia. Again, it's frustrating. Someone who ostensibly knew about the Reformation wouldn't recognize that the central issue of the Reformation was not the necessity of grace.

It was the sufficiency of grace. And I remember banging that drum in 1999 in response to Norman Geisler, who while on the Bible Answer Man program was talking about, well, Rome believes with us necessity of grace.

Not even an issue. That wasn't the issue then. It's not the issue now. It is the sufficiency of grace, not the necessity of grace. And by the way, even though you didn't mention it, it's also sola deo gloria all the way, baby.

I'm sorry, you don't believe that, Eric. Every time you light a candle to Mary, you don't believe that. You are giving clear evidence. Have you read The Glorious of Mary? Do you agree with it? You cannot say sola deo gloria and believe that book.

Do not be self-deceived. You can't do it. It's impossible. You should know that. God is beyond being and glorification as he is the essence fountain of being and glory along with wisdom, perfection, love, righteousness, etc. in, of, and through himself.

For a creature to magnify or glorify God is as ridiculous as me standing on the rim of a supernova, holding up a penlight and saying, here, let me shine some light onto the situation, which is absurd, because what does heavenly worship do?

I was just preaching on Thanksgiving in Amarillo and at Apologia a few weeks before that and going through the phrases that are used by the elders and the living creatures and the worship of God in heaven.

And that's exactly what they're doing. Glory and honor and power and might and thanksgiving. And they're not, they're not staying there with a penlight. It's, it's not ridiculous. It's biblical. Irenaeus' solution to the conundrum of how to glorify being itself who has already glory itself has found his famous aphorism, the glory of God is man fully alive.

What if God's being glorified by creatures that aren't men? As in heaven, as scripture says. That's the difference between defying these things by scripture and defying these things by Irenaeus. You can substitute fully divinized for fully alive.

So there we're going to get a little theosis thrown in there. And you can add to that, Athanasius is on the incarnation observation for the sons of God became man so we might become God, more theosis, not God ontologically.

That would be absurd. The creator-creature distinction is eternal and mutable. We would ever remain creatures. We exist through the word of his power. But God created man to be his perfect icon, more eastern stuff, and then become one of us to redeem and make whole the shattered icon.

And that restored icon would gradually be divinized to the point where some of us, those who pass all the trials and tests of life, oh not those who are imputed with the righteousness of Christ, can be exalted to a position of ruling and reigning with him in the eschaton, judging even the angels, even though that's actually said of everyone who is in Christ.

As for Solus Christus, that's fine too, as long as one understands that Christ alone is established and alone with the Holy Spirit and power is the salvific matrix in which redeemed humans and the reciprocal process of divinization play a very real part.

In other words, the sacraments. So in other words, no we don't believe in Solus Christus. We believe that Christ's salvific power is mediated through the sacraments of the church. And of course there's going to be this eastern spin to stuff which again might leave a lot of people going, what's he talking about?

But it's it's just an emphasis. It's just it's a mindset that a lot of western Roman Catholics don't have. But it's there. Even as a Protestant, you should be able to grasp this, although I know it's very hard because it sounds so gulp freaking Catholic.

No, it sounds primarily orthodox at this point. Otherwise, if it's just the God-man, Jesus, all by his lonesome that saves people, why bother preaching the gospel, evangelizing, or praying for people?

Again, this is where you go, you produced an entire documentary that you've already forgotten what it said? What what is it about conversion that makes converts completely incapable of any longer properly enunciating what they say they once believed?

It is an amazing consistency. It's just it's just wowsers. And then what's going on with having a ministry of reconciliation in 2 Corinthians 5 18 or filling up what is lacking the sufferings of Christ, context.

Also Daniel 12, especially those who receive a special award, shining like the stars forever, for turning many to righteousness. Oh, so God ordains the ends as well as the means. Chalking, chalking, chalking, chalking.

Lastly, there's sola fide. That can be okay as well, as long as the fide isn't neutered by Gnostic leaven. I believe that Jesus died for my sins, was raised from the dead, and his Lord and this special knowledge, Gnosis, thereby saves me.

Again, listening to converts is is just amazing. You're just like, where did where are you getting this stuff? And then they always say, well, I wasn't necessarily talking about your particular. Well, you were allegedly a part of this group.

And you know, we believe about saving faith. It's not Gnostic. The Gospel Coalition got three of the four parts of salvas fide right. The facts, notitia, comprehension of the facts, assensus, and the trust in the facts, fiducia.

What they completely left out is the fourth and last part, clearly and dogmatically expressed by the brother, either stepbrother or cousin, of the Lord Jesus. For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead.

Also, James 2 26. Oh, we're gonna go to James 2. Stunning. Maybe I'll, I'm not sure I'll have time to link to one of the many, many, many places we've dealt with James chapter 2. The guy who justifies, I think the chapter is 32, 34 pages long, something like that.

And no, Eric never contacted me with any questions about his conversion. That doesn't happen very often, other than the guy who ended up running the drunken ex-pastors podcast. You might know Luther understood the implications of this verse, which is why he called James an epistle of straw, and for a time wanted it stricken from the canon.

But then he did what Protestants always do when the plain reading of a verse contradicts their interpretive grid. He tilted his head sideways, dimmed the light, squinted, and found a way for 2 plus 2 to equal 5.

Well, Eric, I would challenge you to actually respond to my chapter on James chapter 2. It's, I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said by many of the Westminster divines and everything else, but it's exegetically argued, and I have had nobody offer any consistent response to it that did not involve a fundamental rejection of Sola Scriptura.

In other words, well, okay, yeah, you, you look, you were just looking at scripture. You need to have this other stuff to throw in there. If you, if you actually believe this, and if you think that that's what we're doing, then I would challenge you to read chapter 2 and respond to it.

I think that would be a good idea. My favorite example of this, one of the many verses that ultimately pulled the plug on the lifeboat I helped to inflate with the documentary Amazing Grace History and Theology of Calvin, that the lifeboat that you helped to inflate, you did, you did a documentary, and you think you're responsible for Reformed theology?

Sir, the arrogance is astonishing. It's astonishing. I can't count the number of people. I've introduced Reformed theology with my books, but I would never in a million years think that somehow my introducing people to something was, uh, creating a lifeboat or something.

What are you? Wow. First Timothy 2, 1 through 4, the Calvinist, whatever God desires, he accomplishes, but clearly not all people, including kings and all those who are in high positions, get saved. Shoot, of those in latter category, most blow hell wide open.

So heads tilt, light dims, I squint. Clearly God just means he just wants to save some of the people in each and every category, nation, tribe, and tongue, Revelation 7, 9. Uh-huh, right. Um, hey, at least he is aware that there is a Reformed response.

He cannot honestly refute it, and so he has to misrepresent it. Shame on you, sir. Shame on you. Why is, why is, why does conversion create such dishonesty? I mean, I know the text well. I've debated it more than, more than once, and it's interesting you didn't include all of it that needs to be included.

Is Jesus interceding? See, you don't, you don't have Jesus interceding anymore because you don't have a finished work. You can't even deal with these texts anymore. How dare you even try to mock these things when you've embraced a system that doesn't even have a finished work upon which to even have a meaningful conversation?

Jesus is pictured as interceding in this text. Who's he interceding for? And on what grounds? An imperfect, incompleted, oft-repeated representation of a sacrifice that perfects nobody? You've answered all these things?

Hmm, wonder. So yes, salvus fide is fine as long as notitia sensus fiducia and opera caritatis, works of charity, which are the necessary grace empowered fruit of saving faith, are in place and fully operational, which is just another way of saying not what Reformed people are saying, but of saying the sacraments are the necessary means of salvation.

Hallelujah! Can you see how close we are to attaining the oneness that Jesus prayed for in John 17, 21 to 23? No, sir, we cannot because we are honestly representing the positions and you are not. Shameful.

Absolutely shameful. Then it goes on to talk about Council Trent a little bit. But wait, there is one other matter that comes into play here. While you didn't say it, I know you and your worldview enough in part because I once shared it and, if I recall, helped form it in your life.

Well, that is going to be a weight you're going to have to carry, because if you cannot accurately represent it while you're now denying it, wow, that's amazing. To know what was implicit in your formula.

Salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone also means that once salvation has taken place, that person possesses the righteousness of Christ and can never lose it. Come hell or high water, they are heaven-bound.

You were once reformed, and yet now when you talk about the perseverance of the saints, you don't talk about Christologically. You don't talk about it as their union with Christ. You don't talk about it on the basis of imputed righteousness of Christ.

You talk about it as the IFB, one saved, always saved. I'm sorry, I either laugh or get mad because it's just disgusting. It is simply disgusting. Why can't you be honest? I'm just, wow, yikes, yikes, yikes.

And there, along with Sola Scriptura, the ancient apostolic faith and the protest revolt definitely part company. Always, you know, I think they get little ancient apostolic faith pillows they cuddle up with at night, so they don't actually have to read the early church fathers and realize how much disagreement there was.

Especially, especially the fact that so much of what they believe is dogma wasn't even conceived of by the early church, but it was the ancient apostolic faith. So yes, the Council of Trent did call out the idea that salvation could be obtained outside the formula I just described above and further.

Once true salvation was experienced, it could not be lost due to the apostasy of the believer as grave errors that could potentially damn souls. I think it, I think it could be. I mean, Rome, Rome clearly believes that you can lose the state of grace.

But you're wrong to say that Trent cursed or damned to hell anybody that has a common Protestant misconception. While in the main they circulate among themselves, I'm guilty as charged, and used to bludgeon Catholics as well as to help encourage themselves they are right, and those poor Catholics and Orthodox are wrong.

That's a story for another day. So you don't believe that the anathemas of Trent resulted in, in anyone maybe like being burned at the stake? In the years after Trent? Anywhere? I don't know what church history you're reading, but it's not, it's not good stuff.

So it's sad, honestly, to see these folks saying these things because it's just, they're indefensible. They're indefensible. Okay, 25 minutes. One of the things I said that was a good deal with, shifting gears here, one of the things I said was a good deal with was a article, it's a brief article, that I made reference to a while ago by Joel Beakey, and it's Practical Reasons for Retaining the KJV.

Okay, so I just want to go through these and I want to provide practical responses to the things that are said here. Joel Beakey's a wonderful man who's done great things to the church. I just think on this issue, there is another side.

Man, those things are fizzy. Fizzy, that's the sparkling ice stuff, orange mango. It's really good, but it's fizzy, fizzy, fizzy, fizzy. Okay, here are 12 practical reasons for retaining the King James Version of the Bible.

Number one, the standard text of the English Bible, it is wiser to choose the known over against the unknown. Would that have been the case with the King James and the Geneva Bible? Maybe. The weaknesses and disadvantages of a particular version of the Bible cannot really be assessed apart from a thorough trial of daily usage over several years.

Many who welcomed the NIV with great enthusiasm when it first appeared in 73 are now prepared to admit its serious weaknesses as a translation. Well, that's true. The KJV is well established in the marketplace and in the literature of Christian scholarship.

It will continue in production for years to come. Helps and reference works are commonly available. It's not like the KJV will fade from view and disappear, as have many versions that were expected to supplant it.

Likewise, the KJV is widely studied and commented on in the literature of biblical scholarship. Not so much today. It will always be a standard of reference and comparison for Bible commentators. All other versions are compared to it, contrasted with it, tested by it.

Campaigns sell that versions must attack it or else claim that a particular new version is just like it. The same cannot be said of any other Bible version. Well, there's lots of stuff out there in the King James, mainly because it's free.

That is not a reason that the King James translators would ever have given. Ever have given. In fact, I think that goes against the spirit of the introduction of the preface to the readers from the King James.

I don't think that that would ever have crossed their mind as being a valid reason to keep in use a translation that is over 400 years old. I don't think they would view it that way. Number two, based on the full text of the Hebrew and Greek originals, based on the Masoretic text, Hebrew Old Testament, well, the 1525 Blomberg, not the current Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, and the Textus Receptus, based on a dozen manuscripts, two dozen manuscripts, the KJV gives the most authentic and fullest available text of the scriptures.

Not sure how you even substantiate that. With none of the many omissions and textual rewrites of modern translations such as the RSV and the NIV. That's not the issue, and I'm sure Dr. Behe knows that.

The issue is the underlying text, and the issue is we have so much more information about especially the New Testament than they had, that to ignore that is to again go against the spirit of the King James translators themselves.

The reader may suppose that such is not the case with the ESV. However, the publishers plain state the ESV is adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. Well, again, every version needs to be examined on its own basis and the faithfulness that it shows to its underlying texts.

But it says, those who remember the RSV can attest that few other versions made greater use of the methods and findings of higher criticism. A corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit. Now, that's just not fair.

This is where I'm really, really surprised, because Dr. Behe wouldn't do this in dealing with the Puritans and things like that. When it comes to Bible translations, all of a sudden, oh higher criticism!

Show where they use it. Show where their translation is impacted by an inappropriate acceptance of unbelieving quote-unquote higher criticism. Form criticism, source criticism, be specific. This is the vague thing that unfortunately marks most King James-onlyism and things like that.

Oh higher criticism! I reject higher criticism too, but I know why I reject higher criticism. And so, you know, a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit. So that means that conservative modern translations that are more conservative than even the King James translators might have been, I mean they were Anglicans after all, that would make it better than the King James.

It doesn't sound like that would follow. Then under two, you have A, oldest does not mean best. The Westcott and Hort arguments that the oldest manuscripts are most reliable and age carries more weight than volume are not necessarily true.

It could well be that the two oldest complete manuscripts were found to be in such unusually excellent condition because they were already recognized as faulty manuscripts in their time and therefore were placed aside and not recopied until worn out as were the reliable manuscripts.

This is further supported by numerous existing differences between the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts. This is argumentation that is 100 years out of date. I am stunned that anyone repeats it. I really, really am.

I just got to be really honest with you. I am stunned that anyone does this. We are not following Westcott and Hort today. We are not following Vaticanus and Sinaiticus slavishly like they did. The papyri have been discovered revolutionizes everything.

This is straight out of the debates in the 1880s. It has no place in 2023. None. I don't understand why anybody would date their arguments and make them so weak like this as to ignore everything that's happened over the time period since then.

I really, really don't. To be the King James Version New Testament is based upon the traditional text sometimes called the ecclesiastical or majority text. The vast majority of the more than 5 ,000 known partial Greek manuscripts follow this textual reading.

It's just not true. It's just not true, Dr. Beegey. This is not the translation of the majority text. The TR represents a late stream in the Byzantine manuscripts. It has numerous unique readings that are clearly not representational of the general Byzantine family.

It's not based upon the traditional text. It's based upon a text that Erasmus whipped together as quickly as he could, which included back translating from his own Latin translation into Greek at the end of the Book of Revelation.