The Bible and its Origins

okay it's time once again for religion on the line this is van hale your host and i welcome you to our program this evening and encourage you to join with us as usual i do have a guest with me this evening as i have announced on several previous programs and that guest is james white who is up here for lds conference uh...

not as one of the general authorities or one of the bishop but uh... there's one of you just or uh...

are listening audience who may not be familiar with you from uh... previous programs what you do with conference time don't know if we have that amount i've been really uh...

anymore uh... i have one full -time job in five part -time jobs these days so uh...

hit uh... that would be to be busy i i remember the first time i came up here was on a different station i was going to be on and uh...

the fellow uh... i picked up in provo was saying well we have a baptist minister from phoenix coming up to pass out tracks the conference tell us all we're going to hell it's been a warm utah welcome almost around home and then some but uh...

this is actually a twenty six consecutive uh... general conference uh... coming up and uh...

worthy uh... worthy fairly well -dressed uh... quiet focus down by the gate and just uh...

offer literature and witness to folks we are not the folks with the signs uh... we are not the folks dressed in the long robes walking for about double square seven times they didn't show up yesterday that the uh...

the weather even got rid of three defied which was uh... pretty amazing but uh... we've we've come up here now for thirteen years and uh...

and shared with folks obviously i'm not all the assignment reform baptist specifically and i'd like to help make ministries and uh...

we do outreach to uh... mormons the easter pageant we're out there last uh... week four last other may sound like a cop that pageant down there but it's uh...

very well attended down there and uh... that's just one of the many things we do really uh...

uh... my work is in many other areas i teach for uh... two seminaries in a in the university uh...

written nine books have another two or three coming out fairly soon and uh... only one of those books has been on mormonism actually so uh...

the others have dealt with uh... the king james only controversy bible translation issues uh...

critical insult on the new american standard bible uh... theological issues uh...

we're gonna book in the trinity right now and in fact the next book coming out is on christians in grief uh...

without a hospital chaplain for a number of years and a lot of uh... grief counseling so uh... you could say i i i covered cover the gamut show is a okay was it's good to have you here again i i don't know we've been on the radio together probably ten or twelve times imagine over the years and we've talked on uh...

quite a number of topics the last time you were up uh... that you were on on the program with me we were talking about your book on the uh...

king james only issue and uh... actually we did on the phone but uh...

i don't think we're in studio all that and that's right that's right this is a uh... i don't remember everything like i used to a few years ago but uh...

i do like uh... but at any rate when we were talking in that uh...

in our last program in our last discussion about the king james only uh...

debate which which basically uh... i i would suspect that a good number of our listeners simply aren't familiar at all with uh...

the debate that's going on about the king james bible but uh... just just in a in a nutshell there there are those uh...

within the christian community or cleaning playing very tenaciously to the king james bible and insisting uh...

i mean it comes i have heard people insist i don't think i'm overstating this insist that if you're not reading the king james bible you're not reading the bible if you're reading some other translation or whatever that's not really the bible that's actually an understatement uh...

they they go so far as to say that if uh... uh... that only the king james version of the bible will proclaim the gospel in such a way as a person can be born again uh...

hence if you uh... are led to the lord with the uh... american standard and i've been here and i rest of the year uh...

living bible you're not actually truly born again you're not really a christian and that anyone who works on those other translations promotes those of the translations preaches in those of the translations is not only uh...

disrespecting the bible but is in willful sin against god that that's how far some will go and not amongst lds people that i've ever found uh...

in fact when i was writing the book i may have mentioned this when we spoke before i'd i'd asked a question of an lds uh...

newsgroup of electronic newsgroup about their view of the king james version of the bible and i i couldn't get anybody to even care enough to correspond with me about it they were just like whatever uh...

no these these folks are generally amongst uh... independent baptist groups and uh... of course i'm a reformed baptist and so uh...

the fact that i wrote a book uh... specifically on that subject really uh... uh...

have you ever done anything or done any reading on the individuals like uh... peter ruckman or tex marz i haven't no well both uh...

both would take the most radical perspective that you could on that particular issue and uh... uh... texas identified me as a servant of satan and the devil uh...

for uh... for even writing the book that i did which i thought was fairly ironic uh...

in uh... in nature but uh... that that doesn't matter doesn't matter how you address the issue it's if you address it at all uh...

earns you those types of evidence well i had an independent baptist uh... on one time well i had him on a number of times uh...

some years ago and uh... he opened up the king james bible well he was he was insisting to me that the king james bible was the one bible that had been translated from the original manuscripts and i'm saying well i don't know anybody who's ever claimed that that the original manuscripts are even in existence and uh...

and he said yes they are says right in the front of the bible and i uh... i said well it doesn't say that money says well it here let me let me see your bible you open it up and read this out of my bible it says uh...

translated out of the original tongues and with the former translations diligently compared so you know he was he thought to his position or his reading of this was that the king james bible when it says original tongues was that that was actually translated from the original manuscript and he was a uh...

an independent baptist who'd been to uh... uh... a baptist uh... seminary you know somewhere and i think you know i was just amazed uh...

amazed at that but but at any rate the uh... the thought that went through my mind as i and i really enjoyed your book your book on the king james only what's the exact title the king james only controversy can you trust the modern translations and uh...

now you brought together so much information in that and i thought that you're to to me you're thinking was so clear and why could i be wrong about so many other thing yeah that's that's exactly uh...

that's exactly what i was thinking it's it's funny because uh... the follow -up book that well that was a follow -up book but uh...

last year the roman catholic controversy came out from bethany house and i had some roman catholic apologists contact me and say you know your book on the king james was just just great it's just just too bad you can't figure out you know that the pope is the vicar of christ and so on and so forth so uh...

it it it it's interesting uh... that you would say that but the the thing that was uh...

was of interest to me and i i wanted to go this direction the last uh... time we talked but that wasn't you know what we had talked about beforehand and and so i i decided not to represent but it seems to me that if you would and if you were applied the same kind of technique in in the same diligence to uh...

the bigger question and the bigger question in my mind uh... rather than just the king james only controversy the bigger question is the bible only controversy and that's of course a position upon which uh...

you know you and i have always differed as to the question of whether whether there is any legitimate uh...

scripture outside of the outside of the bible and i just uh...

i thought tonight maybe we just gonna kick that around a little bit and i don't know how far will go with it is that you know i really was uh...

it would have been better i think if we'd if we talk a little sooner than we did not both had a chance to know really good pursue a little bit more but what would have really helped and and certainly may we can do this uh...

looking toward october is that uh... a book came out early last year in titled solo scripture of the protestant position on the bible which i doubt very much you've had an opportunity to see that's right uh...

and uh... the book has uh... chapters in it by rc scroll uh...

john mccarthur uh... sinclair ferguson noted church historian and i was privileged to do the chapter on uh...

social terrain nearly church and uh... in fact next week i'll be going to minneapolis and uh...

trying to work out the details on a book on biblical sufficiency with uh... with my publisher so this is an area that in fact uh...

uh... last november i did a bit against him staples a four protest in our own catholic on the issue so scripture so this is really and there is very important to me and if what you mean by the bible only is solo scripture that is the protestant viewpoint that the bible was the sole infallible rule of faith the church and that there is no uh...

revelatory organ whether it be scriptures like bookmormon dot incomes for a price or a how should i put this hierarchical structure uh...

that has access to as roman catholicism puts it apostolic traditions that rome can define and make binding upon christians uh...

for example the doctrines of the immaculate conception of the bodily assumption of mary which rome has defined on the basis of alleged apostolic tradition which is also revelatory in nature even if it's not easy quite easily identified as as you can uh...

a text of scripture uh... the process is no to uh... to either the idea of the extra scripture or the uh...

idea of uh... apostolic traditions uh... and if that's what you're talking about them certainly that's that's an area that i've i've delved into a great deal in certainly feel that's very very consistent with what i said mckinsey's only controversy well and the uh...

uh... the the point uh... view that i'm coming from is that uh... as we look at the various concepts about particularly protestant concepts that uh...

are are looking specifically at the canon of scripture which was produced at a certain period of time and that can disclose and that uh...

uh... that all doctrine all uh... you know all of the christian doctrines need to somehow uh...

be drawn from that to me simply seems like it does not square with the overwhelming uh...

weight of uh... historical evidence about how the bible came into being and uh...

and how it's been transmitted and so forth well that of course depends on what you mean by uh...

the overwhelming uh... uh... verdict of history i i obviously disagree uh...

and of course it also depends what you what you understand the canon to be and how the can exist uh...

would you say that that you have an infallible canon today due to the presence of uh...

uh... living prophets no i i was certainly wouldn't okay so you would not take the position that that there is that you have an infallible canon uh...

that's that's correct okay uh... would you identify that is a uh...

if if we went down yesterday and brave the snow at the uh... at the conference and stood under a uh...

uh... umbrella like we did uh... talking to folks my feeling is that most mormons i would speak to actually say that yes they yes they do know exactly what the candidates uh...

because of the uh... uh... having a a living teaching authority well well but the idea that i'm pursuing is uh...

is this idea and that is which i think is consistent with the thinking of the early church uh...

and that is that the canon is is simply byproduct of the church it's not the canon that was produced to create the church it was something that isn't isn't outgrowth from the church the same thing is true i would say uh...

in the lds movement that the uh... that is we're looking if if you were to ask a uh...

and and all of the latter -day saints became the conference this weekend if they believe that the canon is close at their uh...

that it would never be modified i would imagine virtually all of them would say no we don't believe that it's close finish right sort of thing but they would say that they do know what the canon currently yeah i i think i think that they would uh...

uh... identify within the lds movement we do specifically have uh...

uh... canon to an extent uh... there would be for example going back to your king james boy and that ish that whole issue i think i've heard many uh...

latter -day saints talk about the king james bible being the official bible of the lds church which is which is you know we're living here kind of isolated or insulated from the world but uh...

latter -day saints who've been on missions to foreign countries know that they don't read the king james bible in any foreign speaking country because it's only an english translation and uh...

but there's one thing is that we have no uh... as i read the early church uh...

i'd i do not see them seeing the canon as an outgrowth of the church i see them seeing the canons an outgrowth of the act of inspiration itself and in fact i think that the protestant uh...

viewpoint as well and that is that the canon of scripture uh... the the books of of the old testament uh...

the process by which the cannot the old testament uh... was formed and especially in the in regards to the new testament that the canon is needs to be understood in two ways and this is one thing that hopefully be developing this book and it's not something that uh...

we've ever discussed before i don't think in regards to this issue but i i would want to differentiate between two uses the term canon if we want to use a canon prime one is the canon as created by the act of inspiration i believe that what makes scripture scripture is the fact that god breathe that scripture paul's use the term theonystos in second timothy three sixteen is that all scripture is theonystos it is god breathed god create a canon simply by not inspiring all books but inspiring some to illustrate this i've written and currently right now nine books uh...

i know the canon of my writings because i'm the one who did the writing no one else has an infallible knowledge of the canon of my books because even my best friend when he looks at my books it can't be totally certain that uh...

i didn't get a ghostwriter to do a chapter here or something along those lines i have infallible knowledge of which books i did and didn't write why because i wrote them the very now i've never sat down and said this is the canon of james white's writings and written out a golden index or something the very fact that i wrote some books but didn't write all books creates a canon of my writing well canon one is is infallible because god has infallible knowledge of it and it is a function of scripture it is simply it it simply exists because god inspired some books and he didn't inspire others i don't think god inspired the koran uh...

i don't think god inspired uh... mister apple white's uh... writings on the internet and i don't think there's a ufo behind the hail bob either uh...

so there are some things that that are inspired i believe the gospel of john is and there are others that are not but the point being that when god inspires some things and not others he creates canon one and it exists it is not some separate biblical revelation it exists and because scripture exists canon two is our knowledge of canon one is how we gain knowledge of that act of inspiration and as i read the early church fathers as they begin to uh...

wrestle with these issues as i read uh... athanasius' thirty -ninth festa letter in three sixty nine where he gives us uh...

the exact same new testament canon that we use to this day and the same old testament canon with uh...

about one or two differences with some some greek editions of a couple of the apocryphal books he rejected all the popular except one or two little sections of it uh...

as i listen to his reasonings and the way that he uh... presents this i don't hear him saying that this is a a uh...

how do you put a function of the church but a function of what god has done in giving scripture and the church is the is the recipient of this the passive recipient of of the divine scriptures uh...

i don't find anyone claiming to have some authority over the divine scriptures i was finding when claiming to have what we might call canonical authority that is the idea to create canon uh...

and uh... so uh... i would i'm not sure exactly what you meant by a function of the church maybe you mean that the church passively recognizes what god has done and i'm not really uh...

from a function of the church but a product of the church okay it's uh... the canon was a product of the church in other words uh...

and i'm i'm going to be talking probably most the time tonight about the new testament but uh...

the new testament is is a product of the church rather than the church being a product of the new testament what i'm what i'm saying by that is if you were to produce the new testament and then as the rule book the the authoritative uh...

source the canon for the church and then set the church up based upon that that would be what i think that uh...

a good number of uh... christians today are thinking uh... that that's in fact what happened when in fact what happened is that the new testament is simply uh...

well i'm going to say is simply but new testament is a selection from a much larger body of christian writings and christian teaching of the uh...

first century well i'm a little uncomfortable term selection on the i guess i could find a way of of becoming comfortable with it if we define what you what you meant by that i'm not sure how much larger the quote -unquote body of writings was in the sense of twice as big ten times as big uh...

there are only a certain number of writings that come down to us that are going to come even close to the apostolic period at all in fact the big rage with the jesus seminar folks and uh...

running around getting phd's and writing about the gospel of thomas or something like that uh... is is really i think rather amazing uh...

we may be getting that little later on certainly the new testament church as a as an established body if we want to use if we want to see the church being established shall we make any cost the a a a friendly point in saying okay you have to be in the testament church here precedes the writing of the vast majority of the new testament and certainly the collection of the new testament into a single body uh...

but i don't see the issue i don't see you may want to talk primarily about the new testament but i see the scriptures as a whole as being the issue i think the process through which the old testament went is a paradigm for the same very same process for the new testament and i see the old testament functioning as the authority uh...

the final authority in the sense of not denying the existence of revelation in the time jesus christ obviously but when you have paul reynolds corinthians for example uh...

and they are even making misuse of of the teaching of his own about christian freedom how does he and their misuse of the more than one teaching by citation of the old testament which he obviously considers to be absolutely final in binding upon new testament christian so when you look at a at a greek new testament and uh...

and you see all the the uh... in some sometimes they put in bold sometimes italics over and over and over again entire books are uh...

romans corinthians filled with citations from the old testament so i see it as an organic unity i certainly see the difference between the old covenant new covenant but when paul said all scriptures god breathe at that point in time would've been speaking primarily of the tonight of the old testament and i see the very same process taking place in the canization of the new testament that is our recognition of what god did in inspiration that took place in the old i don't see any angels coming down from heaven uh...

with golden indexes for the old testament nor do i see it happening in the new but i think we have in between the lord jesus providing a a means of establishing that the process took place in the old is the way the god intends to do it well and and we could go back to the old testament i think the old testament is uh...

is is certainly interesting in that uh... the canon of the old testament uh...

is at this point still in considerable question throughout throughout christianity and i think uh...

you mean specifically specifically the process in catholic issue we also talking about but uh...

protestant catholic as well as uh... eastern orthodox and and uh... another smaller uh...

other smaller groups both currently and and and through uh... throughout the past in fact them i'm just uh...

i don't know if i'm gonna be able to put right to this but uh... uh...

bruce metzger in his in his book uh... entitled the canon of the new new testament which uh...

this is uh... i think uh... remarkably fine source for this whole discussion he points out that in the tenth century there were six different lists of the scripture uh...

of the uh... canon in the eastern christian church church in the tenth century even as well as far along as a tenth century there were six different lists of what the canon consisted of i don't doubt that at all it's interesting to me however that when have you had an opportunity to look at roger beckwiths of the old testament canon new testament church no i haven't i think if you enjoy reading metzger uh...

you would you would find uh... beckwith to be justice into leading uh... which uh...

and i was really with the sources is going as bands reading list is is uh... definitely unusual uh...

but uh... seriously beckwiths work uh... is is much more up -to -date in the sense of the old testament studies than almost anything else i mean eighty five is now twelve years ago that's still fairly recent as far as major works on all testament canization does and he deals with not only the intertestamental period the laying up a certain books in the temple for example some it's rarely mentioned in other words uh...

just even says witness and things like that the uh... uh... the information's come to light from from further studies have been done in in the dead sea scrolls and things like that uh...

that the that the point was there was a process that that the people of israel went through uh...

beckwith strongly uh... disagrees with the standard viewpoint that for the past hundred years you had two cannons palestinian alexandrian cannons the old testament he said that that what there is no evidence that was actually case there's only one can amongst the jews of twenty two or twenty four books and that was not a different can in between the two is depending on how you counted certain of the book uh...

and the uh... issue of the apocryphal books is is is actually something that uh...

that much later than the jewish people themselves uh... dealt with uh... they actually dealt with that issue uh...

fairly early on to christians who resurrected because of their present the subject but the but the point being that uh...

he brings out in the early church i found this very interesting that when you look at the individuals who rejected the apocryphal books in the early church you have malito sardis you have jerome you have athanasius and those who accepted them such as a guston there is almost a direct correlation the more nearly father knew about the old testament in the jewish people the less likely he was to accept the apocryphal and vice versa for example a guston uh...

his his he basically ruled over the council people carthage in three ninety three and three ninety seven and yet he could barely make his way through greek at all and did not know any hebrew whatsoever was totally depend upon the subject in a lot of you know any latin versions were running around primarily septic well jerome knows hebrew he's learned it from a jewish rabbi he lives in bethlehem uh...

and what's his viewpoint he doesn't accept the apocryphal books as being canonical now he is instructed by bishop damasus of rome to translate them and he does so rather reluctantly at the very end of his uh...

process of translating the uh... uh... what became known as latin vulgate but there's this relationship and given the fact that there is a a rather tragic i think anyways uh...

diminishment and and and for many hundreds of years uh... total abandonment diminishment of knowledge of an abandonment any connection with the jewish people that eventually led to the tragedies we see in the in the uh...

uh... crusades in uh... in the killing of of jews by people wearing crosses on their chest uh...

because of that the old testament as you as you probably know during the middle ages was pretty much a closed book the idea of knowing anything about the background it was all interpreted metaphorically uh...

the idea that had any meaning in and of itself just the words actually meant something everything was a symbol of something else and so it doesn't surprise me that by the tenth century uh...

you would have all sorts of of confusions everything else about the old testament canon uh...

because if you if you separate yourself from the the requisite studies from from doing the homework you need to do to go back and ask the question what what was the canon in palestine the days of jesus when jesus refers to the scriptures what was he talking about let's look at the critical usage of of of the scriptures uh...

in the news of the old testament scriptures in the new testament how the apostles use the scriptures were they aware of the apocrypha certainly they were that they ever cited as with the the canonical formula it has been written it is written so -and -so for probably they did but they show familiarity with it certainly they did uh...

they show familiarity paul show familiarity with the wide spectrum of of non -canonical right unfortunately a lot of that information generally available are considered to be relevant for a long centuries the christian era but there are a couple of problems that i see with what you're saying first of all if we're going to turn to the church as being the the body that's going to make the decision as to what what books belong in the canon the decision of the church in the east and in the west uh...

you know i mean you're talking about jerome and uh... and uh... of course uh... jerome i i'm familiar with jerome's attitude about the apocrypha and that sort of thing but uh...

but the fact is that the decision of the church prior to jerome at the time of jerome and following jerome was a larger canon than the current protestant canon that's in the west i mean i'm talking about the uh...

we go back to the main back to the uh... bibles that have survived and we find in the old testament uh...

portion that you're talking about nonetheless regardless of the fact that there were educated uh...

christian scholars who did not accept the apocrypha because uh... of their of their position that the jews had didn't accept it that was one of the reasons but uh...

uh... and then also in the east where you know we're not dealing with jerome in the eastern church they also followed the uh...

the larger extended canon uh... which included the books that have been referred to as apocryphal books uh...

so you've got that situation plus you have the fact that in the new testament most in most of the instances where we can distinguish what uh...

the new testament writers are quoting from they're not quoting from the hebrew old testament were quoting from the septuagint version which which would uh...

to me suggest that they have they were looking to a version of the old testament which was substantially different than the version that the uh...

that the jews were using in palestine and that they were uh... they were saying that as being uh...

significant and authoritative and we're quoting passages from that which didn't even have parallels in the uh...

in the hebrew old testament well first i didn't say that we go to the church to do that uh... i specifically uh...

would not say that you go to church for the uh... uh... for canonical authority the church in fact i'd said was that the early fathers do not claim to have canonical authority uh...

there is a difference between the people of god passively recognizing something and in the thought hierarchical authority defining something and i would also disagree in regards to the east uh...

athanasius is considered uh... an eastern father and his is one of the earliest canons of the old testament and other than i think two sections of greek of the apocrypha he rejected all the rest of it instead has the identical hebrew canon that i used today and and when you know identical well well with with two very small exceptions it's not uh...

but otherwise uh... other than two small exceptions it is and uh...

when you say when you go to when you go to manuscripts when you go to sign atticus when you go to that a canist i think we may have discussed this before i'm not sure but i think it's an error to assume that uh...

simply because something is bound together in a manuscript means it's viewed as canon there's all sorts of funny things bound together with manuscripts throughout the new testament tradition well into the uh...

eleven twelve century when you produced a book back then uh... it was a very expensive and and long process and there are works of devotion that are bound together with biblical manuscripts and there are many examples of these in india new testament tradition i think we weaker uh...

if we assume that the presence of a from our viewpoint non -canonical book uh...

in a biblical manuscript means that for the person who copied that that was of equal canonical authority with something else uh...

i think you have to go to the clear statements of the fathers who live contemporaneously with the writing of those manuscripts uh...

before you go to uh... an assumption based upon the inclusion of a book in a manuscript uh...

uh... you know that that seems very clear to me well i i think uh... i think you've got a point there to an extent but uh...

when we have uh... when we have for example the uh... pistol clement uh...

written most scholars are saying about ninety five eighty evening to the corinthians yes i am i went to the corinthians and uh...

we also we also see that this particular personal was written prior to some of the at least if we accept the dating of the of the majority of those who are dating the new testament but that that book was probably written before some of the last of the new testament books uh...

it's it's right in the same time frame is what i'm suggesting and uh... and that book was included in uh...

included as a canonical book by many early christians and uh... rather widespread fashion whereas on the other hand on the other hand and that you know i'm referring my information on this comes principally from uh...

the writings of bruce metzger uh... but uh... on the other hand you have a book like uh...

the book revelation which uh... appears uh... according to edgar goodspeed in it's uh...

two -thirds of the manuscripts where u x would expect to find the book revelation it's not there i mean it was it was widely it was widely rejected as was the book of hebrews so we've got the book of hebrews we've got the book of clement uh...

better and the book revelation which are which are written at roughly the same in the same time period according to what the scholars are saying we have uh...

the book of hebrews being included in a number of list of the can and being excluded in a number of lists of canon and being included in a in a grouping referred to as uh...

questionable or or dubious uh... works and in a number of others so what it what it comes down to me uh...

when you were correcting him a minute ago about your thinking about how the can came into being is if it's not the church that's making the decision if if that's not where the decisions coming from as to what is canonical how is it that you make the decision for yourself between the book of revelations the book of hebrews and first clinton and which ones belong in and which ones don't and that that gets us to the whole issue of uh...

does one have an infallible knowledge of the canon or uh... or not certainly the roman catholics believe you have to have an infallible knowledge of the canon to use any part of canon at all and i reject that that notion i don't believe that's the case and i don't believe that it historically functions uh...

at all either but if again we use the old testament paradigm and apply it to the new testament uh...

in the old testament i see a process about four hundred years that begins to yield very clear results about two hundred years in and by the end of about four hundred years has pretty much come to to full completion and amazingly enough almost to within two decades uh...

that's the exact same process you have taken place in the new testament uh... during that period of time you certainly have some jews who may not have access uh...

to all of the tonight uh... you may have some jews who do not accept uh...

an element of what will finally uh... it acknowledged by everyone to be part of the tonight uh...

that's a period of process into period of of of not a hierarchy sitting down and casting lots were not like the jesus seminar we we throw a little pink uh...

but they will be what what were the cubes are balls or some like that you know pink balls for yes jesus said this error black ones for no that's not can or something like that and then add them all up you don't have that type of process going on anytime during that period of time you do not have any type of external miraculous events going on that lead the people of god in the old testament to recognize what was and what was not god breathe you read in a testament period read uh...

the uh... literature i mean uh... you read the in the mission up uh... they recognize that beginning four hundred years before the time of we would call the time of christ uh...

the box call the voice of god the voice of prophecy left the people of israel and so they became very concerned to to recognize what was and what was not authoritative but you don't see you see you see in the new testament disagree between the pharisees and the sad to see the sad to see is accepting what it's not uh...

the pharisees not but well before that you can you can look at josephus you look at the the uh...

intertestamental literature at the sad to see is who were pruning away something that was already there for their own political reasons not the other way around wasn't the pharisees adding something that didn't have any previous attestation the previous centuries sad to see is that for their own peculiar reasons won't go into now are trying to cut things back but this point is you have a process that about two hundred years long begins to produce references to a canon structure and then fruition about two hundred years after that about four hundred process uh...

no no popes uh... no church councils uh... no angels with uh...

and no no slight intended to any particular groups around here but no angels with golden indexes uh...

i think the same process going on the testament and yes there were people in uh... corinth and rome in certain parts of the empire who saw uh...

traditionally it's called clemens epistle as you probably know there's no name attached to it and point of fact there was no monarchical episcopate in rome until about the year one forty uh...

so clement if there was a clement by that name was probably the scribe for the elders are not certainly a single bishop of the church but that book was considered in some sections of the empire uh...

for a period of time as canonical uh... book of hebrews yes it's it's textual history is vastly different than any other part of the testament you look at the text a very material in a in a critical edition written testament and you're you've entered into a completely different world because of that very issue it struggled he was in struggle nearly as much but it's trouble in some places as well the final result of the process uh...

does not have clement in the canon and clement doesn't claim to be canonical clement in fact makes reference new testament scriptures uh...

insights from them and so on so forth revelation in hebrews does well obviously if i believe that this is a process that is super intended amongst god's people uh...

that and there is a purpose for the giving a scripture if we assume that god has a purpose in giving scripture which i think there is uh...

then it's uh... it's almost like true saving faith jesus said he who endures the end shall be saved well some people think that means that by your enduring you're gonna bring about your own salvation i believe it's we have to saving faith you will it will last and you will endure to the end well similar way uh...

there may be a period of time during which a book is mistakenly thought to be scripture by certain people uh...

but that will not remain that way that will leave that will eventually cease to be the case and it did uh...

i don't know of anyone except one description date i'll take that back word were in utah today except what we could probably if i have somebody call in right now that i have my favorite book of scripture but uh...

you i think you understand that the the terminology which i i use them there are uh... there are some very small groups i think the cops uh...

still uh... do not accept the book of revelation if i'm recalling correctly uh... there are some certain small very small group uh...

that would have problems problems with one or two uh... but the reason that i would say in in the in the long run that the uh...

book of hebrews in the book of revelation uh... and of course i i i'm not one to argue eschatology so please don't ask me about anything in the book of i i i like john calvin's comment on it uh...

when asked why he had not ever written a commentary on is that i don't uh... which which i think a lot of people by the benefit a lot from a factual not to say that rather than just going out to help that but the point being that those books i believe uh...

worrying were included because of the fact that they were able over time to demonstrate the connection to the apostles to the ones who will be bruised all through the connection with paul i mean that the forty six the earliest collection of as he was right after roman so the testimony to uh...

a a connection with him is very very early uh... and clinton clinton couldn't clinton didn't uh...

is that uh... is is that sufficient for someone who wants a golden index and i still see a problem with what you're saying obviously i mean uh...

and the obvious problem that i have and i thought i i don't know what you're interested in what you're exactly right let's go on another subject yeah sure and that's that's not always have that way before it happened that one time i have on your from the king james book i had a hard time finding anything in that even picket well but my but my point is you have to go through that for me i would have to go ahead and admit that right now uh...

and uh... you mentioned uh... at the nation's and uh... and has uh...

in his easter letter in three sixty seven in which he yes the nine well give or take a couple years i think it's three sixty seven at any rate he uh...

uh... that that as far as i have been able to uh... uh... research in my in my studies is the first time in christian history in which and there are many lists given before that time in many uh...

and discussions about it about the canon but that's the first time in christian history that the new testament was listed precisely with the twenty seven books that we currently use uh...

it's not like at the nation's uh... like all of a sudden we arrive at three sixty seven or three sixty nine whichever uh...

part of a cd -rom i don't check my data uh... it's uh...

it's not like that settled the matter i mean not by any means because uh... or centuries after that there was there were still a questions about what books uh...

were to be be part of the new testament i don't i don't buy into your idea of uh...

uh... of the binding together of uh... you know they're in the uh...

in the alexandrian sinai manuscripts uh... we find in their server life i didn't bring my list with me but uh...

i can't quite remember which ones are in which which ones but you've got a little bit of a moment you've got the personal part of those uh...

you've got about four different new testament books that are in there and you have other books that aren't in and i think we'll send a testament book to you now new testament but uh...

you know monks new testament book to you calling the dedicated testament book well new testament in those collections uh...

in those those manuscripts so assuming that they're binding them together in sinaiticus alexandrinus was an absolute indication of candidacy i think it was an absolute indication that that that particular in that particular manuscript uh...

that uh... uh... that those books included as part of the canon in those particular book in those particular manuscripts and in other places you have and uh...

in fact even as recently as martin luther of course in his bible he rejected uh...

hebrews revelation james and uh... and uh... uh...

not exactly uh... he uh... described the pencil james as an epistle straw in comparison to the uh...

pauline epistles but that he translated them and they were included in his translation as well he did the apartment uh...

well okay but he didn't he did not exclude them from the canon of the testament well uh...

and there was no there was never any lutheran movement to do that well i don't know about exclusion but he does separate them in his uh...

index and special revelation he loved revelation he signed at the picture of the of the antichrist as a pope well he he's he makes a pretty negative statements about the about the book of revelation he didn't like revelation jude uh...

james or hebrews now that is a man he and he separates those out in his table of contents uh...

uh... out from the rest of them and put them in a in a little separate section uh... much like he did the apocrypha in the old testament so i mean i'm we we may be facing a situation that uh...

that you're saying the the final decision was made that everybody came to a consensus on those yeah maybe it hasn't been made yet maybe we're still in the process well and see that's why that's why i try to point to the uh...

to the process that took place in your testament compare that with what takes place in the new and uh...

again uh... it's interesting because i i don't know that uh... that most uh...

lds folks would uh... would say well we don't know exactly what the canons today i think most of them would say certainly uh...

joseph smith a canon was was a little bit smaller uh... because he excluded the song of solomon uh...

but i would assume that most individuals would take uh... his viewpoint as establishing uh...

and uh... unquestionable canon which interestingly enough ends up being with one one exception of a minor book in your testament identical to that which a possible point to as having been the result of the leadership of the spirit of god amongst people of god i would uh...

i would disagree with you that that's the decision that uh... that joseph smith came to the conclusion that he came to was that uh...

that the throughout the early history of the church there were there were problems with the canon and and uh...

there were things that had been left out and and things of that nature in other words the idea that there was a canon produced the god and that god dictated or or inspired a certain number of words in these words were written down in those words have been preserved and those represent the twenty seven books of the new testament and thirty nine books of the old testament in the protest bible is not an idea that joseph smith would have been a in any way subscribe to innocent teachings in fact he spoke against that idea on on a number of occasions he didn't deny the candidacy of any of the books that are currently in existence other than that song song isn't that correct uh...

i would say that's correct but but uh... he didn't specifically single out anything other than the song of solomon and and he only did that by excluding it from i mean we don't have any no comments from him on that particular point it is to exclude it from the revision that he was making in the king james bible as he excluded the apocrypha but he didn't exclude the apocrypha completely i mean he he he said that uh...

as it's outlined in one of our sections in the doctrine of covenants revelation to him the uh...

uh... the the apocrypha is still viewed as as being uh... of containing some inspiration and so forth but but not to be bound with the rest but he and he did not to look to because of clement the dedicated no things alone and indicate that they were no he he did not bring he did not bring forward any any old you know any books from ancient christianity and say uh...

i think we should include these incorporate these into the canon but my point is still is still this and that is that as you're talking about how the old testament came to be recognized time about how the new testament came to be recognized and and it seems to me that you see as the authority as to how those why why we have these certain lists of books in those two collections is because of what came to be recognized it within the body of the church and yet still to this day the uh...

uh... there are a large number of the bibles that are published circulated throughout the world to contain the apocrypha and i'm not even separated out and they're not separated into a separate section that you could say well that's just down with it it's not really part of it and this is of course coming from the the uh...

alexandrian text of the old testament called the septuagint which is being quoted frequently throughout the new testament by the new testament writers well one of things uh...

and i've got to mention this before that i think you'd benefit from reading beckwith is the fact that he points out that all extant manuscripts of the septuagint that contain the apocrypha are christian origin not jewish so we cannot automatically assume and in fact there are he cites their reasons to not assume that the septuagint versions that the apostles would have been using in citing from them uh...

in the new testament did not contain the apocrypha we cannot assume that they did uh... simple fact matter is we don't have any extant copies from that time period that would prove the issue one way or the other so we can't again you're dealing with an assumption there it's been an assumption that many people have made but it is an assumption that is now being questioned and we need to seriously take those those issues now you just confused two things though uh...

i've i've i have been pointing out to you that there is a process through which uh...

the people of god are led by the spirit of god and then you confuse the two because the process in regards to the apocrypha would be with the old testament people and i said earlier yes there's no question that there will be there have been christian groups who have argued over the canonicity of the old testament certain books but i've also argued that the reason for that is primarily related in the middle periods to an ignorance of the situation at the time and then those very same groups believe in tradition believe in an authoritative tradition that then takes the pronouncements of individuals who did not have all the data available to them invest them with religious authority and that's why the canon continues to exist the way that it does now for those particular groups and they can't go back and look at well gosh you know those people in say the tenth century uh...

made a bunch of bad assumptions about what was being quoted from what the jewish people believe didn't believe in so on so forth but now it's become a part of our traditions there's nothing we can do about it that's one of the things that that that i have a real problem with regards i'm a reformed christian that is i believe that we the church is always undergoing reformation we need to to always be taking what we believe to the scriptures to examine them so on so forth in the same same instance that's why i don't believe in the infallibility of the church because the church may make a statement x based upon data y and data y is wrong but if you automatically make statement x infallible because the church has made it there's no way to go back and and and quote -unquote fix that and the reason that that rome uh...

in fifteen forty six the first time on an ecumenical basis to find the apocryphal books as being infallible canon was obviously in reaction to the reformers and you may be familiar with the fact that is as late as cardinal kaya tan who of course interviewed luther uh...

early on in his career kaya tan's commentary on scripture specifically clearly excludes the apocrypha as scripture and says that that any any references contrary to that uh...

simply ignored the overriding uh... opinion of jerome gregory the great the pope of rome uh...

the end of the uh... sixth century likewise rejected the apocryphal books so there were there were there were two traditions instead set side -by -side during that period of time and again that the more person new of the old testament backgrounds less likely they were to embrace those books as being canonical but my my point is if the canon canon one is a fact of divine revelation then what you're pointing out is there have been christians have been confused by the fact divine revelation of course i have been and i think that i think that's true of every element of god's truth there have been people who've been confused on all sorts of elements of the fact that you know saying a piercing up here in utah i'd say one most fundamental revelations of god is there's only one true of him and uh...

here we're sitting in and there are a lot of folks listening to us to believe the priority of god's i believe the fact of divine revelation there are people who miss that fact divine revelation that does not in any way change the reality divine revelation itself well but you see your yours you're coming from the assumption that they're what which i i mean i didn't already necessarily want to go into this but uh...

i'm just going to make a uh... a brief comment about the old testament and that is i think uh...

you've made a comment several times about the the process that develop the old testament canon i'm simply going to sit there and assert that based upon historical evidence the year your presentation of that whole thing is flawed and seriously flawed in that at the time of uh...

at the time of jesus also is uh... a lot of the dead sea scroll studies is bringing out uh...

jewish groups at the time of the beginning of the christian era and preceding it as well as we find from the uh...

old testament uh... pseudepigrapha and apocrypha and studies in that area that there are that many of these books many of the there were many works that were viewed as being as authoritative as uh...

as i say or anything like that among many among a number of groups at the beginning of the christian era christianity happens to be one of the groups that did not buy into the what what came to be the uh...

the jewish canon and uh... that's all i mean just that just to say well there was this process that that uh...

took place with the old testament canon that ended up with everybody in judaism agreeing on a on a specific canon that uh...

would be thirty nine books that we're using today that that just does not square with with what we find from history and then you go into the new testament here and we have again as i would assert that the new testament is a selection from a much larger body of uh...

of christian writings and some somehow the selection process had to be made you're saying it seems to me like what you're saying if i'm if i'm hearing you right is that this has come about through god's people recognizing a certain list of books to be the canonical my problem my whole problem with that is that we didn't have anybody recognizing that that we have record of uh...

any earlier than than three sixty seven a d with uh... without the nation's on the new testament and we don't have a consensus on the old testament even yet regardless i mean you know you're talking i acknowledge the fact i acknowledge is a fact what you've been asserting that there were different points of view about the apocrypha in early christianity as there are today but the fact is that the overwhelming weight of the tradition of the early christian tradition going right back to the first the quarter of the second century uh...

was that the extended the larger uh...

version of the old testament uh... represented in the septuagint uh... was the was the old testament of christianity not coming along later with your own or somewhere like that the right in the first quarter of the second century we can demonstrate that that was the that was the book that was being that was the the uh...

old testament canon of the uh... christian church so maybe i think i don't know if you know well no but i think i think you're wrong i i i just a matter of i really i really think you take the time to read back with work and i think if you take a long time to to look at the citations that have been assumed to establish can this be for apocryphal books in the early fathers uh...

you'd find that he directly refutes almost every statement is made uh... he goes have you ever studied the issue of what books were laid up in the temple no i haven't okay uh...

there's there's a lot more information out there when you say it flies in the face of history i would submit to you with all respect it flies in the face of a hundred -year -old scholarship it doesn't fly in the face of history i i wouldn't i don't think bruce metzger is a hundred -year -old scholarship met metzger is new testament primarily not all testament well but when he's in uh...

in his book the canon of the new testament its origin development in significance he goes in in substantial detail into what was the canon of the church uh...

in in the second century and when i look at him and as he points out this book was written uh...

nineteen eighty seven that's first time is written does he deal with back with it all it is the it is the tremendous weight of history uh...

you may be what you think but uh... i think if you if you go into the passages that are cited as evidence of the candidacy of the apocrypha early on and actually examine the citations you discover that uh...

just simply making allusion to a book just like in the testament is not the same as calling it canonical and uh...

i do not have them with me because i wasn't expecting where to deal with this but uh... i did a debate with uh...

jerry matics at boston college in nineteen ninety three on the apocrypha and uh...

uh... that's listed on our web page if they would like to uh... track down the uh... the tapes of it and we go through it there and uh...

maybe if you want to do something more on it and had time to develop it in and uh... so -and -so with the future be glad to to look at the citations of of iran as of turtolene and the the the issues of of did the septic and they had and and there was no one septum at the times of course uh...

but did the the generalize text type of what's known as a septum uh...

contain apocryphal books that particular time as canon scripture so on so forth uh... we could go through each one of those and that's exactly what what beckwith does and uh...

they're just there's a lot of assumptions most of most of the interpretation of those patristic citations and then based upon the assumption but there is a palestinian canon in alexandria can if you don't have that assumption then that then a large portion of what has been written in this particular subject in the past hundred years uh...

has very little validity and of course we have seen so many things just over the past fifty years it used to be absolute assumptions uh...

go up in papers when when when new information has come has come to light uh...

and i think this needs to be an area where the same type of thing is is people are willing to allow it to take place in a moment well let me just uh...

to summarize what i'm saying in in uh... you don't take breaks on this one? No, we don't take any breaks.

i was watching the seven o 'clock hour going by there going uh... it slipped by but that's alright the uh...

what i'm saying is the overweight overwhelming weight of evidence is that there is there is a substantial body of literature that uh...

that is clearly demonstrated that has been clearly demonstrated to have been viewed as uh...

uh... going hand -in -hand or even in some instances superseding uh...

the old testament as we're finding in the Dead Sea Scrolls many books that that uh...

controlled their uh... their whole society that uh... were looked to as authoritative uh...

right there in hand with the old testament or even superior to it. But the problem of course that i would have with that is uh...

on the basis of canon is again uh... the central focal point that people have always looked to in regards to the authority of canon is the person of Jesus Christ and you do not find

Jesus Christ giving credence to interacting with or uh... in any way uh...

bringing in the authority of Essenes if that's even who was involved with the Dead Sea Scrolls as you know that's now totally up in the air uh...

in fact to be perfectly honest with you despite all the displays of Dead Sea Scrolls and everything else uh...

that's going on out there uh... i would submit that anyone who doesn't want to be embarrassed twenty years from now doesn't want to say anything about what the

Dead Sea Scrolls significance is because as you know the prevailing viewpoint changes about every six months when the next doctoral thesis comes out or whatever else it might be uh...

but the point being that Jesus Christ is not going out into the desert and dealing with the

Essenes and the Gospels he's dealing he's he's in the temple the focus is upon what's going on in jerusalem he says it is necessary that i go to jerusalem and there be betrayed and die and so on so forth his interaction his argument about the authority of scripture and the nature of scripture and i would say even the canon of scripture is with the people in jerusalem with the scribes and the pharisees and so what may be going on in a desert community a hundred and fifty miles north may be the stuff of wonderful uh...

phd dissertations and and lots of neat books uh... but for the person who wants to know for the new testament believer the lord jesus and his apostles are the source of authority for what they're to be concerned about in those areas and i don't see any evidence whatsoever that the lord jesus in the apostles were concerned at all about someone who are having a manual of discipline out in the middle of no place they don't that doesn't end up impacting the new testament it doesn't end up impacting the use of the old testament in the new uh...

you don't see uh... any any really any direct relevance at that point so i didn't i'm not in any way shape or form denying that the uh...

that there may have been you know a hundred groups would even know of that had this writing a you know we've got a mall today we've got the marshall apple whites over in uh...

over in california uh... mixing up uh... applesauce cocktails and and beaming off to spaceships but that doesn't in any way shape or form impact uh...

it it you know if a thousand years later someone digs up marshall apple whites musings on the can the scripture is that really relevant to the can the scripture well yeah i think it is i think it is relevant and that's what that in the situation in which we're talking it is absolutely relevant because what i'm saying is that there uh...

there were substantial bodies of jews and christians throughout all of the period of time when the cannon was developing who had a substantially different uh...

list of canonical books then you're suggesting today uh...

is is the extent of the cannon and and when you go back as as i was saying earlier there is not to my knowledge and i've this is something i've been watching for for twenty years i've been interested in the list of the can't uh...

the whole discussion of the what was the new testament canon uh... in early christianity in the first several centuries and there was not a canon in the first there was not a list of books uh...

in everyone that we know uh... in the first uh... several centuries of christianity uh...

look to a different canon than we're looking to today in some substantial form well again and i address this in regards to the old testament certainly is a pretty time of those books are being distributed and have internet websites back then to say here the books are up in the nation uh...

there's a period of time when they're being distributed the meritorium fragment one eighty seven we discussed it that we've discussed uh...

the the contents of that before but i'm uh... i see i don't i'd i do not believe for a second uh...

the marshall applewhite's musings would in any way shape or form irrelevant can at any point in time uh...

and one things i think makes makes us different one another is because i would say that marshall applewhite was not a christian marshall applewhite was not a jew the marshall applewhite uh...

was not and that is his name and don't want to be massacring them that was that what was uh... close enough close that you know if you do but but but the point is uh...

just as you might have a group out in the desert with their own uh... viewpoints on so forth i don't see the new testament even being concerned or caring about the witness of those people get on and i'm not talking about the new testament there but let me show you were where this uh...

uh... where this would be relevant off in the future somewhere if somebody were asserting on a radio program uh...

five hundred years off in the in the future but in nineteen ninety seven everybody in america was a christian and they had all agreed upon what the canon and teachings of uh...

christianity were at that time that it would be relevant to come back and say well no here's this weird group and they were they had uh...

views that were so different that uh... you there's no way that uh... you could you can minimize the difference now i'm saying that as we go back into uh...

late judaism uh... you know judaism that just uh... prior to the beginning of the christian era and christianity and i'm simply saying that take a position that there was any kind of unanimity or that the uh...

uh... jewish canon had been completely sorted out at that time to where there was some kind of unanimous uh...

view of it is certainly wrong and i think the uh... uh... i think christianity demonstrates that because christianity and in fact the point you made earlier is is a very is one that i think argues right along that line and that is it all copies all known copies of the septuagint uh...

that had been known i think i think there's some fragments of the movement among the dead sea scrolls but other than that offer all known copies of the septuagint have been christian in origin the jews did not did not perpetuate that the christians did that was there uh...

that was their canon in north africa especially but uh... the problem the problem i'm having with your with your representation here is for example in talk about marshall applewhite you're talking about someone saying everybody back here was christians no one's making that claim i'm not claiming that everyone in the days of jesus christ uh...

were in any way sense of his uh... shape or form orthodox jews either uh... i'm dealing only with those jews lord jesus deals with in the new testament and i'm also pointing out that there were individuals like simeon and anna who as jews were not only orthodox but they were godly uh...

they were those that are are presented to us by the new testament as being individuals who were right with god and were walking in his truth and justified and so on and so forth and we're not talking about someone living off in the desert someplace and so i'm not i've i've never said uh...

in the power in fifteen minutes we've we've been talking so far that there was a unanimous view amongst the jews everyone knows i point out the sadducees and the pharisees differed over that particular issue that's relevant but the essence i don't believe are relevant because the lord jesus is is that certainly we have to agree the lord jesus knows what the canon of scripture is well maybe not agree with that maybe wouldn't i'm not i'm not you don't think so i'm not willing to agree with that well we're coming from a very different perspective we absolutely are coming from a very different perspective in fact i would think that most lds would agree with me at that point well i wouldn't you say i'm not talking for most lds' that's fine i'm just making an observation i i don't know but to explain what i'm saying is that i'm saying that i don't believe i think uh...

most latter -day saints would agree with me and that is that that uh... jesus uh...

uh... in jesus's mind there is not a canon at this point there is not a canon we're talking about in his day in his day what the canon was well your sadducees and pharisees example is a very good one in that i don't know of any instance in the bible where in the new testament where either jesus or the apostles make any comment or address themselves whatsoever to what is the canon or what isn't the canon they quote from it and that sort of thing but here's the situation that you're bringing up there was a substantial difference in the view of the canon between the sadducees and the pharisees in that the sadducees only accepted the first five books of moses and uh...

and the pharisees accepted i mean we don't we obviously can't at least to me it's obvious that we cannot exactly say but it was probably something uh...

identical with or close to what the protestant old testament is in use today uh...

and i just heard from that as scripture more than once and said the sadducees you are not knowing the scriptures nor the power of that that's that's right but insofar as sorting out the uh...

making any comments about the canon sorting out the canon saying this belongs or this doesn't or or whatever uh...

i don't think i don't think we can draw anything that we might position might take on that would would be drawn from influence rather than from jesus directly saying uh...

it's important that you know what the right what the canon is these people have got the wrong canon these people have the right thing i think you can infer however that uh...

just looking at jesus you scripture what he cites a scripture that he uses uh... what is known as a twenty two twenty four book uh...

he cites from all those well he doesn't well he cites from that can in the scripture that exist that time amongst the pharisees and there is the reference to where he talks about from uh...

from the blood of able to the blood of zechariah son of barack i a which is jenesis second chronicles second chronicles the last book of the hebrew canon in all the list of pre -existed time of christ uh...

they have the twenty two or twenty four books that's the last one and again beckwith has a fascinating discussion of whether that is in fact uh...

a reference to the candidate this is that time which we don't have time to get into right now but and that might be something i want to uh...

i want to look at what one thing that is true is that jesus uh... i've forgotten my i went through this a few years ago and and there are a number that this and that is that the new testament writers as a whole quote from only twenty seven quarter referred to specifically twenty seven of the thirty nine old testament books as we would count them today uh...

jesus referred to a significant amount less than that referred to a quoted from so it's not like we can say well jesus didn't quote from this book of that book and therefore it's not in the canon yeah but if someone today quoted from uh...

omni uh... second nephi and alma could you not rightly infer what their canon was from citing from those things in light of the widespread nature of the use of that canon today amongst mormons you could you could but that's an entirely different it's not because i think is that book was produced as a uh...

at one point in time in eighteen twenty nine so but the but the point is the point that i'm making is that you can demonstrate and document and that with that the existence of that twenty two slash twenty four book canon in that form prior to the time of jesus in popular jewish literature and so if you then find people like the apostles in jesus quoting from those and not another then i think you can understand why the inferences are stronger than than without well ok we're going to leave this at this point uh...

there's a uh... i think an argument in regards to the septuagint that i've mentioned this several times but we're well i think we're gonna thank you know you know you know you know we've talked about a past few times we've we've we've taught we spent two hours time of the trinity ones uh...

last time we actually in studio remember was the predestination election discussion uh...

and now today we spent an hour and twenty minutes on uh... on uh... canization the old testament subject and things like that uh...

you know some folks who think that uh... that do that we spend our time thinking about some really not exciting things you realize that well i don't know the only people who listen to this program on sunday night are people who are who are interested in this sort of thing so okay well we're going to break for a minute and go for the remaining of the program to uh...

our callers you are listening to religion on the line with van hale your host and uh... james white is my guest we'll be right back alright uh...

we're back james white is my guest uh... you're listening to religion on the line this is van hale let me give you some calling numbers i'm going to ask you to uh...

make your point precise and quickly and we'll move through as many callers as we can in the next uh...

forty minutes and our saw lake line is two five four five eight five five our louisburg north davis line is six seven zero five eight five five and our utah county line four seven zero five eight five five you're on the air yes go right ahead did you tell us in the front of the show that you were going to take no calls for an hour and a half?

no i didn't well you should do that i never uh... i usually don't indicate when i'm going to start taking calls at the beginning of the show go right ahead, you're on well to me, if the gospel's lost, it's lost to those who are lost and your argument i heard for the past hour like peter says let's go fishing and uh...

you don't catch any fish to the stranger at the shore directs them the right way and i think as far as your direction's going it's going into knowledge that uh...

most of us will never even care about it's not the point the gospel you talk about the king james, i wanted to ask this question to you again if i give the king james bible to someone should i tell them it's the truth or not?

there is my mic, hey that works just fine did you hear my question? uh...

when you give someone, of course i use the king james every time outside the temple up until the point where someone says well uh...

that's quote -unquote mistranslated or something like that and then i'll say well let's look at the greek or the hebrew and see if it's mistranslated or not uh...

but uh... i believe you can preach the truth of god to someone from the king james version uh...

from the new american standard from the niv uh... and it's it's authoritative in every single one we know there's a lot of new age religion going around, i heard one today at two o 'clock and uh...

you know you ought to listen to that program and give a point of view on it because it's down to very new age and creating giving self -worth and self -pride to credit overall, thanks i'm not from around here so i wouldn't know what you're referring to, i'm sorry but uh...

you say the king james is in your i heard you earlier today you said the king james he wrote a book opposing the king james i wrote a book opposing king james onlyism which is something very very different my book is uh...

very supportive of the fact that the king james version was a tremendous translation in its day uh... that it was a monument to uh...

the individuals who produced it but i'm opposed to making the king james something the king james translators never intended the king james to be and that is the standard of all of the translations that it is somehow uh...

divinely inspired as if the bible had sort of ceased to exist until 1611 my book is opposed to the king james only movement not to the king james well i believe the king james is the word of god and what god has given us we should accept it and not be a thomas and look for look for everything else but go by what god has given to us in our lives at that period of time and not doubt it i have a question for uh...

van halen is not the book of mormons the king james did he copy it, not hide it, but copy it, but didn't he uh...

speak all through the book of mormons in the king james english and the book of mormons has uh...

has many sections that are directly uh... uh... identical to the king james version, he spoke in that language though all through that book yes i would agree, so he believed the king james was the only book to read from i wouldn't say that, well he did not use any other text but he changed the king james he changed the king james but he couldn't get away from the language or a lot of the scriptures from it and uh...

joseph smith was uh... was raised on the king james bible and not just in his uh...

not just in his writings but in his speaking he would uh...

bring into his conversation king james language, did he speak king james?

not king james, no, his language wasn't king james, it was something else but he was inspired through king james, not by the morona idea through the language of the king james bible joseph smith was inspired throughout his life and you find it in everything that he wrote and in his sermons you find uh...

uh... material, you know, phraseology from the king james bible just becoming part of joseph smith's common language, and i suppose, like i've heard your conversation the gospel's lost, it's lost to those who are lost and if you seek something that you have to find more proof to verify your belief you have no belief i'll talk to you later okay thank you okay that opens the salt lake line you're on the air yes, i've got a question first of all what time period, about what year did the hebrews adopt writing?

adopt writing? yes well obviously uh...

moses had the tablets and uh... they were written so a very different script than is used today, it's called the first temple script uh...

it would have been around one thousand bc or even later i would say earlier, yes, much earlier well i think uh...

the uh... the bible claims that the uh... tablets uh... with the ten commandments were written by god and not by moses well the first set were broken if you recall but the point would be it wouldn't do any good for god to write those tablets if they couldn't read it, so they had to have had language at that point well certainly they had language, and other people such as the egyptians and the sumerians had writing but as far as i know uh...

at this time i've been looking at various history books and uh...

i note that uh... on uh... atlases that uh... egypt occupied the area of israel from about i think fifteen thirty bc to about twelve hundred and uh...

uh... you know what i'm getting at, last week the movie ten commandments came up on another program and i called in afterwards and said that the movie and also the story in the bible is nothing more than a work of fiction and that uh...

you know the uh... the whole story uh... doesn't make any sense anyway uh... for uh...

for the israelites to try to escape from bondage uh... from uh...

egypt proper and then go to an area that's still occupied by the egyptian army basically uh...

the whole premise on that including the parting of the red sea by god is just uh...

something that uh... was made up many hundreds of years later uh...

possibly uh... you know there there may have been uh... some uh... israelites that had resided in egypt and then and then left uh...

certainly there was a lot of uh... trade along the fertile crescent which included uh... israel egypt and uh...

and samaria and so the stories of all those places tend to get mingled with one another and wasn't probably till six hundred bc or so that uh...

the stories were written down much corrupted uh... for a thousand years that that certainly the uh...

the naturalistic explanation that's the explanation that uh... uh... discounts uh...

the existence of the supernatural discounts the testimony of the old testament writers discounts testimony of christ uh...

that's certainly what a lot of quote -unquote modern scholars believe uh... but it starts at the assumption uh...

that there is no supernatural revelation that starts the assumption uh... that's uh... these books are not what they claim to be that they uh...

they are simply corrupted uh... but i'm not sure looking at a historical atlas that uh...

somehow outlines and colors where certain nations are supposed to have influence is necessarily a solid basis by which to say well the entire access story could possibly take place personally i'd prefer going to uh...

i was sharing some reporting on recent studies on uh... jericho and the walls of jericho and the consistency in the archaeological digs in jericho with the biblical story i would think that would be far more relevant as far as material culture goes uh...

then uh... a historical atlas is saying well egypt had influence in palestine this time therefore wouldn't do that do them any good to go that direction well certainly the uh...

uh... what's amazing uh... how quickly the israelites according to the story conquered uh...

jericho uh... yes it hadn't been occupied for three hundred years no wonder they took it so easily the same goes with the city of aria again it uh...

had been unoccupied for hundreds of years before before the israelites you know according according to the story of the of the old testament which i don't believe anyway i a i think i mean you're starting presupposition yes yeah i find it uh...

very difficult uh... for uh... uh... joshua to command the thunderstand bill you would have to make it clear the earth uh...

stop rotating on its back for a for a fundamentalist atheist uh... you couldn't possibly believe that uh...

i'd like to know i don't i'd have to be able to believe it uh... that's that is the uh...

uh... the apostle paul new new york tribe well well i think it violated the laws of physics and i and i was a physics are absolutely inviolable they did it's not like we ever asked the question where they came from well certainly if they've got the uh...

intervened in the uh... affairs of the hebrews to uh... to save them from various enemies uh...

where was god when hitler killed six million of them you mean uh... if if you're if you're going to agree that god had a purpose in one place he doesn't have a purpose in the other well i dot there are you just have to know the purposes of it's going to be possible i think he needs to be consistent uh...

uh... and uh... and i when you're the judge of consistency you know i don't believe the uh...

the bible is the word of god anymore than i believe that the mythology of the germanic tribe uh...

are the words of god uh... i think they they contain uh... relevant moral to the way we should lead our lives and i think uh...

i uh... you know i'd be happy to be happy to uh... to read about the uh... a thought fabled that i believe there's a lot of moral there too i don't believe in talking animals uh...

of uh... a stop anymore than i believe in a in that they don't talk to you talking to an angel uh...

i don't own in the bible i'm i'm sure sir uh... your your world view is is very very clear it's a naturalistic one uh...

but my point to you would be uh... you begin your conclusions well i think and you begin with the assumption that uh...

you can reason out from yourself as a as a human being and really you do become the standard uh...

by which everything else is judged and i'd submit to you that uh... i could not present to you any evidence no matter how rational or historical it might be uh...

they could even possibly begin to convince you to reconsider your presuppositions because any evidence you don't have any evidence well uh...

thank you for proving my point uh... i can't by definition from your starting point have any definite uh...

any evidence it's the starting point of your system that no evidence of the supernatural can possibly exist i'd like to you know i'd like to uh...

see you uh... across the sinai desert uh... and stay there for forty years and uh...

and try to uh... uh... just stay alive uh... let alone uh... six hundred thousand hebrews which of course assumes the sinai desert had the same uh...

same consistency in the same amount of water and vegetation then as it does now which uh... most people recognize it didn't but that's a whole other issue again my point is sir i can't convince you because you have determined uh...

that you are not convincible well you can't convince me because uh... like i said you don't have any evidence you have determined that it is impossibility that there be any evidence so to say i have no evidence is to say what you've already determined it why there's no reason to call me to tell me well if you have some evidence let's hear it well but you see anything that i would present to you you automatically dismiss because of the presuppositions of your worldview sir and we're getting way away from where we were but uh...

dealing with atheism sometime would be interesting but my my my final point to you is that the atheistic worldview is circular in its reasoning you start with the presupposition that there can be no evidence of anything supernatural and then constantly repeat the mantra but you have no evidence you have no evidence when by definition you've excluded all evidence that could possibly prove you wrong okay let's get back to history why do you think christianity triumphed over paganism ben do you want to go after something like that or what?

i think uh... i think given our current situation i think we're going to move along we've got a number of other callers but i enjoy your calls call back and we'll talk about uh...

this on another occasion yeah okay okay yeah bye alright thank you okay uh...

it'll be interesting to hear how you handle atheism we uh... unfortunately we can't quite pick you up in phoenix but uh...

it's it's different than you would i'm sure it is you're on the air yes good evening van and james you were talking about revelation the apocryphal book aren't you calling that the apocryphal book?

no what were you calling your apocryphal book? we were calling the apocrypha the apocrypha which we were referring specifically no no no i mean apocalypse oh wasn't that revelation?

well yes but apocrypha and apocalyptic i understand that i understand i just used the wrong word but you were talking about the book of revelations and not understanding it i was mentioning that john calvin had made that comment at one point oh i thought you said you didn't either but uh my understanding is the book of revelations starting out showing what will soon certainly come to pass and then he's talking all about the early church and a lot of apostasy in it in what the lord's telling him about four or five different churches and then it goes into old testament prophecy and then it goes into retribution against evil on the earth and it also goes into the transformation of the earth that's related in isaiah and uh the twelfth chapter cross references with isaiah 49 is your point that uh is what you're doing an attempt to to demonstrate that the book of revelation can be understood is that what you're doing yeah if you go to the old testament prophecy and read that and some of that is very symbolic also like a beast with ten horns that people have figured out that uh when it comes in the latter days it's another roman empire in the southern part of europe one of the things that let me just uh let me just agree with you there are many people who who feel that they understand the book of revelation very fully but the but if if you go back to the history of the interpretation of the book of revelation the the incredible diversity that exists in the interpretation of the book of revelation leaves me in a position probably much like calvin in that and that i'd hate to step forward and say i understand the book of revelation now here let me explain it to you it's it's uh...

it's a difficult book at best well this latter day thing that daniel talks about in the tenth chapter of daniel he's saying now i'll show you what will happen in the latter day uh...

not the present time and so the book of revelation is reaffirming a prophecy that has not occurred for the latter days that will then come forth is the way i understand it and it does cross -reference with a lot of old testament prophecy that's talking about that time and uh...

so uh... and then the eighth chapter of daniel tells you who the different uh...

personages are and the animals that represent them and the greek uh... the ram being uh...

persian uh... the goat with the horn between its eyes being greek the victorious and there's also the little horn that destroys three of the ten and takes over power and so it goes through an interpretation in daniel between the seventh and eleventh chapter and then it uh...

infers because of this war between greece and persia and greece being victorious and then defeating three of the original ten that uh...

the evil man that's the antichrist is coming out of greece and uh... like a replay of alexander the great defiling things and then he's in the temple blaspheming god in his image for three and a half years it's probably something different than an actual person but it's speaking blasphemous words but i think that you have to go with well the twelfth chapter revelations cross -referenced in one place the country of israel and not to the servant israel in isaiah forty -nine that's where they made the error because the country is in a woman thank you thank you okay uh...

that brings up a minor salt lake number is two five four five eight five five uh...

we would like to have a six seven zero five eight five five you talk to me for seven zero five eight five five and let's go to our next caller good afternoon mr van and james welcome to salt lake thank you you're welcome it's still afternoon out there?

yeah well something like that i feel like it is anyway make a long story short i want to argue a little bit with carl carl?

the last caller two callers ago oh okay i'm sorry and make a long story real short uh...

as far as i'm concerned the bible is the word of god uh...

jesus christ did walk on water jesus christ did split the water in half so his people could go down in and on the other side i have a testimony to that and i will verify that i mean not verify that but you know what i'm trying to say you gotta realize though that uh...

from an atheistic world view uh... it is the point i was trying to make was uh...

those types of things can't happen because they start from the assumption that such things don't happen can't happen and therefore it doesn't matter what evidence to present uh...

their starting presupposition is one that that limits the available information that's available limits the available evidence and uh...

i know that van indicated he'd approach it from a different perspective but uh... i've been on the air with uh...

for example professors at arizona state university uh... who i would identify as fundamentalist atheists and what i mean by that is they're just as dogmatic and close -minded about the assumption of naturalism uh...

as as any quote -unquote fundamentalist is about uh... any of any of their beliefs now they're just as dogmatic about it and uh...

and will not ever examine uh... the starting place of their of their thinking my approach being a little bit different than this would be to come down somewhere in the middle uh...

for example i don't feel any uh... any great urge to try and defend the idea like when the whole faith rests upon whether uh...

donkey spoke to an angel or not to me that isn't uh... you know i could pass that off very easily as being part of uh...

biblical story that uh... that isn't that is not a literal thing upon which uh...

the bible stands or falls the same thing would be true with the uh... sun standing still there are a lot of ways of looking at uh...

a lot of the things in the bible in my estimation that don't require having this fundamentalist uh...

debate between a fundamentalist christian and a fundamentalist atheist and i agree with you there there are those uh...

james who are so dogmatic about that but they're not willing to look at anything in between but you know i'm i'm just coming from a little different perspective i don't feel any great commitment to uh...

to defend uh... in any undying fashion the the literal uh... literalness of the creation account in genesis or the flood or things like that let's see and that's that does go to a different viewpoint that we both have a scripture in fact i remember the last time we were in studio we were discussing romans nine and uh...

you may remember that we went through that rather painstakingly there for a while and and one of the things you said was well uh...

you know given certain presuppositions uh... uh... you know i can see what paul saying but i don't like what he's saying and you feel free to to look at something that's that's found scripture and go well uh...

i'm not i'm not so certain about that that's that's uh... not at not not the position of someone like a if you want to talk about historic let's not something that uh...

that athanasius morning or an answer to make sure that uh... or really anybody that i know of up until what uh...

sixteen hundreds uh... really took that particular perspective i'm i'm i'm one of the old crusty type of fellows in your you're one of the newer type of uh...

i mean when paul talks about the women keeping silent in the church and i'm not committed that that's the way it has to be you know now and and i don't know he says it clearly yeah and i am so archers well in our kept uh...

uh... they have a role they play a very very important role in our church i think and mister van halen won't testify to that i know he will yes once he picks up his guitar and starts strumming over there oh oh uh...

uh... uh... uh...

you just given up on crack and i don't think that that that that that that that that that that that it's alright okay let's go to our next caller we do have uh...

time we've got two colors on right now and that time i would say probably to take four or five colors if we make it fast before the end of the program so let's hear from you uh...

well yes let me let me bring you back to today's world a little bit every time we go to church i guess any church they only talk or most of the times talk about that bad world out there that families are falling apart and everything's evil and bad is not a way to trap members or make them feel guilty or because we live in this world and uh...

you know i don't know if i'm making my point clear it's a pretty good point i think uh...

i think every generation goes through that how much worse the world is and uh...

i don't know it's probably worse in some ways probably a lot better in other ways but uh... i don't think people are trying to use this as a means of trapping people into the church i think a lot of people a good number of people just actually think that the world is getting worse yeah but you know uh...

the world where we attend there's a lot of children that go without their parents and they never hear a word about their parents they're they're bad because they live in the world and they you know they probably mow the lawn on sunday or go to the movies and that's all evil and that's all they hear and it seems to me like you know it's uh...

it's unfair well i can't go with you that far that that's all they hear i think that's uh...

that's a real stretch but uh... you've got to understand i'm i'm just sitting here letting you all discuss this because you specifically mentioned ward and uh...

i'm not LDS uh... and in fact uh... maybe you didn't hear the beginning of the program but but i'm i'm one of those folks who's passing out literature outside the gates of the temple during conference i'm a reformed baptist so uh...

in in our uh... in our church uh... we we speak much of the uh... we really feel that our culture is uh...

undergoing a process of severe degradation morally and spiritually and i am of the firm opinion that our nation is under the judgment of god uh...

then i've had some discussions about and and uh... few things like that in the past and uh...

we don't exactly have you can come down anywhere actually within the same continent on those particular issues uh...

uh... we we actually have that tape available if you still even though we're in the world that uh... your copy is but uh...

uh... well i've had a lot of people said they found that discussion extremely interesting well i did and i thought it was fun uh...

so so anyway i mean just just uh... it sounds like james is saying the same thing that i'm saying i think that uh...

he fought on this at least on this particular point and that is that i think people uh...

i think you would find widespread among uh... uh... christian people who are anywhere anything close to moderate or conservative in their beliefs i think you would find it widespread that the uh...

that the society is is going downhill very fast and uh... i'm i'm not quite that committed to that point of view but uh...

uh... because i you know i i see a lot of good things too i see a lot of ways in which our society has made some improvements but well i believe there's a lot of good families outside churches too and they do a lot of service and good and that's never mentioned in the church you know i think it is i hear it frequently you do yes i i have never i have never heard and in all of my experience in the lds church which is now at fifty one years that i've never heard anyone suggest that the only place where you can find a good family relationship is within the lds church i don't think people believe that in the church and i don't think that uh...

uh... i'm sure i've never heard anyone say that well thanks for now okay thank you all right uh...

let's go to our next caller you're on the air yes gentlemen i need a prayer sent i'm going to be possibly without housing here in a few weeks this state is absolutely horrible to find uh...

good cheap housing they also have a uh... panic attacks sometimes at long lines and heavy traffic and such to where i assault other people i want you to say some prayers for me and hope that i will find some housing and a shower and what not okay i appreciate that amen thank you all right uh...

we have a couple of uh... uh... uh... uh...

uh... uh...

uh... uh... uh... uh... uh...

uh... yes james i am a born again christian too there's uh...

a man by the name of mike boper devam that's gotta show on this on kate talk he's a Unitarian pastor and today he got on he says he believes he can be born again but then i had a problem and i just want to ask how you feel about that?

that you're a born again christian he says that we have a good God and no one is gonna have everybody whether you confess to christ or not

We're all going to Heaven. And I told them, I don't think, I told them, I said, I don't think you're a

Christian. I mean, a true, born -again Christian wouldn't make a statement like that, because we believe, as the

Bible says, and Romans, and, you know, all over, that you have to confess Christ as your Savior.

And through receiving Christ as your Savior, you shall be born again, and then you shall be saved.

Well, the Unitarian Church, as I understand it, really does not have any basis for believing anything else, because of the fact that the

Unitarian Church really doesn't view the Scriptures, the Bible, as a divine revelation in the historical

Christian sense. And what's more, the view of sin, the view of the holiness of God, and the idea that God must punish sin, is a completely foreign concept to Unitarian theology, as I understand it.

And it's a completely foreign concept to most of religions today, actually.

Oh yeah, a lot of people want to deny the existence of Hell. Well, but the reason they want to deny the existence of Hell, I don't think is really well understood.

I would say that the reason there is a Hell is because there is a God who is wrathful of sin.

And the idea of a wrathful God, the idea of the law of God bringing about punishments that must be observed, punishments that must be meted out, that's foreign to most people's experience of how they want to view

God. But it is fundamental to the entire New Testament concept of what the Atonement is, what the meaning of propitiation is.

It says that, as Paul said, He hath made Him, that is Christ, who knew no sin, to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

If you look at the cross, and if you don't see in the cross the wrath of God against sin, you're not seeing all the cross.

Exactly. If you don't see the redemption through the cross, through Christ's blood, and that we have to go to the cross to be saved,

I don't think God is a vengeful God. But, you know, He did wipe out Sodom and Gomorrah, He did wipe out the people of Noah, and He sent

His only begotten Son, that whoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.

As Jesus said, there's two roads, the gate to Heaven, which is narrow, and few people are finding that, and the gate to Hell, which many people.

Denial of Hell is so prevalent today amongst Christians, I hear so many Christians say, Oh no, there's no

Hell out there, God's dead. And I say, well Jesus taught about it in Matthew, He taught about it.

All of that comes down to whether we derive our theology from the scriptures, or whether we come up with our theology and go to the scriptures to try to find some way of substantiating it.

A lot of people don't want to use the scriptures. They look at the Holy Bible and say, oh it's a good book, but we don't want to take what it really says.

We want to sugarcoat it, we want to anoint homosexuals as pastors, we want to talk about how you can sin and live happily on this world.

But I'm sorry, that's not the message of the Bible. You can't read the New Testament and seriously interact with what it says and believe something like that.

In fact, Dan, I don't believe you guys have a Hell. You believe in just three degrees of glory. You believe that... We're sons of perdition anyway.

Yeah, they just believe that people are going to go in three degrees of glory, but the existence of Hell does not exist also in Mormonism.

No, that's not true. In Mormonism, there is a clear concept of three degrees of glory and then those who abide without glory who would be sons of perdition.

But in my own personal feeling, I am very, very close to being a Universalist.

The Unitarians merged with the Universalists back in the 19th century and the

Unitarians are extremely liberal, far, far, far more liberal in their thinking than I am.

But I'm right close to being a Universalist in my thinking. On that note,

Pete, we need to move along. Okay, but praise God that you've got a man of God on their band because this station needs to hear someone who knows the

Word and who is a born -again Christian. Praise God. Well, he didn't say he was a born -again Christian. He said he was a

Reformed Christian. No, I said I'm a born -again Christian. Well, I'm a born -again Christian too, so I'm glad we're both here.

Well, with five minutes to go, it's hard to get into that subject. Well, we'll do that another time. Haven't we done that subject before?

No, I don't think so. I think that's one we haven't done. But I'm glad to have James here. We've always had fun discussions.

I enjoy it. You're on the air. Hello. Can I talk? Yes, go right ahead.

And Mr. White, it's good to hear you guys dialoguing again.

In fact, I am, by myself, looking forward to this annual meeting when you guys come up.

I have a question. James, you brought up the point earlier that you felt that Joseph Smith didn't include the writings of Clement in the canon.

The what? The writings of Clement in the canon, right? Yes, right. That brings into mind a question, and this is basically geared, or perhaps maybe to answer,

I don't think Joseph Smith even knew too much about early Christian history, and so that brings up the question about when did the prophets or Latter -day

Saints start to really become aware of early Christian history and start to use the parallels and start to use them in their writing.

I don't think they started doing it to any great extent at this point. I mean, Latter -day Saints have not typically been, they've been a lot more students of LDS history than they have been of Christian history, but if you're referring to some people who have done tapes and, of course,

I mean, I could take James White's beliefs and show a lot of parallels to what he believes with the

Gnostics, who I believe were heretics. James wouldn't like it, but born -again

Christianity has its roots, or has parallels. Invalid parallels, of course.

Yeah, I think invalid parallels, yes. So do you understand my point? It seems to me that if Joseph Smith was aware of early

Christian history, that he probably would have maybe used and cited different things in there.

Well, look, here's Clement of Rome, and here's writings of other people that they talk about the pre -existence of the

Council in Heaven and baptism for the dead and other things like this. Well, you weren't talking about Clement doing that, were you?

Pardon me? You weren't saying Clement talked about those things. No, I meant not

Clement of Rome, but... Clement of Alexandria. I'm thinking of, what's that book that was even considered part of the scriptures at one time?

The Shepherd of Hermes is what I'm making reference to. You know, if Joseph Smith had known about, say, the

Shepherd of Hermes, for example, which mentions Christ ascending to the underworld and baptism for the dead,

I'm sure that maybe he would have said, look, here's an early Christian source that...

So that's what I'm saying. You're saying that Joseph Smith didn't include certain books, which we now know were included in earlier canons or were considered scriptural by some of the early

Christians. You're saying, if I understand what you said, you're saying that he didn't include those.

I don't think he even had a clue or any idea of those writings. I need to jump in here because we've just run out of time, but I appreciate your call and your point.

I think on that point, our former discussion would indicate that you'd say, no, that wasn't ever part of the canon.

I'd take the position that it was part of the canon among a significant group of Christians early on.

Well, my point about Joseph Smith would have been, I think he would have used it, but that depends on whether you view him as a prophet who had supernatural knowledge or whatever.

But with 20 seconds, we hardly can develop that point very much further. Okay, well, it's been good having you here with me again,

James, and we need to do this whenever you're up. We'll just plan it a little better next time as to what we're going to talk about.