Reviewing Recent Interactions on Line, then Back to Erasmus and the Text

Well, so I forgot to put a list together of everything I wanted to cover today, so I am sure I will forget something. I got so much stuff on the screen here that I'll just, I'll never remember it all, but we'll give it a shot.

I was gonna pull up one of the graphics, and I forgot to, but just in passing, very, very briefly, please note the historic events of this past week. The Prophet of the Mormon Church and the Twelve Apostles, I think the entire First Presidency as well.

So that'd be 15 really old dudes. I think it's the, what I read was, it's the first time that the entire hierarchy of the LDS Church has been outside the United States at the same moment. And where are they?

They're in Rome, what are they doing? They're dedicating a temple in Rome, and they met with the Pope. In fact, I saw one picture where they had presented him with a Christus. Now, if you don't know what the Christus is, they're redoing the Mesa Arizona Temple, which makes me feel really old, because I remember when it was dedicated.

At least, I think, at least, maybe this is the second time they redid it, now that I think about it. I think they did a something in the past, too. Anyway, I've been kicked out of that visitor's center for asking why the Bible identifies Jehovah as Elohim, because in LDS theology, Jehovah and Elohim are separate and distinct gods.

In fact, Elohim is the father of Jehovah. But anyway, they had a Christus there, there's a Christus up in Salt Lake City, and basically, Christus is a big, white Jesus, which we could really have interesting conversation on.

Doesn't look very Jewish. Jesus never looks Jewish in Mormon stuff. But anyway, they presented, it was just a little, looked like it was about yay big, little Christus to Pope Francis. And if you've been hearing some rumbling coming from my perspective, pretty much directly north, about a state away, that's the sound of Bruce R. McConkie spinning in his tomb.

Because I cannot possibly imagine Bruce R. McConkie or Brigham Young or David McKay or Joseph Fielding Smith or any of these people envisioning the entire leadership of the LDS Church meeting any pope, let alone a pope as liberal as Francis.

But let's just be honest, what is happening with the Mormon leadership? I mean, the stuff that's going on legislatively in Utah, the swing to the left in the expression of the religiosity and practice and morals and ethics of the LDS Church, we've said for a long time that there's no meaning, because of the subjective nature of the LDS testimony and things like that, there's no meaningful foundation to this religion.

It's not connected to the historic Christian understanding of who God is or what salvation is or revelation or anything. It couldn't be because of the way it started. There's no way around it. So now we're seeing, because of societal pressures, we're seeing, it's sort of like it's just been disconnected from its past.

It's just sort of wandering around, sort of floating around whichever direction the winds of social change are going to blow it. And where is it going to go? I don't know. I don't know. But it was fascinating to see pictures of Pope Francis and the leadership of the LDS Church meeting.

It's just, yeah, okay, yeah, well, there you go. The world has gotten really, really, really strange. The Chinese have started a new stem cell line with the remains of nine aborted babies who had to be aborted in a particular fashion to create these, so as to be able to start a particular vaccine line.

And you just need to understand, even if in the West we still have some cultural, ethical momentum of Christianity left, that's not going to have any impact on other people in the government. And this kind of ghoulish utilization of the creation to, quote-unquote, enhance the life of the living at the cost of the less powerful will continue to proliferate in our world.

At the cost of aborted children, the young, the old. It's just amazing how many of the dystopian movies end up being fairly on target. I mean, I've got a shirt, I keep forgetting to wear it, but I've got a shirt.

It's that Venn diagram, you said Venn diagram shirt, where it's got 1984, Brave New World, and where the two circles intersect, you are here. I went ahead and bought it because I just thought, that's brilliant.

It's exactly right. It's exactly right. And remember Ryan's run? Logan's run. I'm just thinking of somebody else who also is hiding in a bunker someplace, right? Right up that direction. Logan's run. Yes, Ryan's run.

That's good. Sorry about that, Ryan. But you do scare me. Anyway, yes, Logan's run. That's true. He did leave left behind in the office. So there is that. Anyway, we could have a lot of fun with that.

If anyone remembers Logan's run, basically, wasn't it like you went up in this thing and got zapped, evidently went to heaven, but when you were like 25, I think, because you had pretty much passed your, yeah, you're too old.

You could no longer contribute to society. So they decided that 25 was when, and you would float up in this thing and allegedly you were going to a better place, but actually they were just turning you into, what was it?

Soylent, then there was Soylent Green. Then you had Soylent Green. They sort of went together. Anyways, you got all these dystopian movies and they nail it. It's like people have seen this coming. If you follow these trends, this is how we're going to view ourselves and how we're going to live in the not too distant future.

And it's happening. It's happening all around us. And so you've got almost genetic engineering of this baby and then to abort it in a particular way, just to fiendishly cut it apart and save its organs to, oh, it's just, oh, it is Nazi death camp stuff that's being published in science journals and people going, well, this is wonderful.

And it's defended by people saying, but there are people who have terrible diseases and we can help them. And all of it goes back, all of it goes back to worldview and to whether you believe that God has created us and that he has written in his book, the number of our days.

If you believe that, and if you believe that there will be a day of judgment, it changes everything, folks. Absolutely everything. The social justice stuff, the social justice stuff, same thing. You go, whoa, how do you connect those two?

Listen, the current social justice movement can only have traction amongst people who do not live the daily reality of recognizing that the day of judgment is coming and God's going to make all things right, not in this life.

Now, see, I'm taking that from a Christian perspective. You know what non-Christians saw the exact same thing? I was going to, oh, I didn't pull it up. Well, I was going to show you Thomas Sowell. Thomas Sowell wrote a book on cosmic justice.

And long time ago, he saw that the social justice movement does not recognize the difference between cosmic, the social justice movement wants to try to bring the cosmic justice that happens at the end time where God makes everything right.

The day of judgment, the great white throne judgment wants to bring that into where we are right now. And so I was thinking about God's law and the fact that God's law, for example, obviously leaves loopholes through which the guilty can escape punishment in this life.

God's law is concerned about protecting the innocent more than it is catching the guilty. Everybody's been saying, we can't follow God's law when it comes to sexual abuse stuff because that's just not possible.

What's the mindset there? The mindset is we have to have cosmic justice now. We have to have it now, the final form of justice. We are to do what God's law says. We are to seek justice in the land as far as we can, but not at the price of God's standards, God's law, and the protection of the innocent.

And so you're supposed to have witnesses. If someone testifies falsely so as to get somebody else in trouble and is found that they testified falsely, then whatever they want to have happen to that other person has to happen to them.

And the point is that if there was no coming day of judgment, then it wouldn't make any sense. But the whole mindset of God's law is no one's getting away with anything. No one is getting away with anything.

God knows the heart. There will be no injustice in the final analysis. God is going to make everything new, and he's going to accomplish his purposes, and that's going to include the utter establishment of justice and righteousness and the punishment of all evil.

If you really believe that, if you really do believe that justice is going to be done, that changes everything. But if you don't believe that, if you think this is it, and when I'm dead and gone, I'm worm food, and there's nothing beyond that, you've got to try to get everything done right now.

Because if somebody gets away with it in this life, then they get away. Justice will never be done. There's never going to be any final analysis, final making of all things right, so on and so forth. So it all comes together.

It's all related and very much a part of what we have in the issue of social justice and all that kind of stuff. I've got a bunch of screenshots here, but, oh, unfortunately, that closed one of them that I didn't want to close.

Oh, great. Well, so you didn't test that beforehand, huh? I hope so. Um, yeah, yeah, okay. Here's one of them. I have way too many open, that's the problem. That's the issue. Yeah, here's just, let me try to pull up at least two of them.

Yeah, there we go. There we go. Okay, let's go with this one first. And, um, well, that's easier said than done. Uh, okay. Um, you know, I've really tried, honestly tried, to be respectful toward Dr. Anthony Bradley, but this past week I've lost a lot of that respect.

Um, the things he's saying now, um, just show such a massive racialism on his part. Um, you know, the term racism has lost all meaning because it's been so completely redefined it no longer has any meaning.

I am glad to see that there are some folks, uh, who are emphasizing, look, if Christians are going to talk about racism, then it needs to be defined biblically, and that means it is not something that is only done by one color of people.

It is an attitude of the heart. It is, um, showing preference for others. Uh, it is being, uh, it's violating what God's law says as far as justice toward others. Um, and by the way, before I forget, one of the, one of the memes that has become very popular, what we're dealing with in the United States, remember Shepard's Conference last week and all the rest of that stuff?

What we're dealing with in the United States is a very Americanized version of these things. And it's, we treat it as if we are the only people on the planet, as if all issues of social justice are defined by what happens in this one particular corner of the world.

And the fact of the matter is, it's pretty much how Americans think. Um, I would hate to, to, I wonder what percentage of American citizens, if you stop them on the street, if you did a major survey, what percentage of American citizens could name what?

Five heads of government outside the United States. I mean, we, we happen to know that even if you ask people in the United States who the vice president is or the secretary of state is, they're like, so when it comes to outside the United States, not a clue, not a clue.

And I would hate to see someone show up on the street with a globe that doesn't have names attached to the political divisions and just watch as people score 1 out of 100, uh, on any type of, of question about where, what nation is this or anything like that.

Um, Americans are not well educated about the rest of the world. That's a fact. And so I think one of the reasons that this social justice stuff can be so Americanized, so completely Americanized, which is why people outside the United States are like, what are you people arguing about?

What, what, what's going on? Um, is because we don't know much about our own history, let alone the rest of the world. And so you get this meme all the time that says, look, you want, you want white privilege.

I'll show you white privilege. Every POC, person of color, African-American, uh, votey threatens to tear my arms off if I use that phrase. So I try not to, uh, because he could, uh, um, yeah. Oh, Bob, uh, after that.

So, uh, uh, but, um, every black man has to have the conversation with his son about what to do if you're pulled over, et cetera, et cetera. And, and this is supposed to, to, to prove that my life is easy and I'm the oppressor and they're the oppressed and blah, blah, blah.

Are there especially places down South, but elsewhere where those conversations are necessary? Well, um, Latinos have to do the same thing. Mexican Americans have to do the same thing. And there are places in the United States where everybody should be doing that.

Doesn't matter what color you are. Everybody, everybody needs to have those conversations. Um, all you gotta do is watch YouTube. But the fact is if you're a white father in almost any African nation or almost any, uh, Muslim nation or in almost any Asian nation, you have to have the exact same conversation in that context.

It's called the difference between being in the majority and in the minority. And so you leave the United States, you leave that particular context and everything changes. And so people will actually say, if you have to have that conversation, that means you just don't understand.

Well, but I would not only in places in the United States, but especially if I'm in a completely different context someplace else, it's, it's called, there are advantages to being in the majority. It's, it's a given of human society always has been, and it's not necessarily wrong unless it results in injustice.

That's, that's the issue. And injustice is not economic equality. It's not socialism. It's not everybody getting the same amount of stuff. It's having the same opportunities. That's pretty much given.

I mean, we will have a socialist as president within, within a decade, one way or the other. So, um, I don't think he'll comb his hair with a balloon, but it'll be somebody else. Um, anyway, um, so I just want, I just want to deal with it.

I'm so tired of hearing people just buying these shallow tropes and not thinking through what they actually mean and would they be true in another context or whatever, whatever else. Um, but going back to, Anthony Bradley, Dr. Bradley is a graduate of Westminster Seminary, and he has always demonstrated a rather condescending attitude toward Baptists as a whole.

I don't get the feeling, I do not get the feeling he has ever read a single work on covenant theology from a Baptist perspective. I don't get that feeling at all. I get the feeling he does not make those distinctions and is not interested in investing the time to make, to figure out why he should make those distinctions.

But he, over the past week has been on a massive, uh, anti-reform Baptist role. And I do mean nasty. Um, here's one, uh, where he says, for some strange reason, 1689 Twitter, whatever that is, James White and other, and he always used scare quotes because he's one of those guys that doesn't think that the Reformation is defined, that being reformed is defined first and foremost by your view of God, it's all this external stuff.

Um, and so there are a lot of people like that. I can name some big names that are exactly that way. And, uh, if you don't agree with us on that, then you're not really reformed, even though lots of people on our side no longer believe in the sovereignty of God and stuff like that, but hey, they're still reformed because they do this external stuff.

I think it's an internal thing, but not getting into that right now. And other reformed Baptists like Tom Askew have a neurotic, this is his new thing, his new thing is to identify reformed Baptists with neuroses.

Can you imagine if we responded in kind what, what would happen on Twitter? Um, have a neurotic fixation with me, Jamar Tisby, Thabiti Anyabwili, and other blacks. Oh, so now it's a racial thing. No. Below is a bizarre attempt to prove something based on nothing I've recently written.

This, missing a verb, uh, we will go to Greek here. This is how tribalism works. Uh, and then a quote from Tom Askew, um, talking about black liberation theology originally intended to help the black community may have actually hurt many blacks by promoting racial tension, victimology, and Marxism, which ultimately leads to more oppression.

And his, his point was that Dr. Bradley used to say things that he's really not saying anymore. And it's funny, it's, it's real obvious to see how various of these men have changed over the past 10 years, but they're absolutely adamant.

Oh, no, no, no, no. And it's like, but you weren't talking about all this stuff back then. Why, why now? Oh, I haven't changed, but neurotic fixation over 1689. So here's another one. Uh, this one is sort of goes along the same, same way.

Let me see window. Why did it do that window? There you go. Nope. Oh, uh, of course, Kyle J. Howard responded, it is revealing something deep in the hearts of these men. They don't obsess over white Christian men and put so much energy in discrediting them as they do us.

No one is asking why they are so threatened by informed black men though. Black men who even rock with reform theology. Yeah. Yeah. I, I, the only people I respond to like Steven Andrews, okay, not him.

Um, well the Pope, well, no, okay. Not, um, I read Mormon person. Well, it's not very bad. It's just so absurd. It's hard to know what to say. Um, it's just, it's just like, what, what color is the sky in your world?

Uh, is, uh, is a fitting thing here. But then Bradley responds, I think it's worse than their hearts. It's actually a form of neurosis based on their own anxieties about a world they can't control. Their tribal heresy hunting reveals a self expansive form of group narcissism.

Pretty textbook. Wow. And as is always his, his trademark, a link to Amazon to buy a book about it. He does it all the time. I've, you're just like, um, so here's, here's the last one. Um, once a tribe of neurotic, scared, insecure men is formed, they function like abused dogs in a corner, snapping at everything because everything non-tribal is a threat.

Their heresy hunting reveals a deep ongoing paranoia. Black and white thinking makes the paranoia go away. This is why 1689ers can't handle mystery or nuance or contradictory data. You can't reason with fear, driving paranoia, justified by pride, self-righteousness with no accountability.

Other insecure men are drawn to them for validation. The cycle continues. This is 1689 neurosis. Wow. I mean, how do you even respond to that kind of thing? It's, it's just like, okay, I think we'll try to get away quietly before something explodes here.

I mean, wow. I, I, I, I have some 1689 guys who go after me, but this is just, wow. Um, how do you, how do you justify this kind? I mean, I'm sorry. I've not seen any evidence that this man has a clue what he's talking about, has a clue what he's talking about.

I, I think you could name big names down through history that have written on covenant theology and stuff like that from a reformed Baptist. He hasn't read them. Doesn't care. Uh, there is an arrogance in this man that is stunning.

It really is. It's just, wow. And folks, King's College, just, just so you know, uh, if you're, if you're looking, this is what they're going to run into and phew, um, amazing stuff. Just, just absolutely amazing stuff.

Um, wow. Anyway. So I, I, I point that I point you to that. Um, I'm trying to find one of my things here. Uh, I close, I hope I didn't close it cause I'll never find it again. Uh, and the problem is all these things say screenshot this and screenshot that and, and so on and so forth.

Okay. Um, what do we want to get to here? Cause there's a bunch of stuff that, um, uh, see, I'm looking for my graphic of Olive and, uh, I am concerned that it may have gotten accidentally closed and trying to find it again is very, very difficult, especially because, okay, how about you?

Ah, I reopened it. Yay. Those little, those little icons are getting smaller and smaller and smaller. I need to find a way to expand them so I can actually see them. Um, let's, uh, let's just move that.

Let's just move over here. That way I can't lose it. It's still on the screen somewhere. Uh, that way it doesn't disappear. Let me, um, let me, let me go with, uh, with, uh, yes, Kofi. It is funny that he didn't mention, uh, Voti, um, though someone did quote something that he said that was very disrespectful toward Voti too.

I don't think he'd do that in Voti's presence cause from the pictures, he doesn't look like a very, very big man. I think, uh, Voti would sort of tower over him and he'd probably be a little bit different in, in person than he would be otherwise.

Um, let's take a look at it. We're, let's shift, shift gears here. Um, big time. Uh, let me ask you to direct your attention, um, to the book of Revelation chapter 14. And if you have, uh, if you have a Bible, you will notice a difference between the King James and the new King James and your ESV, CSB, NASB, NIV, uh, at this point specifically, the NASB says that I looked and behold, the lamb was standing on Mount Zion and with him 144 ,000, having his name and the name of his father written on their foreheads.

Now, if you have the King James, it simply says having the name of his father written on their foreheads. Uh, let me add the parallel in here, double check, uh, with him and 140 and 4 ,000 having his father's name written on their foreheads is the King James at that point.

And the King James is following, uh, the Textus Receptus, which in its standardized form today, uh, does not have the phrase kai ta, uh, I'm sorry, um, ta 'anamah autu. Um, instead it simply says having, uh, ta 'anamah tu patras autu, his father's name written upon, uh, the, his forehead.

Now, this is an important text, um, in, if you were doing a study of the relationship of the father and the son, the name of the father, the name of the son, the relationship of he who sits upon the throne of the lamb, uh, because here's, this is the lamb was standing on Mount Zion.

Um, this would be an important text and it would include the assertion having his name and the name of his father written on their foreheads. And so, that would indicate not only the, um, exaltation and power of the lamb, uh, but the unity of the one who sits upon the throne and the lamb in the redemption of the 144 ,000 and everything that's going to come after this in chapter 14.

And, and so, it is relevant that there is a major textual variant between the Textus Receptus and the modern Greek text as to whether, and this is unusual in that in the majority of instances, not all, but in the majority of instances when you're looking at textual variants between the modern text and, uh, the TR, the TR is going to be longer, not shorter, but this is something that's missing in the TR that is present in modern text.

And so, your TR advocates and your King James only advocates would call it an addition, not something that's missing because they take as their standard, uh, the TR or the King James. Now, what I wanted to show you, um, graphically, um, gotta take that down for me to do that.

There we go. Here, for example, um, is, oops, uh, here is Codex Sinaiticus and you can see, uh, right here, uh, you've got, uh, ta anima, uh, I'm sorry, ta anima autu, kai ta anima tu, and then patras is a nomina sacra, so there's the line of the nomina sacra, uh, and then autu, his father, and here it's a tri-letter, um, nomina right here.

And so, this is the reading, uh, from the early to mid -4th century, and it's also, interestingly enough, uh, the reading of, uh, P47. We have very few papyri manuscripts of Revelation, but here is P47.

Uh, and so, here you have ta anima autu, uh, kai ta anima, uh, tu patras, again, three-letter nomina sacra, autu. So, his name and the name of his father, uh, and there's ge-gram, uh, ge-gramanon having been written in the midst of the forehead.

So, early papyri, Revelation, uh, Sinaiticus, Revelation, and here is a minuscule 757 from the 13th century, and I put this up because, you know, we've, I've, I've shown you a lot of, um, uh, unseal texts, maguscule texts, um, but we don't see a lot of, we don't, um, don't show as many minuscules.

Um, and so, this is from the 13th century, and, uh, here you have, uh, ta anima autu, and then you have, interestingly enough, uh, ta anima autu patras is in an interesting, that's, that's how the, the, the pie is written in this particular manuscript, but it's also, uh, written as a nomina sacra, autu.

And so, this is, um, nearly a millennium later in what would be considered, I think, a primarily Byzantine, uh, manuscript, and it contains the reading as well. Now, why do I show you these things other than the fact that there's, we've got some weird people in, uh, the audience who like seeing stuff like that?

Well, I show it to you, uh, because the fact that there really is no question in the mind of 99 .5%, um, of New Testament scholarship, and the other 5 .5 are TR advocates, I would say, if there are that many, um, as to the original reading, because there is exactly one manuscript, I think it's 1773, uh, from the 14th century that does not have this.

Every other manuscript, Byzantine, Alexandrian, doesn't matter what you call them, even if you don't want to use those, those terms, the vast majority reading, there's, there's one manuscript that doesn't, just, just one, 1773.

All the manuscripts have his name and the name of his father. So, there, there really isn't any question here because it's easy to see why when you repeat the word anima, um, that one of those animas could get lost because you're repeating a word.

It is a common error of sight in human beings when words are repeated, uh, to have a problem in transcribing them. And by the way, if you think that some modernistic, um, naturalistic, textual critical thing that I shouldn't believe because I'm a Christian, Erasmus said it constantly in his annotations, constantly.

It is well known by anyone who reads Erasmus in the annotations that he fully understood concepts such as the most difficult reading, um, considering what could have given rise in the corruption of the scribes.

He talks about the corruption of the text and believes that both the Latin and the Greek manuscripts experienced corruption. This is what Erasmus said, the originator of your text utilized all these things.

You cannot, on the one hand, accept his work and say, this is it. And on the other hand, you can't, you can't talk about that stuff. You can't, if you use the term corruption, you're a bad naturalist.

Well, then Erasmus was a bad naturalist. And there'll be, I can imagine there are some guys who would say, yep, he was, but what he produced was still done by God. Okay. I'll, I'll read you somebody that says exactly that.

Jabrail Jury. I'll, I'll, I'll read you something because that's, that's basically what he's saying is I don't care about all that. I don't care what Erasmus said or what he did or how I got my text. I just want to have my text.

I don't want to have any questions about it. That's sort of how it works. So the point is there's, there's not even, there's, there's no indication in the critical text today of any type of variant there until you get the CNTTS.

And there's, there's the one, the one manuscript where you have this and the minuscule from which Erasmus copied Revelation 2814, this is in all probability a simple scribal error on Erasmus' part or he did, he did ask for some help with producing Revelation from that one man.

He only had one manuscript. That's all he had. And it was, it had a commentary involved in it. So you had to pull stuff out. And there were numerous times, we'll look at one in just a moment. There were numerous times where Erasmus actually translated from Latin into Greek, not just the last six verses.

There are other places in Revelation where he filled in by translating from Latin into Greek and created readings that are still in the TR today that have never been found in Greek manuscript anywhere in the world.

So if you are a TR only guy, you believe that God re-inspired the Bible in 1516. You can't get around it. You can't get around it. If you insist this is the form, then you have to sit there and say, and that means that when they were debating the deity of Christ, the Council of Nicaea, they did not have the right text.

At Council of Calestum, nope, didn't have the right. Nobody, Augustine writing all of his stuff, that deep, didn't have the right text. That right text would not come back around again until 1516 when Erasmus rushing to produce a text in a book that he really viewed as being deuterocanonical.

He just didn't view it as being all that important. So much so that, you know, for the second edition, hey, fix that stuff at the end of the book with this other one over here, which was actually based on his own.

So it never got fixed and nobody really knew about it for 300 years. And he didn't go back and look. Neither did the rest of the people working on it. See, everybody's got this idea that there were these people in there, they're comparing manuscripts and they're doing all that.

No! Between 1516 and the translation of the King James Version, a period of war and violence in Europe. And you might be able to pop up Accordance or Lagos and look at manuscripts, go over to CSNTM and look at manuscripts.

They could not. They couldn't do that. There weren't people doing that. It just wasn't happening at that point in time and wouldn't for quite some time. So this idea of the cleansing, of the purifying, of the text, baloney!

It didn't happen. You're assuming something you can't prove. Didn't happen. So what happens here, so the reason that the Texas Receptus does not have this, is not, I don't think, I could not prove, I can't absolutely disprove, but I don't believe that there is any connection whatsoever between the Mount Athos 1773 manuscript and Erasmus' work at all.

I don't have any evidence that he was even aware of it. So, it seems that twice in the transmission history of the text, which is not unusual, an error was made because of Ta 'anuma, being referred to Anima, being referred, being mentioned twice.

Erasmus makes that error and doesn't fix it and that's why it's in the TR. Every manuscript the Christians had been reading other than 1773, so for the first 1300, well okay, let's say it was written around 1200 years, all Christians had read the same thing.

Are you telling me that they were misled at Revelation 14 .1? That the connection between the father and the son, his name, the name of his father, that that truth was not known until Erasmus? Really?

Think about what this means, guys. Think about what it means, the whole concept of the inspiration of scripture. When you take the stance that I'm going to be reading from some of these people, when you take that stance, what are you doing to the inspiration of scripture, to the very nature of it?

Are you thinking this through? This is not defensible in debate. It's not defensible in debate. So, I've shown you the readings, the antiquity of the phraseology, the unanimous antiquity. The early church fathers didn't quote it any other way.

There is no question here. If you hold the TR reading, you are saying that the entire manuscript history of the first 1200, 1300 years of the church was wrong until Erasmus mistranscribed 2814. There you go.

That's what you're doing. And there are some of you sitting there going, yep, yep, but I've got certainty. Yep, yep, but I'm not like you. I'm not one of them. They're liberals. That's what you're doing.

That's what you're doing. It's interesting, like I said, there was Erasmus specifically utilized harder readings. And one of the things, that's not the one that I wanted to, is this where it is? Yeah.

Check this out. Let me, when Erasmus was responding, just to give you some insight into his thinking, the sources themselves indeed show that the most important aspect is the editorial responsibility felt by Erasmus.

But in the case of the final verses, Revelation 22, 16, 21, there is more as becomes clear from what he writes in his answer to Lee's criticisms. There was no doubt that some things were missing. I read this last time, but I want to make further application of it.

And it was not much. Therefore, we completed the Greek from our Latin text, so there might not be a gap. We did not want to hide this from the reader, however, and acknowledged in the annotations that we, what we had done, and or that if our words differed in some respect from those that the author of this work had provided, the reader who obtained a manuscript could restore them.

He's saying, hey, get your own manuscripts. Go ahead and make a change. There are so many places where Erasmus says in his annotations, I think the best reading is this over here, but he doesn't the Greek.

He doesn't change the Greek. There are annotations that grew and grew and grew between 1516 and 1535, and he actually ended up changing his view as to what the reading, but he didn't touch the Greek because he wasn't trying to produce a final document.

That was not his intention, so he didn't change it. That's why he didn't go back. He wasn't obsessing about that. And so, when you treat his work, which becomes foundational to Stephanus and Beza, as if it is some kind of purification process going on, Erasmus would have gone, are you serious?

I mean, I can say without a doubt, if Erasmus listened to the modern people who are defending the TR as a final, he would laugh and then begin mocking as only Erasmus could mock. He would mock you to an inch of your life.

He really would. There's no question about this. It's sort of like the guys who are part of the Dean Burgon Society and set up the rules so Dean Burgon could never have been a member of the society. That's what you're doing with Erasmus.

Don't pretend that you are honoring Erasmus. You don't believe like Erasmus did. No way. That's a fact. It's a fact. Just live with it. You can come up with your excuses. Well, yes, Erasmus had his problems, but God still used it to do this.

There's always a way around it. I mean, it's not coherent. It's the exact same argumentation that Muslims use to defend the Quran when you point out problems there, or that Mormons use when you point out problems in the Book of Mormon.

It's the same. I've got my standard. I'm not going to be concerned about how I got there. It's that mindset, and that's why it shouldn't exist amongst us, because we see it. That's why I say it's apologetically absolutely destructive.

But he says, from these remarks, several elements deserve attention. The editorial responsibility leaves no gap in the Greek text. The reader's responsibility or latitude to amend Erasmus' text when that is possible on the basis of other Greek manuscripts.

That's what he's telling you to do. That's what he's telling you to do. Now, there's a whole list in Beyond What Is Written of places, because people think, well, okay, the last six verses, last verses, okay, so he translated from Latin.

All right, that's not the only place he did it. That's not the only place he did it. There were a lot of problems with 2814, the commentary that he was utilizing, and so there's a whole list of places where Erasmus compares what he's getting from 2814, and there's stuff in the Vulgate, and it's like, oh, it's missing.

Okay, I'll back-translate. In the process, create readings that no Christian has ever seen in a Greek manuscript, and they're still in the tiara to this day. You literally have to turn Erasmus into a re-inspiration device, whereby when he translates from the Latin into Greek, it doesn't matter what Christian scribes and preachers and theologians have been reading for a millennium before that.