Of No Man’s Lands and Ecumenism and Sanctification and Textual Families

And greetings, welcome to The Dividing Line on a Thursday. It's what? Well, right now it's 5pm, but they're going to be fiddling with their clocks this weekend. Yeah, so...

They'll finally join the rest of the world here back in the land of normalcy.

No, no, no, no, no. Let's be honest. We're the only ones that don't do this.

We are the standard time.

Well, we are. We're always the standard time, but...

They have gone off into their little, you know, world of, you know... They think they know.

I can control stuff, folks. There's nothing I can do about this. It's a complete waste of time, but there's nothing I can do about it, okay? I try, but there's some things you gotta put up with, you know?

Somehow, my Mac has decided that it has a new Java system on it, and so my favorite cut-on program is no longer working. I'm not happy about that. I hate to have that... I hate to discover that, right, as I'm trying to fire things up and get things ready to go, but...

Oh, well, on the last program, I went through verses, relevant verses, and a few folks in social media noted that I did not address the subject of Islam. Well, I was sort of thinking more about Bible-based discussions, so maybe that's why I didn't throw one in there.

I mean, there's obviously lots of verses that you could look at, but for those that were disappointed by that, I thought, all right, let's look at a verse today on the program from the cut-on. And I think we'll go ahead and open phone lines.

I've got a couple articles that are of some interest. By the way, let me mention, not tomorrow, but Saturday, I am intending to listen to, Lord willing, anyways, and I get that far in my ride without getting run over by a truck.

I intend to listen to the debate that took place, what was it, about six weeks ago? I think it was about six weeks ago, a debate on the deity of Christ involving Bart Ehrman, and I thought I had saved the article.

Yeah, there it is. Yeah, I'll be looking a little bit at this. Evidently, this is a review of the debate that took place written by Justin Bass, who was the Christian representative. I didn't want to get into it yet because I want to hear the whole context of what was stated, but I'm really looking forward to hearing it.

You might say, why have you been so slow? Because when it first became available, it wasn't available on YouTube. It was available on some other site that I couldn't get access to, and I was overseas, and by the time I could get access to it, I was at a place where I didn't even have internet.

I've just been traveling a lot, and so seeing this article, and whoever sent me the link in Twitter, thank you for that, reminded me to track it down, and of course it was on YouTube now, which is a whole lot easier for me to grab stuff off of YouTube.

I've got that down pat. I know exactly how to do it and convert things to mp3, and it goes right on my iPod, and it's the easiest way to do things. So I intend to listen to the entire debate this coming Saturday.

I'm doing a little 104-mile jaunt Saturday, and should have plenty of time to do that, and maybe make a little more progress on a book I'm reading called Killing Rommel, which is about the, what was the name of that?

Rat Patrol. Rat Patrol. Remember Rat Patrol? They were British, right? It was the Long Range Desert Patrol or something like that. It was a British organization in North Africa, and they were a thorn in the Afrika Korps' side, and so I'm reading a book called Killing Rommel.

Rommel's a fascinating character. Absolutely fascinating character, and his death, amazing thing, how that all turned out, and just a fascinating element of history just past the present, you know? I mean, a lot of these books I'm reading were written back in, you know, about 10 years ago, and they can still interview some of the last survivors of that generation, but there really aren't almost anybody, there's almost nobody left that was a part of all of that now, and so anyways, that's what I'll be listening to on the ride.

We'll get to that a little bit later on, but anyway, for those who are looking for a verse, what I'd like to do is throw you a little bit of a curve, and you might want to write down, there are a couple verses in the Quran, it would be good for you to know, maybe make reference to in talking to a Muslim, and it's not the same thing with most Muslims.

Like, when you're talking to a Jehovah's Witness, and you show firsthand knowledge of what they believe, you got to be careful with that, because that can freak them out, and they can be heading out the door faster than anything, because, well, you must be an apostate Jehovah's Witness, or, you know, we only are looking for sheep-like individuals, and we don't want to Bible bash, and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

For most Muslims, most Muslims, showing some knowledge of the Quran is not a bad thing. It might actually give you those extra few minutes to be able to open a door of conversation. And so, one that crossed my mind, and one that I would suggest to people in their preparation in speaking to a Muslim, remember what the three barriers are.

Everybody should know what the three barriers to witnessing to a Muslim are, the three barriers to the gospel. Everybody should know this. It's not difficult to understand. The first one is shirk. Shirk is the idea of associating anyone or anything with a law, because the central affirmation of the Islamic faith is tawhid, the oneness of Allah.

And so, any violation of tawhid is a very grave offense called shirk. There's different kinds of shirk. There's major shirk and minor shirk. I realize that. But they believe, the vast majority of them believe, that what you are inviting them to, by calling them to faith in Christ and calling them to the Christian faith, is to commit shirk.

Because they believe we are mushrikun. That is someone who, a mushrik is a person who commits shirk. And they believe that our view of Jesus, our worship of Jesus, since he's just a human being, that this involves shirk.

Now, there are some Muslims in the modern era that, well, in the modern era, in the western nations, that do not believe Christians are mushrikun. But they are the small minority. The large majority of Muslims believe that we are mushrikun.

And so you are actually inviting them to commit a sin that is unforgivable. The Quran says there's one sin. If you die on that sin, Allah will not forgive you. That's shirk. So the first barrier, shirk.

Second barrier, surah 4, verse 157, the denial of the crucifixion of Jesus. That's the only verse that does it. Remember the music video we did, the spoken word video, 40 words? 40 Arabic words, surah 4, verse 157.

Obviously, if there is no crucifixion, there is no self-giving. There is no atonement. There is no resurrection. There is no redemption. There's nothing. So that's the second big barrier. Though, in some ways, when you think about it, you can use that as a stepping stone.

Because right there, the Quran puts itself against all of history. I mean, everything that is relevant to the historical reality of the crucifixion. The Quran, therefore, ends up standing against that.

So barriers are shirk, crucifixion. Third one is the one that comes up in every single debate, has to come up in every single debate. And that is the allegation of the corruption of the text of the Bible.

And as I've explained before, the Muslim today, 99 .5 chance, minimally, probably more like 99 .9 chance, that any Muslim with whom you're speaking, they are going to believe that the words of the Bible, the what's called the Razm, the actual text of the Bible, that that has been altered and changed.

Not just the interpretation. Not just even issues of pronunciation. The actual lettering of the text has been changed. Corrupted over time. That's what they're going to believe. Historically, that wasn't the majority view.

Down through history, there were two different streams. Some Muslims who thought only the interpretation had been changed. And then others starting, I don't know, you know, some would say earlier, but really getting rolling two, three hundred years after the time of Muhammad, you have those making the allegation of the actual corruption of the text of scripture itself.

And these are pretty much side by side for many, many centuries. Until the publication of Itzhar al-Haq in 1864. Itzhar al-Haq, that book ends up completely changing the perspective of the vast majority of the Islamic world.

And that's why I wanted to take it.

I did.

That's why I wanted to, again, mention to you the book, The Gentle Answer.

What?

All of a sudden, you're looking like, huh, huh. Like someone was just reminded me.

I need to add that to the Amazon store. That's going to be our way of getting it in our right. We'll add it to the Amazon store because Amazon has access to it. It's just that it is printed in a different country.

And so there's limitations to be able to distribute it in the US. So but you keep mentioning it and I need to make sure that's available.

So I want I want you to see. I'm putting my rebus tea on my new Mr. Coffee mug warmer that I was given last night. I went over to Apologia. If I keep saying it right, they'll eventually repent. And we'll we'll get with it.

And gee, you think could you.

He's he's obviously had too much caffeine or something today. This is really, you know, could you. Use your tie or something wrapped around his neck, whatever you need to do. Just just keep him under control because I can't.

There's nothing new from over here. You know, it's tough. It's tough. Anyways, I went over to Apologia and filled in for Jeff Durbin and spoke on Mormonism last night. And one of the folks who was there walked up and gave me my own Mr. Coffee mug warmer because I had complained right here on the dividing line about my tea getting too cold by the end of the program.

And this is the wonderful Rooibos tea, the red bush tea from South Africa, which I was introduced to in South Africa. Two drinks now that I really enjoy that I was introduced to in Uncle Dennis's house in Durbin, South Africa.

And that is he is the king of the cola tonic. And they even sent me back with a thing. I'm almost out. I need to find it. I know it's here someplace, but I even got a bottle back through checked luggage all the way from South Africa without breaking it, which is pretty impressive.

But but Uncle Dennis, the king of of the cola tonic. And then I my voice was almost completely gone. We go two weeks ago, Tuesday, however long it was. And it was Rooibos tea that I had before the debate and did much better.

So I've gotten my Rooibos and it's just, I don't know. Durbin's an amazing place. It's an amazing place. I'm not going to tell you about the taxis in Durbin, however, but they're weird. And now they've started driving around just honking their horns continuously, evidently just letting you know that they're coming if you want to get a taxi ride.

And it's just it makes you want to have a sniper rifle. He gets to see that you'd shoot the horn, of course, not the taxi guy. But starting about 630 in the morning, Oh, stop. Oh, terrible. Anyway, that's nothing compared to Lima, Peru, though.

I've told you Lima, Peru. You can get up at 330 in the morning because I did. I had to get up that early to go to the airport when I came back a couple of years ago. You can get up 330 in the morning, stand outside anywhere in Lima, Peru, and there will still be at 330 in the morning a cacophony of horns.

Because in Lima, you just drive down the road, whether there's anybody on the road with you or not, it doesn't matter. And you just drive around honking your horn. It's just how they drive. Makes it really completely irrelevant because you don't even hear them after a while.

But that's what they do. And it just it's just oh, it's terrible. Anyways, back to the subject. What is in that tea? Anyways, back to the subject. So three barriers. Shirk, crucifixion, corruption of scripture.

And the corruption of scripture becomes foundational to everything else. You have to deal with it over and over and over again. Oh, Kofi's a Rooibos tea lover too. Yay, that's good. Here I am, almost 53 years of age, and I just now have discovered Rooibos tea.

But hey, that just means the rest of my life will be all that much better. When we ask the question, did the author of the Quran, however, believe in the corruption of the Bible? I think it you can make a very, very strong argument that the author of Quran did not believe that the words of the Bible had been changed because the words of the Bible are Natsal.

They are sent down by Allah. They contain light and guidance. We are held accountable to judging by them. We had to possess them to be able to judge by them. And there is this interesting phrase. And this is the verse you might want to write down.

In Surah 18, 27, Surah 18, 27. There's an interesting phrase there, and I'll render it literally here. There is no changer of his words. And this is referring to Allah. There is no changer of Allah's words.

Now, most of the translations will say something along the lines of none can change his words or something like that. But it's interesting. It's very similar in form to what you have in Romans chapter three, where there is no God seeker.

There is none that seeks after God. And you have a active participial form. Mubadila. One who changes. So there is no one who changes his words. His his Kalima. So that's obviously not talking about interpretation.

That's that's actually in the context of exhorting people to believe in the Quran. But part and parcel of the of the Quran's teaching is that the words of Allah are not just in the Quran. That may be the final revelation, but there are revelations beforehand.

And part of the authority of the Quran is its relationship with those previous revelations. So if you could have someone who could change the revelations of Allah in the past. Why couldn't you have someone that could change the revelations of Allah in the present?

But the specific statement of Surah 1827 is there is no changer. The one changing active participial one with the ability to accomplish the changing of his Kalima, his words. About the only way I can think that a Muslim would get around.

This would be to say that this is only in reference to the Quran. Now, there's nothing in the text that says, Oh, other of Allah's words can be changed. But the words in the Quran cannot. Though that's functionally what they end up believing.

I mean, given the position they've taken regards the Old and New Testaments. That is pretty much where they come down. But the Quran itself says there is no changer of Allah's words. So either they have to get rid of the idea that the Torah and the Injil were ever Allah's words.

Or deal with the reality of what is actually said there. So someone in channel brought up the Yusuf Ali translation that says, None can change his words. Yeah, that's one way of rendering it. Or literally, there is no changer of his words.

Same thing. Same thing. Well, someone's asking if there's no video today. Are we having problems?

Nope.

So Jason, yes, there's video. It's up and running. And then someone down in New Zealand. Thank you for all you do. The impact you have even reaches to here in New Zealand, where the world's best rugby team is.

LOL.

Yeah, I... Look, I've never been to New Zealand. I want to go to New Zealand. Unfortunately, you have to have boots on the ground to get to New Zealand, okay? And obviously, it has to... That has to be somehow worked in with going to Sydney and Brisbane.

And I want to get back down there. I really do. It's been a while. And I'll be honest with you.

I think...

Yeah, thank you very much. Now he's showing me the video on his phone to prove that it's working. I wasn't questioning that. I'm just saying someone was saying no video today. It means it's not working on their end.

But I want to get down there. I hear New Zealand is absolutely beautiful. And would like to visit. No two ways about it. But I'm going to be perfectly honest with you. I know that if I ever get to go to New Zealand, there's going to be some kind person that's going to give me an All Blacks jersey.

And I'll take it. And I'll be thankful for it. All the rest of that stuff. And look, the All Blacks are tremendous.

They really...

You got to give them their credit. But I've learned rugby in South Africa. I've got a number of South African jerseys. And I pulled for the Springboks. You know, it's just the way it is. And they won.

They beat South Africa fair and square.

It was close.

But even my friends in South Africa said they deserved to win that one. Which I found odd because most of the time in the United States when your team loses, you don't go, Oh, they really deserved to lose that one.

That's just normally not how American fandom works. I could ask about a certain college team, but that would give away too much information. But yeah, how are they doing? Oh, oh, okay. Gotcha.

All right.

Yeah, that's fair. We're not going farther than that. Anyway, so write that one down. Surah 18, 27. There is no changer of Allah's words. Right there might give you an opportunity to get into a discussion, a conversation with a Muslim on the subject of, you know, at least open the door for you to be able to talk about the scriptures and things like that.

877 -753 -3341, 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number for you to get involved in the program today. We've got a good half hour left in the program. I saw this article this morning and the reason that I saw it was because Patrick Madrid tweeted it.

Now, some of you will remember Patrick Madrid. Patrick and I have debated a couple of times. And in fact, once, as I recall, because of the... Let's see how this works. Now, if I scream horribly here...

Well, it's still warm, but it's...

Is it on? Yeah, it's on. All right, we'll see how that...

We'll leave it there, see if it keeps it right about there. Because that's certainly drinkable, but it's not, you know, that initial burn your tongue off type thing. Anyways, Patrick, I follow Patrick on Twitter, which sometimes is frustrating, some of the stuff that he retweets.

But Patrick and I are about the same age, I think. He might be a little bit older than I am, I'm not sure. And he's got a very good sense of humor, really does. So he does post some enjoyable stuff to read.

Well, today, you know, I wonder if I still have it here. There's just so much stuff on my feed that it's ridiculous. So it's really hard to keep up with stuff. But there's this picture from... I'm not sure, is it from Inception?

I forget what the movie is. But it's just these two guys, and they're laughing their heads off. They're just... And so it's, you know, one of those meme things that you utilize. And it basically, as I recall, was something along the lines of, this is my response to Peter Lightheart's demands on Catholicism.

And it was these two guys laughing their heads off. So it was a rather derisive dismissal of what was being said. And as I should have assumed, there'd be no way you can find something like that when you want to find something like that in your feed.

So yeah, it's just, that's what happens when you have too much of a feed. So anyway, I clicked on the link. I hadn't seen this. What I want from Catholics, become more Protestant. So here's Peter Lightheart.

Now, I'm not going to go back over all the weirdness about Peter Lightheart. Brought up on charges and, you know, all the stuff that came along with that. I'm not going to get into all that right now.

But Lightheart, as I described it in channel this morning to, I think it was Micah, I said, Peter Lightheart, he reminds me of back in World War I, where you'd have these huge armies facing off at each other in these trenches.

And a battle would be when the one side jumps out of their trench and gets slaughtered, running across the land to the next trench. And that middle ground where, have you ever looked at the numbers in World War I?

Oh, it's unbelievable. The number of people would die in a single day, just mowed down.

Unbelievable.

Entire generation lost. It was just amazing. But as you know, that space between the trenches was called no man's land. No man's land. Well, Peter Lightheart has marched out into the no man's land. Between Rome and Geneva.

And he's put up a tent. It's not even a, you know, it's not even a place of any shelter. One single round that hits it, gone. And he's frantically gesticulating in both directions to try to get us all to get together.

Meanwhile, the true believers on the other sides are just sitting in their trenches, looking at him like a madman. Because in many ways, that's exactly what he is. So he writes an article, What I want from Catholics, become more Protestant.

This was today, actually. My wish list for Catholics is terribly old fashioned and terribly assertive. There's hardly space here to defend my positions or thoroughly critique the Catholic position. So this may end up sounding like a drive-by shooting or a childish tantrum.

I trust that I could formulate my wish list with enough columnists that it doesn't turn into a bleep list. That's, I had to bleep it. Yeah, it's just the way it is. I want the Pope to give up his claim to infallibility.

In our day, the Pope stands as a global symbol of Christian faith. And Popes of recent decades have been among the greatest Christian leaders of recent history. This is what you get when you're in the middle.

Okay, you're, the people on both sides are gonna look at you and go, are you insane? The Pope is a universal teacher, a stout defender of Christian morals. No, this doesn't say doctrine. A living icon of charity, a father to princes and presidents.

Excuse me, I might have to drink some more tea. None of that makes him a definer of dogma, no matter how narrowly tailored papal infallibility may be, it is theologically and historically unfounded as Lord Acton knew.

I want the Pope to give up his claim to exclusive primacy. Why not be content with being primus inter potus among the ancient seas? Suppose Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. Didn't he leave it to Paul to lead the mission of the Gentiles?

Besides, should we not be open to the possibility the center of Christian gravity will shift dramatically in the future? In 3 ,000 years, might not the Bishop of Beijing or Lagos or Brasilia be the actual primate of the church?

In 10 ,000 years, will Vatican-centered Christendom be anything more than a distant memory? Makes one wonder exactly what his eschatology is, but we won't go there. Catholics should give up, sub-point.

I want Catholics to give up their sectarian exclusiveness. Jesus and his spirit are present in the suburban Bible church, the Chinese house group, the Pentecostal assembly at one of Rio's garbage dumps.

The Son and Spirit have promised to be wherever word is preached and bread broken, where disciples strive together toward maturity in Christ. These assemblies are no less churches than the congregation of St. Patrick's.

Fellowship with Rome is not the same as fellowship with Jesus. Submission to Rome is not the same as Catholicity. Jesus and his spirit do not observe Vatican protocols. I want Catholics to stop spreading pious falsehoods about Mary.

Protestants have unjustly neglected Mary's central role in the Bible and redemption. But Catholic Marian dogmas are a cure worse than a disease. I want Catholics to honor Mary by giving up inventions, like the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.

Failing that, I would be content if these speculations were treated speculative opinions rather than dogmas. I want a Catholic to explain how Mary, a Jewish woman of the first century AD, can simultaneously hear the appeals of millions of people who speak dozens of languages she never learned.

I know Catholics don't believe Mary has become God, but looks like something only a God could manage. I want Catholic theologians to give up the pretense that the dogma of the church has never changed.

When they try to explain that nothing substantive has changed between Trent and Vatican II, when they distinguish between unchangeable doctrine and changeable formulations of doctrine, they appear disingenuous.

I prefer the old free-church independence who eagerly expected the Spirit to break out fresh light from Scripture. Worse, the premise of unchangeability makes it impossible for the church to repent of mistakes.

Catholics don't think Vatican I, for example, will ever be overturned. It cannot be. But that means there will never be a full reunion with Protestants and Orthodox. That Catholic theologians must find a way to massage Vatican I so that it doesn't say what it manifestly says.

The possibility of saying the church erred is excluded in principle. When I attend Mass, I want Catholic priests to let me share the Eucharist with my Catholic brothers.

Sorry.

I want Catholics to accept my invitation to celebrate Eucharist with me and my Protestant brothers and give up any doubts they might have that what we Protestants celebrate really is Eucharist. I mean, that is just the level of naivete here is just enough to make you go,.

Really?

And which is why Patrick Madrid was laughing out loud as he probably should have. I want Catholics to give up veneration of the consecrated host and other sacred objects. Jesus gave us his body and blood to eat and drink, not to admire.

Whatever Catholics think they are doing, to Protestants they appear to be indulging a form of liturgical idolatry. At the very least, they are distracting from Jesus' purpose of the Eucharist. Take, eat, take, drink.

Subtitle, everyone become more Catholic. My rants are typically direct against my own tribe of conservative Protestants. I'm sorry, Peter, you're not a part of the conservative Protestants anymore. Been a long time since you were.

And typically, I'm urging them to become more Catholic, to acknowledge church authority, to cultivate sacramental piety, to embrace the glories of the whole Christian tradition, to honor Mary and the saints, to conform worship to the pattern of the ancient church, which is essentially the pattern of scripture.

Typically, I am urging Protestants to receive Catholics and Orthodox as Christian brothers, which they are. I am not contradicting myself when I rant against Catholics and urge them to become Protestant.

What I want above all, for both Catholics and Protestants, is full reunion and reconciliation in the truth. What I want is a church where the old names of Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, or other are discarded so that we can all wear the old new baptismal name, Father, Son, and Spirit.

And I want, and I want because I am persuaded, it is what Jesus wants. Well, again, that's, uh, sounds wonderful. Lightheart is a good writer and, you know, but, you know, it says Peter J. Lightheart is president of the Theopolis Institute in Birmingham, Alabama, an adjunct senior fellow of New St. Andrew's College in Moscow, Idaho.

So I'm not sure what Doug Wilson's doing with him. He is the author of many books, most recently, et cetera, et cetera. Lightheart's words sound wonderful, but they, in essence, refer to a world that does not exist.

They do not deal with issues of gospel. They do not deal with the reality of false gospel. And they are fundamentally a complete, total capitulation to and betrayal of the Reformation. Let's just put that simply.

And as a result, you know, a couple of things you can go, yeah, that's, that's fine. But then, you know, what he gives one hand, he takes away with the other, similar to N .T. Wright. Um, so that was just one of these articles that you, you find on the web that, that even the Roman Catholics are going, really?

Okay, thanks. Thank you, Mr. One person out there in the no man's land, you know, gesticulating both directions. Peter Lightheart. Okay, we have a phone call here that I want to, I read as quickly as I could, because it's a phone call from my native Scotland.

Hello, Jason. Doing pretty good. Well, thank you very much.

You know, there, there are different, there are different areas of practice of apologetics.

Not everyone should be seeking to debate in a mosque or debate a Bart Ehrman or whatever. Um, if you, if you have the ability to engage in that kind of, um, interaction, then that's great. We, we need more people like that, but you shouldn't think that that's the only way to quote unquote do apologetics.

Um, there are, are lots of pastors, for example, who do an excellent job in teaching their people apologetically and to be prepared to give an answer, uh, who would not, uh, dare make a foray into the official debating realm, uh, because that's a very narrow skill set.

It's a very specific skill set. It requires the ability to, um, very much multitask, uh, to follow numerous lines of to be honest with you. Um, the, the closest parallel that I can think of for the debate situation skill set, uh, is the ability to be an excellent chess player, because to be able to play chess on a, on a high level, uh, requires this multitasking, this ability to do multiple things at once, follow multiple lines of argumentation and so on and so forth.

And look, not everyone has that ability or should be trying to cultivate that ability. You know, apologetics can be done in written form where a person will have significantly more time to think through arguments and to do research and things like that.

And especially in teaching in the church, a person who may not have the vocal skills to be able to be on the street corner or on YouTube or doing the webcast or wherever else might be able to be extremely effective in providing thoughtful, meaningful, apologetic responses.

And of course, as I said in the last program, apologetics flows from your theology. If you have anyone who is an apologist who starts there and then forms their theology to fit their apologetic, they're doing it backwards and there's going to be a So obviously a person who has a solid grasp upon the theological foundation of the Christian faith is obviously going to be one who wants to share that with others and communicate that to others as well.

And so, you know, again, it depends on, on what aspect of doing apologetics you want to be involved in as to what the skill set would be. And then practicing those things. Well, you know, that's, that's hard to, you know, I've never had a, you know, I teach classes on apologetics all the time, but I've never like taken a class on debating form or, you know, I've taken classes on logic.

I would think that would be a really good thing to do along the way. But I've never been in a situation where I had someone saying, well, you, you should have done this. You could have done that. You could have gone that direction or you let him get away with this.

Or you didn't hear when he said that. I've never had that kind of training. It's just something that came to me over time. And I've had a lot of practice. Basically, when you, when you've done 150, you've, you've, you've got a little practice under your belt.

But the first place to be looking to do this is, is not out in the world on the front lines, but within the church in preparing others. But obviously it's a sort of a give and take situation because you're going to be, you're going to have more ground upon which to stand in helping others to, for example, witness to Muslims, if you yourself have been witnessing to Muslims or to Mormons or wherever else it might be.

So the, the thing to avoid, however, is the common pitfall for apologists, which is to become disconnected from the church and to not do apologetics within the church, first and foremost, but to be doing it someplace else.

So many apologists just wander around the countryside. And if they're in a church on the Lord's day, it's because they're speaking there and not because they're actually, you know, serving or, or anything like that.

So avoiding imbalances, very, very important for anyone who's, who's involved in apologetics.

Right. And the evidence for these manuscripts, what would be your take on that?

Well, it, it, there are, there are a number of theories that have been introduced to attempt to explain the lack of earlier documentation for the Byzantine text type and specifically to try to respond to the reality that the Byzantine text type does give evidence of conflated readings, for example, where if you have a conflation, this is clear evidence that the, the later reading is drawn from earlier readings.

So, so a scribe had two different readings, puts them together. Obviously that, that put together version had to come later than, than the ones that was, it was derived from. And so there have been all sorts of theories that, well, you know, they were just used so much that they wore out and the Alexandrian ones weren't used so much.

And so they, you know, they didn't wear out and that's why we still have them and, and that kind of thing. And it, it, it's all a theory attempting to explain the reality of the history and that the history is that the form of text that gives the greatest evidence of being the earliest form of the text is the Alexandrian text type and not the Byzantine text type.

There is clear evidence in the text type as a whole. There, you can find individual readings to dispute, but text types are not made up of individual readings. They're made up of a whole family of readings that texts share together.

And the Byzantine text type tends to be longer and tends to have evidence of being a compilation of earlier text types that we can identify in the Alexandrian and Western traditions. And whenever we find papyri, whenever we find new manuscripts that go way, way back into the, the second and third centuries, well, lo and behold, they, they do not give us distinctly Byzantine readings.