In Defense of Scripture: Bart Ehrman, Steven Anderson, Chris Pinto

And welcome to The Dividing Line on a Tuesday morning. Beautiful Tuesday morning here in Phoenix, Arizona. Nice and breezy outside, and it's just a glorious day here. A Dividing Line in special defense of the Bible, dealing with three topics today.

Bart Ehrman's new book, a recent Noise of Thunder episode, and the release of New World Order Bible Versions. Try to come up with some kind of sound effects for that. Anyway, at least I assume it's been released since I have a copy.

I wasn't sent a copy. I was given a copy by a friend of mine by Stephen Anderson at a gym. So I'm sure it's just in the mail and it's going to take some time to get here. I'm sure that's exactly what's going on.

Anyways, we'll be looking at all those on the program today, and you might say, what do they have all in common? Well, interesting, a lot more than you might think, which as we get going, we'll see. I warned you, I don't know how long ago it was, sometime last year when it was announced that Bart Ehrman has a new anti-Christian book coming out, and I wish people would just be honest.

I wish Bart Ehrman would be honest. He makes his money by attacking the Christian faith. He says he does not, but it's very clear and obvious that he does. Just take a look at the last number of books he's written, Jesus Interrupted, Misquoting Jesus, God's Problem, Forged, and now How Jesus Became God.

Look at the themes, and there is a very consistent theme here. Dr. Ehrman is very busy in attacking the heart of the Christian faith. Now, he might say, well, there are Christians that I'm not attacking.

Yeah, they're the ultra-liberals who don't really believe anything at all. But as far as historic Orthodox Christianity is concerned, Bart Ehrman is our primary English-speaking critic, and it's not at all because he's coming up with anything new.

In fact, he doesn't really claim to be coming up with anything new. Anyone who has gone at least through, I would say, a master's level would be well aware of every argument that Bart Ehrman has ever presented.

It's standard stuff. It's the stuff that you will read from every liberal on the planet. But because Bart Ehrman is an apostate, and because Bart Ehrman graduated from Princeton, and because Bart Ehrman studied under Bruce Metzger, then he is granted expertise in all things.

Now, it's amazing to me that this has gone unchallenged. Well, unchallenged by most, anyways. The reality is that I'm one of the few people that I know, everybody in the audience who has read Bart Ehrman's doctoral dissertation, raise your hand.

Yeah, okay. Not many people, not many people. For those who are interested, it's on the development of a particular strain, a particular portion of the Alexandrian text type found in certain early Egyptian writers.

And while that would certainly be worthy of a PhD in textual critical studies, I don't know why that results in a granting of expertise, especially in the areas of exegesis and theology, for which I cannot tell that Bart Ehrman has any particular expertise at all.

But again, the whole point is, he's an unbeliever, but he was once a believer, and therefore that makes him just the cat's meow, as far as an unbelieving world is concerned. And so now he's coming out with a book, I believe the official release date is March 25th, so about a week from now, How Jesus Became God.

Now, what's interesting and what is at least somewhat appropriate here is HarperCollins Publishing has decided to do something interesting. They are releasing dueling books. They're releasing Ehrman's book, but they are also releasing a book edited, or contributed to, by a number of Christian scholars who are responding to Ehrman.

And if I am correct, I believe they either just, Justin Brierley either just recorded or will record very soon, an encounter between Bart Ehrman and one of the authors of this book. I'm referring to the book How God Became Jesus, The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus' Divine Nature, a response to Bart Ehrman, which will be released the same time as Ehrman's book.

And we have Michael Byrd, Craig Evans, Simon Gathercole, which is the primary name, and Charles Hill, those are the two primary names I'm excited about, and Chris Tilling. And they have done Yeoman's work in very quickly, I could tell.

Now, I haven't seen Ehrman's book, but I did see How God Became Jesus when I was in London. And so I saw a pre-publication manuscript of it, and I have some quotes from it that I managed to grab that has given me a good idea of where Ehrman's coming from.

Now, I predicted, you guys can go back, I'm not Rush Limbaugh, I don't have a staff, high paid staff of people to go back and grab audio from old programs. And my microphone is neither golden, nor from what Rich is telling me, overly high quality.

And we're going to be working on that, I guess, getting a new microphone, but I always thought it looked pretty high quality. But anyway, we're not in that league, so I can't go back and play this for you to make myself look really good.

But I predicted what Bart Ehrman's book would be about, and I pretty much nailed it. Which, again, doesn't take a whole lot of insight if you've been reading a lot of Bart Ehrman, which I have. I think I have all of Ehrman's stuff in my library, actually.

But, you know, I debated the guy, and so I, unlike him, took the time to listen carefully to what he was saying, and to his perspectives. And so I know where he's coming from, so predicting what he's going to say on this subject wasn't overly difficult to do.

Given his view of the New Testament, given he doesn't believe that any of their authors were eyewitnesses, given the late date of the Gospels, given his belief in forgeries, etc., etc., he's chopped the New Testament up into absolute mincemeat.

And so out of that mincemeat, out of all that self-contradictory stuff, then he's free to rearrange it in any order he wants to rearrange it in, to come up with support for any development theory or evolutionary theory he wants to come up with as far as the deity of Christ is concerned.

And so since Jesus, since none of the Gospels are really historically accurate, they can't tell us anything about what Jesus really believed, then nobody in Jesus, Jesus didn't believe himself to be God, nobody during Jesus's life believed him to be God.

That's where he starts. And then, of course, in line with his complete enslavement to the Bauer hypothesis, you have all these different groups. He has to support his theory about all these different groups that were competing with one another.

And so there's these different kinds of Christologies. And so you've got your adoptionism, and eventually the full exaltation Christology group wins out over the others. But it's all just this mishmash, and it's all just the result of history over time, and all that kind of stuff.

So it's all evolutionary, and what you have in the New Testament are just fragments of, you know, one group, another group. You can never, for Ehrman, you can never, ever, ever read, even a single author, looking for harmony or consistency.

It must be read as being self-contradictory. It's just a given, just a given. Nobody could possibly have been on the same page. They're all going all sorts of different directions. He has to do that so he can have all these different competing groups and chop Christology up into all these different parts and pieces.

And so I, for one, am going to be extremely excited. I'm going to be watching my Twitter feed to see the announcement from Justin Brierley of when the Ehrman-Gotherkoll conversation is going to take place.

Not enough time in one unbelievable program to hear those two go at it. It's going to be really exciting. I can't wait for that. So that's exciting. So anyways, once the book is out, you know, I have it on pre-order.

Obviously, I'll suffer through Ehrman's book as well. You know, at least at high speed, it doesn't take as long. But I'll suffer through that. I may want to read the response before I read the original.

I don't know. But we'll see. But obviously, we'll have a further discussion of that. But just to let you know what's coming and that it's pretty much what we told you it was going to be, nothing new. And again, I personally have a real hard time with the level of arrogance that Bart Ehrman displays when he pretends to be an exegete or an expert in these things when there's no particular reason to think that he is.

He believes his own press way too much, way, way, way too much. And it's a shame. Anyway, so not much on Ehrman there. Just a warning, just let you know. And to let you know, you may want to pre-order How God Became Jesus as well.

It'll be coming out soon. I've pre-ordered the Kindle version, but the paperback version might come out before the Kindle version, actually. It normally does, in fact. But we will, of course, have a review of those various issues.

I was looking over, again, I don't want to go into too much of what I read. But one thing I know I'm going to be focusing in on, and I would love to see Ehrman challenge to do some debates on these issues, and I would love to debate Ehrman on this particular subject, but he tries.

His interpretation exegesis of the Carmen Christi is horrific. It's really bad. Really, really bad. And I think rather easily refuted. And I think he'd have a hard time maintaining that in any kind of debate, but I don't know that he's ever going to expose himself to that kind of refutation.

So we will see. Okay, as I said, I was handed a copy Sunday night by a friend at church of New World Order Bible versions. I guess I left the DVD in my bag in the other room. But it's got the shrouded figure over all these Bibles and your standard conspiracy stuff.

So I burned it to MP3 and rode out to Lake Pleasant yesterday, and it didn't take all that much time to get through it. And yeah, there we go. So the four that they want to focus on are the NIV, the New King James, the New Living Translation, the ESV.

So there's the cover right there. And New World Order Bible Versions, a Paul Wittenberger film. All right. And I love that Anderson is now using, even as avatar, a picture from my couch in my office where my long sword is going directly through his head.

Just sort of funny, the camera angle on that, but that's what he's using. And I'm not going to talk about this today, but we do have some new Cantor stuff. And you know how many times we talked about Pravda Theological Seminary, Veritas Theological Seminary?

Well, did you know Pravda still exists? I found out in Ukraine. There's Pravda. There is the actual, a current issue of Pravda. See, there's this Pravda right there. There's truth. Anyway, thank you, Nick, for the copy of Pravda.

We'll talk more about that. Anyway, so I listened to it and we got to the end. And actually what they do is they have the closing credits. I figured it was done. Then they have a, quote unquote, gospel presentation.

Interestingly enough, it's a false gospel presentation. No repentance. And in fact, it's specifically said in the presentation, you do not have to repent of your sins. You do not have to repent of your sins.

So it's a repentance-less, non-gospel presentation, which just gives you, again, anyone who buys into that kind of reading of the text of Scripture is so far removed from any meaningful understanding of Scripture that it's really hard to take seriously almost anything else they have to say.

But that's what is presented at the end. And one of the guys, oh, I can't read those fonts. They're too small. But one of the pastors over in Sacramento, I would love to, there's a church over in Sacramento that wants me to come over and I want to try to get over there.

And I would, what would make it really interesting if Figgy's listening today or in channeling or anything like that, would be to see if the folks up in Sacramento could contact this fellow and work out a debate or something like that.

I think it'd be great. That'd be very interesting to do. But anyhow, got done listening to this and I'm just like, why on earth did I invest over two hours in that conversation? The material that they used in that conversation might have, of me actually speaking, might have added up to 90 seconds.

I haven't actually sat down and measured it. But of me actually speaking, not just of Anderson asking me a question, but it might have been 90 seconds, maybe two minutes. I haven't sat down. It's just, it's pitiful.

And the longest section was a joke. The longest, believe it or not, and I don't know if I told you this, the longest section it made in the film was about the NWT and marshmallow juice. That's actually in the film.

That's actually in the film. Because I had made the statement that the primary mistranslations in the New World Translation are where they disagree with historical Christianity. And he disagreed with that.

Well, I still think he's wrong. Marshmallow juice may be a weird, or whatever it was, marshmallow something, might be a very weird rendering. But the point is, these specific mistranslations that are indefensible are specifically on the topic.

So the New World Translation disagrees with biblical Christianity. That's the whole purpose, that's the whole reason they produced the thing, was they wouldn't have to be explaining those verses all the time, at least from the King James or some other Bible.

And so, anyway, even though they show a section, I'm going to show you here a section, where they're coming into the office. At one point, you see them walking right past where Rich is right now, where the control stuff is for the dividing line, and walk into my office.

And we didn't know that they were taping at that point, but that's what they did. And they put that in the film. And they show that part, and they ask me one question about Sinaitis Covaticanus. I give about a 20-second response, and then they're gone on to something else.

It's just amazing how little of the interview. And of course, I'm still hoping, they said they would do this, but I've gotten some indication that they may not. But I'm still hoping they'll release the entire conversation, because I'll be perfectly honest with you, that entire conversation has a hundred times more information of interest to someone who wants to actually know something about Bible translation, a hundred times more information than what's found in this film.

A hundred times. Easily. Without question. But anyway, the only, really, the stuff that I'm going to respond to in this is the beginning of the film, where they try to say that the modern translations, and they focus upon the ESV, NIV, NLT, which is just silly, and NKJV, talk about, and never even explain the textual difference between, that would divide those off.

The translational difference then divides the NLT off. I don't even think the NLT is a translation. It's still a paraphrase. So you've got the NIV and ESV pretty close together, though the NIV is much freer than the ESV.

You've got the NLT out in the ozone layer, and then the NKJV has a completely different textual basis. But those are the four they go after. I mean, this film is not intended to enlighten anyone, to clear confusion, anything like that at all.

Its audience is for the already convinced and the ignorant. That's it. It's actually the already convinced ignorant, together, is who the audience is here. And it is an absolute shame that that is the case.

A tremendous waste of time and effort. But anyway, toward the beginning of the film, they try to say the modern translations deny the deity of Christ, and of course there are modern translations deny the deity of Christ.

No one disputes that, but the ones they're looking at would not be included in that list, by any stretch of the thoroughly, fully refuted in the King James Only controversy, and has been refuted since 1994.

Every single one of them. That means Anderson knows that, and I know he knows that because he's read my book very carefully. He found a typographical error in the second edition. We had to retype all the Greek and trying to switch over the Unicode.

I know exactly how this one error happened. He caught that, or somebody caught it. He's the one who brought it to my attention. He has no excuses, but never does this film even pretend to fairly deal with the issues or to present it as such.

Doesn't even try to. That's just reprehensible. It is absolutely reprehensible. I do not understand the mindset of people like this. But anyway, what I want to show you is I'm going to deal with their allegations about missing verses and stuff like that at the beginning.

Because, like I said, easily refuted, Bible 101 level stuff. Very, very simply done. The rest of it is all sorts of Illuminati conspiracy theory wackiness, and we'll look at a couple of those things. But other than that, I'm going to show you today with something that just made me laugh.

Now, of course, I listened to all of it on a ride, so I wasn't watching it. But I had skimmed through it, and I happened to catch this thing. And it's just hilarious what happened in irony in this. In fact, what I'm going to do, let me change what I have here.

Let me show you something that is a regular part of my New Testament Reliability presentation. Those of you who have seen that presentation, you've been in the audience, maybe you picked up the wretched version of it, or you saw it online when Lane Chaplin recorded it years ago for Trinity, whatever.

You may have seen this before. Well, you've seen this before. Here is P72. And I'm sorry. Okay. And I show this in almost every single presentation I do because I saw this manuscript. I saw this very page in 1993 in Denver, Colorado, when I was debating geriatrics up there.

It was on display. And I've told the story many times about how Rich and I were sitting in a health food restaurant one morning called Winchell's, and I was looking through the newspaper, which I almost never do.

And I saw an announcement that this manuscript was going to be on display. I said, we're going. And you had to go and I guess back then you couldn't... How did we get the tickets? Do you remember? Yeah, because you couldn't do it online in 93.

I thought we had gotten them for a certain time period. Oh, we had to come back. Okay. That's display. And there were tiaras and diamonds and all sorts of stuff on display elsewhere, but this was the only biblical manuscript.

And so I go over to it and I'm just in hog heaven. I'm reading this thing and, oh, look at the nomena sacra and all this stuff. And Rich is standing there looking at it. And these people would come up and they'd sort of look down at it and they'd look at the description and I'm sort of ignoring them.

And they'd sort of look over and they'd go, can he read that? And Rich would go, yeah. And they'd go, look, Harold, this guy can read this. And they all start coming over and this crowd starts gathering and the security.

People get upset. Yes. Well, let's keep in mind, as we're walking in, there's all kinds of signs saying you've got to keep moving. Security's watching you. I didn't say that. What's that? I didn't say anything about you have to keep moving.

Oh yeah. No, there was keep moving. There was all kinds of stuff. So the reason I'm getting nervous is because the security guards are taking notice of Fred and Ethel taking notice of you.

Yeah. Well, I didn't say anything about keeping moving and I was moving from one foot to the other. So I think that qualifies. So anyway, P72 is the earliest papyri manuscript we have of 1st, 2nd Peter and Jude.

And you can actually see right here, this is actually readable, Petru Epistle Be. So this is the beginning of 2nd Peter and here's the end of 1st Peter right here. And what I like to do is I highlight this area and then blow it up.

And this is an example of the Granville Sharp construction there in 2nd Peter 1 .1 where Jesus identified as God. Now, this of course is quite relevant to Bart Ehrman. Bart Ehrman would say that 2nd Peter is a forgery.

It's much later. It's representative one stream here, et cetera, et cetera. It's also directly relevant to people like Dan Brown and the Da Vinci Code and the idea that Constantine made up the deity of Christ when obviously this is teaching the deity of Christ long before Constantine even takes his first breath.

So it's rather important and you can make a very strong case in light of the fact that Peter uses a number of other Granville Sharp constructions in his epistle that he specifically means us to read this as our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Here you can see Soteros right there. There's Savior, Jesus Christ, there's Enomena Sacro. This is interesting, this particular writer here, God has two letters here, it's three letters, Jesus and Christ, three letters.

Different people in papyri use different systems for the Enomena Sacro. It's a fascinating area, it's a fascinating area of study. But anyway, so I've actually translated this text and seen it in person and I'm very intimately familiar with it and use it in my presentations and all the rest of that stuff.

Okay, so there's the background. Now let's find my cursor here, there it is, and go back and let me play you now a portion of the film and just watch carefully and you'll see why I found this so ironic.

When we look at the Bible versions that led up to the King James, Tyndale, Matthew, Coverdale, Great Bible, Bishop's Bible, Geneva Bible, they all line up with the King James.

They all basically say the same thing as the King James. Which, by the way, is a duh. For what reason? Well, they're using the same text, even though actually, actually, there would be a number of differences based upon when those translations relied primarily upon the Latin Vulgate, even though the King James is heavily influenced by the Latin Vulgate as well, which, of course, was the official translation and version of the Roman Catholic Church.

They don't mention that part, but anyway...

James' Bible is the culmination of the Bibles that preceded it. So if the King James Bible is consistent with all the other English Bibles that led up to it, why are these modern Bibles so different? Dr. James White is a guy who has debated against people that are King James only.

He's written a book against those that are King James only. He's considered to be the expert of why King James-only-ism is wrong. So we're going to go talk to him and figure out what his arguments are.

There's where the dividing line is, right there. That's where we're headed right now.

All right, how you doing? Dr. James White, thank you so much for speaking with us today. Good to be with you. Can you just give me Codex Sinaiticus in a nutshell and Codex B in a nutshell?

Both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are the primary objects of the vitriol of the King James-only movement because of the fact that they were so central in the development of a New Testament text other than the Textus Receptus.

Two men by the names of Westcott and Horton.

Now, by the way, was that... I think that was just one sentence, wasn't it? I think that was just one... I got one sentence there.

Put together a critical text mainly based on two manuscripts known as Sinaiticus or Codex Aleph and Vaticanus or Codex B. And these two manuscripts were thought by Westcott and Horton to be older and therefore more reliable than the other Greek texts that had been used in the Textus Receptus.

The modern Bibles are supposedly the result of modern archaeology and modern scholarship and modern discovery. I mean, even the people who promote these modern Bibles will tell you, well, the modern publishers just have more resources available to them today.

They just have manuscripts that just weren't available to the King James translators. That's why the modern Bibles are better, they'll say. And the reason they say that is because the manuscripts that the modern Bibles are translated from, the NIV, etc., are newer discoveries, meaning that they were buried for centuries.

Now, let me ask you something. Do you believe that the true Bible was buried for centuries? Did you catch it?

Did you see it go by? Let me back it up here just a second here. James. Translators.

That's why the modern Bibles are better, they'll say. No, what's that? And the reason they say that is because the manuscripts... Oh, there we go. I wonder where they got that.

That's P72. That's the exact same page. There's Petru Epistole Bay. Right there is the Granville Sharp construction. That's P72. That's 2 Peter 1 .1. And the great irony is that this film started out with them talking about how these perversions are trying to deny the deity of Christ.

And yet right here on the screen, did they know this? I doubt it. I doubt it. I mean, Anderson is no dummy. He's worked as a German translator. He reads at least some Greek. But being able to read the printed Greek is not the same as being able to read this.

I mean, this is a lot tougher. And most people who can read, even with some facility, might look at that line right there and go, I am not sure what that is that's difficult to read. But did they know that they were actually putting on the screen one of the non-Byzantine early papyri that are so important to the modern textual platform that actually utterly destroys their own thesis that these manuscripts try to deny the deity of Christ?

Because there you've got the deity of Christ. In one of the earliest manuscripts we have in the New Testament, more clearly translated by the new King James, the ESV and the NIV. Now, I don't even know what the NLT reads.

Would someone who would actually admit to owning? Well, I bet you I have the NLT in accordance someplace. It undoubtedly would be buried toward the bottom of my list under the you've never used me before.

Why are you bringing me up now? Well, wait a minute. Maybe not. I should somewhere. I've got the NET. That's a new King James. Somebody find out how the NLT renders 2 Peter 1 .1. Because I do know that the ESV and NIV render it better, more clearly as a testimony of the deity of Christ than the King James does.

And the new King James does this as well, both the Titus 2 .13 and 2 Peter 1 .1. And so what a tremendous irony that right as they're attacking the wealth of information that every single one of the King James translators would have loved to have had.

I mean, nowhere in this film is there even though they laud the King James translators, they never quote from the preface. The preface to the readers, because it is so utterly detrimental to the fiction that is King James only.

It is truly an amazing thing. And I just, the irony of it was really, really funny. Yeah, okay. There's the NLT from, did whatever put that there? Okay. Thank you, whatever. I'm writing to you to share, writing to you who share the precious faith we have.

This faith was given to you because the justice and fairness of Jesus Christ, our God and Savior. So there you have our God and Savior. So all of the ones that they identify as perversions have a clearer testimony to the deity of Christ, 2 Peter 1 .1 than the King James does.

And yet, have you watched the trailers? Got little eight-year-olds going, I'm going to be King James only my whole life. And it's just like, oh, so sad. So very, very sad. So anyways, we will, of course, have more to say about that as time goes on here.

But I wanted to share that with you. Now, the next item, next item up for bid, takes us to Chris Pinto. It's been a while since we've talked about noise of thunder radio. But once again, someone in Twitter, and I apologize to all you folks in Twitter when you send me something, I end up using it on the air and I forget who it was.

I don't even know how to go that far back in Twitter to find those things. And I hope you don't feel slighted when I get... Sometimes I can remember if it's right in front of me, you know, I'll go, oh yeah, that guy right there.

But other times, you know, someone... You know what, I think the guy who mentioned... Yeah, the guy who mentioned this to me, the word day is in his Twitter handle. And there's green in the background.

How's that? That's sort of like when I'm writing. Well, I remember there was a cactus on the right. And I've gone as far back as tweet deck will allow me to go. It's not loading anymore. I don't know why.

This takes me back. Yeah, unfortunately. But it was somebody with a day somewhere in his handle that gave me this reference. So if you are listening, maybe you can tweet me and I'll see it or something like that.

So anyhow, someone in the channel says, is that Bible works? No, I'm a Mac guy. I know Bioworks is gonna put out a Mac version. But no, that's accordance. I was a Bioworks guy for a long time. But they told me they were never going Mac.

So I had to switch platforms. But anyway, Chris Pinto did a program last week. I listened to it on Saturday. So this would have been like Thursday or Friday, something like that. And once again, Brother Pinto promoting his conspiracy theory stuff.

And he seems to find the expression of unbelief and liberalism to be extremely troubling. Now, I understand that. He didn't have the joy of going to a liberal seminary and having to deal with that on a regular basis, as I did.

But he seems to think that all you've got to do is you look at the BBC and you play what the BBC says, and that should be enough to warn us about Codex Sinaiticus. Not seemingly getting the idea that there is nothing in Christianity the BBC hasn't found a way of twisting.

It wouldn't matter if it was Sinaiticus. Whether Sinaiticus existed or not would be irrelevant. They'd find some reason. They want to unbelieve. They want to be unbelievers. So they'll twist anything.

So it strikes me as, again, illustrative of the mindset. And my concern is, I don't put Chris Pinto in the same category as Steven Anderson. I've not found any videos of Chris Pinto being tased at a border anywhere or anything like that.

I don't have any videos of Chris Pinto kicking pulpits, screaming against Calvinism. And so I don't put him there. But they say a lot of the same things. And Anderson has the stuff about the Illuminati and the Masons.

Chris Pinto has stuff about Illuminati and Masons. And they're all behind everything and all the conspiracy theory stuff. So they, unfortunately, say a lot of the same things. And the real problem here is that when it comes to actually doing a defense of the Bible against people like a Bart Ehrman, against Muslims who borrow Bart Ehrman to try to establish the authority of the Quran, that kind of stuff.

These guys are not in that arena. And nor should they be. It would be ugly if they ever wandered in. It really would be. I would not want to see Steven Anderson or Chris Pinto taking on a Bart Ehrman or a Shabir Ali.

No, that would not be a good thing. To this day, the most commonly watched video debate of Akhmed Didat is with Jimmy Speigart. Now, that's exactly what this would be. These guys are not on the front lines.

They're not. They're not on the front lines providing a meaningful, apologetic defense of the Bible against the real people who are doing the real damage. They're not out there. And so their arguments collapse when faced with the reality of the material that's there.

And pretty much this type of stuff only works within a very shielded, small community. It doesn't work out in the real world. So with that in mind, I want to listen to some of the things that Chris Pinto had to say.

I just realized. Well, you want to hear how I queued it up? Okay, as I was editing this and putting this together, this is what Chris Pinto sounds like the way I was listening to him.

They do all of the things that we've been warning you about, Brethren. All of the things in terms of their view of the history of the Bible.

They zero in. So that's how I was listening to it.

This is real time. They do all of the things that we've been warning you about, Brethren. All of the things in terms of their view of the history of the Bible.

But that is just too slow for us to get through it. So I'm going to play it, not at 1 .2, but at 1 .4, which is a little fast. But it'll help us to get through stuff. So just listen a little bit more closely and all will be well.

So he starts off talking about a BBC documentary, The Bible Hunters. Now, again, what do you expect? Do you expect fair treatment? Do you expect accuracy out of the BBC talking about anything about Christian history at all?

No, you get the most sensationalistic wackoism. They're never going to invite anybody on who's going to have anything meaningful to say. That's just the BBC. It's just a given. So keep that in mind as we listen to this.

They do all of the things that we've been warning you about, Brethren. All of the things in terms of their view of the history of the Bible. They zero in on Codex Sinaiticus.

By the way, boy, whatever is on it today, isn't she? Do you have a little extra caffeine this morning or something? I'm not sure what's going on with the young lady from Colorado. She's definitely not partaking of what most of the other people in Colorado are partaking over.

She wouldn't be moving very fast at all. Yeah, so she'd be too busy with the munchies. Yes, it was paul1t2day. Yes, thank you, whatever, as she tracked down the guy that gave me that link. So there you go.

I appreciate that. I didn't know anybody was looking for that, but there you go.

They do all of the things that we've been warning you about, Brethren. All of the things in terms of their view of the history of the Bible. They zero in on Codex Sinaiticus. They talk about the importance of Sinaiticus.

You're going to hear clips to that effect. Then why is Codex Sinaiticus important? Well, because it casts doubt on the last 12 verses of Mark, and hence the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Now, so there are liberals who say that the last 12 verses of Mark are not original to Mark, and therefore there's no resurrection. And I just go, think for a moment. First of all, is there something new here?

Is the only place in the Bible where the resurrection is taught the longer ending of Mark? What about Luke? What about Matthew? What about John? What about Acts? I mean, why accept this obvious liberal lunacy without challenging it?

Instead, the Chris Pinto response is, well, you see, we need to have that long ending of Mark to have the resurrection. Oh, so now what you want to do is you've got to admit that there are manuscripts that don't contain the longer ending of Mark.

There's always going to be a question about that longer ending of Mark, and that's the only basis of the resurrection. That's the hill you're going to die on. You're not going to go to Matthew, not going to go to Luke, not going to demonstrate the consistency, not going to demonstrate the consistency with the early patristic sources, that that's been the Christian testimony from the beginning.