King James Only Straw Manism: Kent Brandenburg

END CREDITS And then appeal to age discrimination.

Thank you. Mm -hmm. There you go. So anyway Third program this week, but as you know on the last program

I began responding to an article titled What is truth?

More James White on the version issue either doesn't know what he's talking about or he's lying by Kent Brandenburg And we started taking the part because it's it needs to be taken apart

I consider the King James only a movement and Brandenburg is a

King James only as at least He was back in 2009 Again there's this spectrum and when you push on some people they'll get a little wobbly

Weasley and and You know go back to at least a somewhat more defensible position than they would otherwise but you know,

I discussed the the spectrum of belief in the King James only controversy a long time ago and As I said up until this article we had only there were only

I had made one reference I guess on a program or something and then Alan Kirshner had

Responded to this gentleman's Mishandling of Psalm 12,

I think in two articles if I recall correctly Anyway, I Really consider this an important issue

I'm obviously attempting to be consistent. I discuss textual issues with With Muslims with atheists with Mormons, etc, etc.

So when I see Blatant inconsistency and error

Even amongst those who would identify at least broadly in the realm in which

I myself minister Need to address that and of course as I've explained

From my perspective as as I'm seeing, you know, I don't know if it's just a little blip in social media or just just what it is, but As I'm I'm seeing people starting to promote this form of traditionalism

Well, we have a tradition. We have a traditional text You know, it's sort of the well obviously

The eclectic text or modern translations, you know, let's associate that with the the modern

Collapsing evangelicalism let's go back to something greater. You know, it's it I understand the attraction that it has for some people but what

I'm trying to do is explain and sound the warning how it is a complete capitulation in regards to well, first of all, it's it's inconsistent for people who believe in solo scriptura to have an externally derived theory that then determines what scripture is and Secondly it is absolutely the end of Meaningful apologetic interaction the part of those people who embrace these positions whether it's a vague

Ecclesiastical text position where you can't really say what the text is You can't really give a an actual theory as to how you drive the text

Even if you if you push on the Byzantine position, it becomes presuppositional in the sense that well we start with this well,

I suppose everybody has their presuppositions, but That That has to be examined very very very carefully

As to exactly what those presuppositions are. There are also confusions about categories

Difference between canon and the actual text things like that. We've addressed some of that Well, we've addressed all of it at times in the past to greater or lesser extents.

Anyways, it just seems to me that Adopting this position will put anyone who has embraced it in a

Completely non -functional position as far as doing any meaningful apologetics Providing a defense of the

New Testament text Anything like that at all? And so it's a it's a shame for me to see

Young reformed men who want to get out there and do something and yet They're falling into this and as a result don't even seem to realize

What the problem really is and so I started responding to the many many straw men gross misrepresentations it is it is the standard element of King James only ism to Misrepresent the other side.

I mean anybody who's read Ruckman and Ripplinger and GIP and all these people knows that that's just just the way it is and Over the years and it's only a book came out in 1994.

So we're talking 21 years now We've had that book out.

Well actually came out in 95 and I think about early 95 wrote it in 94 It would have come out earlier, but Gail Ripplinger was threatening to sue

Bethany House. So Took a little while longer to make sure it was safe But it's been out a little while.

We've got a little experience dealing with these folks and There there is no nastier group.

I've said this many times The Mormons atheists

Muslims, none of them can hold a candle to King James only Baptist Pretty much every single one of the street screechers that Ended our work in Salt Lake City, and I came out to Mace, Arizona and things like that I pretty much every single one of them was was

King James only and So they they really they set the standard they really do and Seems that mr.

Brandenburg is right along with them. And so we had Yeah, we have a straw mentality we were sent a couple links there was one

I got yesterday on Twitter very creepy -looking that was That was

R -rated slasher movie creepy -looking That's like oh, no, I'm not no, but there was one on eBay

It was it was a set of three, but you could separate them and now it work I mean, I I really

I could just see a little thing over there, you know with a little this little button and Up comes a little

Where we're thinking along the same lines here, yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. I didn't buy it But I'll have to look and see if that's still at eBay because that would be a little straw man indicator thing would be

Really good or we could you could probably find a video of a straw man being lit up on the internet someplace

And I could just I could just hit a button and just you know play it or something No, that would be kind of fun. We can like do a little you know straw man voice

Hi, I'm straw man Yep, that would be

That's that's that's how we should do it. That's good. That's good. Anyway, um Before we go completely off the rails there

The last sentence that I had read was White's position is that a percentage of the words of Scripture have been lost

In our need of restoring it isn't a settled book to him More work needs to be done in post -enlightenment

Textual criticism a rationalistic exercise is the means in this new video and others the new video was just simply the dividing line episode from last week

He implies that Calvin is an example of someone From the applicable era that was doing this

He's the historical go -to guy to establish that some of these those men were doing the same thing. This is called a spin

He is spinning Calvin now. There's just so many like I said it Target rich environment here.

There's just so many errors That Brandenburg can pile into into a very short number of words

My position as anyone who's actually read the book honestly anyways is that no words of Scripture have ever been lost and I Would be interested in knowing

Again, it's it's the the real King James only us Who will at least stick with?

You know will it identify some version of the King James or Some version of the

TR or something will at least come out and say well here it is now most of them won't do that because they know

That You can Just far too easily punch holes through anyone who takes that position because well

Which King James are we talking about which which printing are we talking about? Are we talking about Oxford? Are we talking about Cambridge?

You which edition are you talking about? Are we talking about the 1769 Blaney revision?

Which one are we talking about most the time they just want to be very vague on that They don't want to get nailed down.

They'll nail you For allegedly telling people It isn't a settled book to him.

And so I just want to go. Okay, you've settled on the book the eggs Then give us give us

Tell us what it is. And all of a sudden even though they just want to hammer away on us

They don't want to answer that question. So which one is it? We aren't told here We aren't told is it a particular

Manuscript is it a Particular printed text. Is it the 1525

Bomberg in the Old Testament? Is it the 1633? What is it we need to know if you're gonna make this type of criticism then we need to know

But Beyond that anyone who has read this

Knows that I do not believe anything has ever been lost And if they take the position that they do then

I would want to ask Has your position always been true throughout church history?

in other words If you say that nothing has ever been lost

Then do you support the Kami Ohanian you support first John 5 7? Because that was lost from the

Greek text up until when? So Was it

Not was it lost in the Greek but not lost in the Latin and therefore the

Latin corrects the Greek these are these are one of the reasons we don't get a lot of Serious answers to from from King James only us, but they are the questions that need to be answered

So When it says it isn't a settled book to him What part of we possess all the original readings?

Do you not understand? Oh Well, you say you saw through text criticism at difficult places.

Yes. So do you? you can ignore that you can pretend that you're not doing that, but it's all pretense and That's why you can't go out and debate

Bart Ehrman's or John Dominic Crossan's or Marcus Borg's You can't go out there and do that because your position is

Empty when it comes to providing actual answers to what would be the real

Issues of such debates you have to avoid those folks. You can mock them from afar

You can write articles against them, but you can never face them because you couldn't answer the questions

That would be asked that would require you to identify a specific text if You're if your theory can't produce the text then your theory is worthless and Whatever text you've quote -unquote settled on is the process of some type of historical reality

So I've said for decades now King James only ism as a system

Cannot apply the standards that it applies to others to itself. It cannot do it.

It has to It has to do what Islam does use one set of standards for the

King James and a completely different set of standards for everybody else just as they have to do with the Quran two sets of Standards and once you admit openly in front of everybody.

Yep. I've got I have two sets standards What you're saying is I cannot engage in meaningful conversation dialogue or debate or defense in my position and I know it and I don't care

Okay, so there's there's the problem When it says it isn't a settled book to him

What does that mean again without without a position on the other side to respond to I Can only go okay

So When you compare The Cambridge and Oxford editions of the

King James and you have a difference Does that mean it's not a settled book to you? or do you just do the mindless thing that a recommend

I does and Say, um, it's the Oxford edition Schofield reference edition that's the

Completion of God's purification process Just sort of pick one out of the air.

Here's my standard and that's it. See I believe in a settled word Well, that's nice but it makes you

Stand in a position that no one in church history has ever stood in and don't you dare say that the

Reformers did that Don't you dare say that it's a lie No, no, no, no, no

Serious person who knows anything about church history Would ever say anything like that.

It's just absurd Absolutely absurd they did not do that. So You know the phrase is like a rationalistic exercise

What was what was Erasmus doing when he was comparing his manuscripts creating the first printed editions the

TR? What were the King James translators doing when when one committee would use one text and Another committee would use another text.

How do you how do you? deal with the realities that There are differences between the underlying text used by the different Committees in the production of the

New Testament the news of the King James version of the Bible How do you deal with this now?

I some people say this is not fair I I I remember the

I remember the look of My King James only opponent in London when

I dragged this out It he you could just tell the

Jack Mormon Did not believe that it was fair that I was holding in my hand a 1550

Stephanus text a real 1550 Stephanus text not a facsimile

This is the real thing and This this that smell

Is that the ancient dust smell? This isn't an ancient text. It's an old text.

Well, it's older than me. So Anything over 400 years is is an old text but that smell multiply it by tens of thousands and You know what?

It is to walk into the reading room at Trinity Library in Dublin. Oh my goodness if you have not seen the reading room at Trinity the

Trinity Library in in in in Dublin To a Trinity College, uh, go

Google an image of it That the image will not even begin to explain what it's like to come out of the gift shop and come up the stairs and I turned

I think it was left and I'm looking down on each side.

I don't know how many floors it goes up, but just That smell oh my goodness just just amazing anyway, uh, this is a 1550

Stephanus text And I just opened up To the

Gospel of John and In not now this text

Was basically what we would call the received text in England from its publication in 1550 until really, you know the

Stephanus brothers 1633 there they're Publishing their TR type thing and that's a pretty important period of time

Lots of important development creedal development in in reformed theology

This text was used this very text. I'm holding and interestingly enough as I look at this

There are notes in the margins not handwritten notes published notes The font that was used for this was designed by a

Frenchman by a name of Garamond You've heard of get our Garamond front font, well, that's where it came from that was his name and He designed this font specifically for Robert Estienne for the publication of this edition and in the margins

Robert Estienne compared other manuscripts and he included

Variant readings. Yep. They're right there.

You can see them There's there's the notes right there. Oh, there's some more look at that Well, I I wonder how anyone's faith survived that Because I mean if you note very reading

You know da -wait Went after the New King James Version because it had textual notes because that will destroy people's faith.

Well, hmm somehow this got used by Literate Christian believers in England and across the

European continent for decades on end during a very important period of Theological development among especially amongst the reformed churches and somehow they didn't didn't lose their faith.

Hmm That's strange. And How do you explain?

The differences Between this text and the five editions of Erasmus and Then the edition of Beza because those are the seven editions.

This is the the sixth the seven editions That is used that was used by the

King James translator Aren't you gonna have to engage in some kind of Well rationalistic exercise

Because Erasmus did it and Robert Estienne did it and Beza did it

Why was why is it a rationalistic exercise for me to examine textual variance in light of What hundreds maybe thousands of times as much evidence that we have today and It wasn't a rationalistic exercise

By them see this is where we ask these questions and we almost never get answers to these questions other than you're trying to destroy people's faith in the

Bible or a type of type of Response now junk net

I Mentioned specifically and it's interesting.

I Derived my information from Edward F Hills and Edward F Hills Presbyterian scholar

Ecclesiastical text almost King James, but not quite Who's your old scholar?

Open about his presuppositions and that it was all presuppositional This is on page 114 of the current modern

Edition of my book Presbyterian scholar Edward F Hills even in defaying the KJV had to admit that Calvin made

Comments demonstrating a willingness to engage in the same kind of textual critical thought that Hills identifies as humanistic

Sounds like rationalistic exercise same thing he observes that in five places

Calvin noted variant readings suggested by Erasmus and That in three of those

Calvin sided with the non TR reading He cited as an example of John 8 59 where Calvin agreed with Erasmus is contention that Going through the midst of them and so passed by was borrowed from Luke 430 modern texts and translations concur so here you have

Erasmus and Calvin agreeing with the modern textual conclusion that that phrase at Luke 430

I'm sorry, a Johnny 59 had been borrowed from Luke 430 Now King James only us will say you're deleting

God's Word you don't trust God's Word So Calvin didn't trust God's Word Erasmus didn't trust God's Word the ones

Erasmus, you know the guy who compiled the TR Hmm Hills also noted that Calvin went beyond Erasmus Adding 18 other places where he rejected

TR readings in favor of others Calvin also made two

Conjectural emendations At James 4 2 and reading envy instead of kill and Deleting 1st

John 2 14 seeming to him a repetitious interpolation How is that spin?

This is called spin. He is spinning Calvin. He goes on to say everyone knows that errors were made in hand copies.

Really? How do you know that? without engaging in textual criticism How you know that mr.

Brander Everybody knows that's all

Calvin was writing. No, it's not even Edward F Hills recognized

That Calvin was willing to not only recognize textual variants but to adopt a textual variant other than what was provided in Erasmus's Text that's what he did.

How's that spin? That's that spin, but it does demonstrate That it is an utter canard

To say well, this is the text of the Reformation what is the text which one? Which of the five editions of Erasmus was it

Stephanos? I mean Stephanos after he published this this was published in Paris That's here.

He then went to Geneva and became Calvin's Printer So when he does a 1551 that's from that's from Geneva So is that the reformation text so it didn't exist in Luther's day because Luther's dead by then

See history just has this Nasty way of getting in the way of these wonderful little theories that sound great again in internet chat rooms and old

BBS forums and things like that, but Don't handle the reality of research very well anyway

Everyone knows that errors are made in hand copies That's all Calvin was writing the position of the day was that an error made in one was corrected in another

Which is why he had two conjectural inundations, right? Is this

You know, it's not like I just dug up this stuff This books been in print for 20 years so when someone comes along criticizing me and then they write stuff like this that has been refuted in my own book for 20 years and in Edward F.

Hill's book for longer than that I Figure it's okay to take that and just you know, thank you miss that there, you know

Yes, they compared manuscripts that's called textual criticism

Once you start comparing manuscripts once you recognize there's textual variation that's called textual criticism

No way around it man. No way around it Yes, they compared manuscripts, but it is a lie to say that's the same as textual criticism and also ignore what they believed and taught

What? So you get to redefine textual criticism or are you defining textual criticism as the unbelieving examination of Biblical manuscripts.

Yeah, that's really what's going on That's really what's going on. There aren't any believing textual critics

Of course, there are all sorts of believing textual critics. Thank God there have been

Thank God there are still people Who? trust in God's having provided this tremendous foundation for belief in his word and we just recognize

That this kind of stuff is circular pablum and It's indefensible

But it's a lie to say That that's the same as sexual criticism. No, that's the truth

That's the truth and also ignore what they believed and taught which

I guess means well, they believe taught what I believe Well, Colin clearly didn't did he if if he engages in Textual criticism and if he introduces conjectural emendation

Then I think that pretty much proves you're wrong in regards to Calvin doesn't it? I Guess you could dismiss him you wanted to To equate what they believed with textual criticism is a lie that in published form started with Benjamin Warfield and We've talked so much

That we've talked so much about here. I'm not sure. I guess here is his blog So Oh Warfield's bad guy

Bad guy, I'm hearing not sure if that's

I don't think it is No, I'm getting some sort of a weird mm -hmm in my thing here, but I will ignore it so BB Warfield bad man,

I I'll skip over that for the moment the authors of the Confessions Did not believe that providential preservation was textual criticism neither do

I this is just complete redefinition of terms complete ignoring of Meaningful categories just to come up with some basis for self -promotion to be perfectly honest with you.

Um, I believe in providential preservation he says that's a lot fine,

I Leave it to you to examine who is consistent and who gives you the facts and who doesn't

I think that's painfully obvious it is the mechanism of Preservation and what that looks like that is the issue.

That's why I asked earlier this providential preservation that mr.

Brandenburg Promotes Needs to provide a text because I need to know where that text was throughout church history

It's given what he's saying and given what he's forcing the authors of the Confession to say is

Is that there has been one fixed inalterable unquestionable text so that means one one manuscript one

Well, it couldn't be printed edition. It has to be a manuscript Because I mean we're only living in the last quarter of The periods as the

New Testament was written so three quarters that period of time there wasn't a printing So what was this?

You know perfectly preserved text in that preceding point of time now the

Byzantine text advocate will say what was the Byzantine manuscript tradition, but That's not a defined thing either in this sense that he's using it

Where you're attacking the examination of textual variance and so on and so forth So, which one was it because if there was one manuscript in that time period well

We know that the modern -day TR and the King James doesn't match any single one Of the manuscripts that existed before that so the whole position just falls apart

It's it's indefensible easily preached but indefensible which

This is true about a lot of evangelical preaching today Preaches well, but it's not overly defensible

The authors of confessions did not believe the providential preservation was textual criticism They believe they possess the words in the apographa the hand copies in Identical form as the autographa the original that was their belief what we might call a presupposition

That is also their point in the confessions that the original language text was kept pure in all ages

White denies all of that. It was not kept pure in all ages to him There hasn't been an age to white that it has been pure since shortly after its inspiration

That age is off in the future. That is unless we redefine pure which is something less than tide detergent.

I Don't get that part either. That's I'm this I'm not even gonna bother to try to All right so the apographa of Let's say the

Byzantine manuscript tradition is an Identical form as the autographa

So that means all Byzantine manuscripts are the same, right? No, look for example at The difficult task and this is in the real world this isn't in the make -believe world of Reformed forums online.

This is in the real world Let me let me throw out a

Challenge to any King quote -unquote reformed King James only ist or Ecclesiastical textist, whatever

I Would like to see you produce based upon your principles consistent application of your principles the

Apographic slash autographic text of the book of Revelation Based on your principles now

Even my Byzantine priority friends are chuckling right now because they know

What I know and what everybody else who's studied New Testament textual criticism to any depth at all knows and that is the

History of the transmission of the text the book of Revelation is To put it mildly unique Very unique we have the fewest manuscripts of the book of Revelation It struggled for inclusion in the canon that's probably why we have the fewest manuscripts from for it from the ancient period but it's readings

Split the Byzantine manuscript tradition up into well, basically you have unique Of Families of transmission for the book of Revelation that you find no place else

You just it's just it's very very it's challenging.

It's unique and It demonstrates fundamental divisions even within the

Byzantine family The point is that it is impossible

To create that text without engaging in meaningful consistent

Textual criticism Which of course is what

Believing men have done for a long time and never saw a contradiction

Until the oddity of King James only ism came along anyway, so when

Brandenburg says I deny all of that. I don't even know what he's talking about Given that I have made it very clear that the apographa contain all the readings of the autographa that I focus upon the tenacity of the text that literally thousands of people

Across the United States and in other lands have heard me lecture on this in my new test of reliability presentation a lot of people are left going

What planet does this guy live on? What is the color of the sky in Kent Brandenburg's world, that's the question

But you see what I actually teach what I actually believe doesn't fit into the paradigm of these folks

Because it really wouldn't give them any meaningful basis for attacking me and So you gotta you know, it's the

King James only way you come up with another way Um, so again,

I want to ask the question when you say Language text was kept pure in all ages.

What do you mean by that? Because this is the same paragraph that started with the line

Everyone knows that errors were made in hand copies. Well for the first 1 ,500 years of the history of the

New Testament text it was transmitted by Hand copies so What do you mean when you say it was kept pure?

Do you mean that God protected it in? The way that I say that he protected it and it is by its multifacality its distribution all across the known world

There is no possible way for Doctrines to be inserted doctrines to be taken out for any kind of wholesale editing or changing to take place

Yeah, exactly But that the Side effect of that explosion of the distribution of the text was textual variation and That we have to examine that that seems to be what you're denying so again

He'll complain for paragraphs that I asked for specifics But that's because we have to have them if you're gonna make these claims

You can't then turn around and say but no, it's just all You You can't expect us to provide you with a single manuscript or this just is so you get to criticize our side

But you don't apply those criticisms to your side How does how does actually does that work?

Well, it doesn't work, which is why it doesn't end up in debate anyway What is the presupposition of white well, this should be interesting

You don't hear it he doesn't refer to Scripture one time to reveal what believers should expect for preservation

Why did how many pages is this thing? I don't know What's that?

Yeah, it's it's the way this one's up to 364 pages it's getting pretty long and I do talk about a lot regarding the issue of the nature of But you see

Once you embrace This system this way of thought you uh, you really can't hear

What people are saying on the other side? It just I've seen this over and over and over and over again it functions to just Remove your ability to enter into what somebody else is actually saying

What should believers? Expect for preservation. Well, they should expect that they can trust not only the original language text

But the translations of it as well and this is where it gets really sticky Because you have to ask the

King James only us Um Really where they're coming down on this

What what is the locus of inspiration? King James only us don't believe what the

King James translators themselves believe we've established that many many times before read The preface to the readers by the

King James translators and you'll see that it utterly refutes King James only as in itself So they have to sort of them in an embarrassed fashion

Promote the great scholarship the King James translators Unless they do away with all that and just you know direct inspiration

While at the same time dismissing what the King James translators said about translations themselves

Anyway When you deal with how the

New Testament writers Handled The texts that were before them for example the citation of the

Greek Septuagint Even when it varies with the Hebrew Masoretic text all sorts of issues are raised as to what we should expect and I have yet I Have yet To encounter a

King James only us maybe some ecclesiastical text folks Maybe but a

King James only us Who had ever even given serious thought remember? Man I can't believe how fast the time is going today, but um

Remember when was it when did Steven Anderson finally release that video of Of our conversation

Because briefly at some point the

He made some comment in the comment section on YouTube, and I've talked about this on the program

I'm just trying to remember when it was About Something that had come up in our conversation, which was about Hebrews chapter 8 and The fact that The writer to the

Hebrews quoted the textual variant It's specifically between Baal and Gaal in the

Hebrew which comes across in Citation of Jeremiah chapter 31 even though I was a husband to them

Baal Or as it comes across in the Greek Septuagint though. I did not care for them

Gaal now that the Bet and the Gimel look a lot alike and Easy to see where the variant arose from but there's two different streams that existed

At the time of the writing of the New Testament and the writer of the Hebrews Shows one of those two streams.

Did you? Yeah, according to this Almost one year ago August 11th.

Oh So right at one year ago, okay, so it was sometime after that there was a

I Made note so probably September October November somewhere around there. I made note of Anderson just going ballistic

See, he doesn't believe that the Bible's pure why cuz I noted the reality the fact of The difference of the citation of Jeremiah 31 in Hebrews 8 from what's in the

Hebrew Masoretic text now If you just sit there and go, ah, it's terrible then you're not dealing with the reality of What the text actually is you're you're engaging in wishful thinking

I wish it was different Well, it's not it's like this And the serious person will buckle down and do some serious thinking and ask some questions and so on and so forth but the zealot

Will just get upset and angry and accuse you of things and so on and so forth what

What should we see in the preservation of Scripture? Well, it's all sorts of stuff that goes into that and I have discussed it it's just obvious that And Brandenburg doesn't even know what those issues are because King James only ism is a is

A way of avoiding the tough stuff. It really is. It's it's for people who don't want to have to deal with the tough stuff

That's that's what it is Tough stuff's out there. Um Now that's fascinating because remember

Another point that has come up many times before For years we have been reviewing

Bart Ehrman and We have played his debates and we've debated him

When he has new books to come out we review the books when they come out All sorts of stuff like that when

I go to South Africa. I'm gonna be doing a series of lectures on his book on the deity of Christ and Don't know what

I'm gonna get the work done on that but that's just another one of the millions of things I'm trying to get done. Uh But he mentions

Ehrman and what we've pointed out is that Ehrman's simplistic almost childish understanding

It has its closest parallel in what? King James only ism

King James only ism because remember what Ehrman says if God inspired it he wouldn't allow any textual variations to exist and So since textual variation exists that it must not be inspired and you see

Ehrman takes that and runs off into atheism and the King James only us takes that and runs off into a

Cave Where all the lights are out? And you just spin in circles.

The presupposition is wrong and the presupposition flies right in the face of Of the reality of the text that Jesus the

Messiah himself Would have had access to and would have utilized in his own ministry and what his own

Apostles utilized and they're writing in the New Testament So it's the presupposition that's wrong

But he quotes it He doesn't do this his kind Do not do this.

The only one I hear do this is Ehrman and Ehrman reports it and then says

God didn't do it explaining why he's an apostate white just won't say it's painful

Now again You know Brandenburg could just be extremely ignorant That could explain all of his straw men as misrepresentations

But those of you who've actually listened this program are sitting to go What is this guy talking about? Because we have plowed right through that over and over and over again in the past Especially when reviewing

Bart Ehrman in his comment You know,

I assume Brandenburg doesn't figure his audience is gonna be listening to me or checking things out so that's why they think they can get away with this kind of stuff this this kind of stuff but Bart Ehrman What would that look like, you know

I remember the first time I realized when I was preparing to bear but debate Bart Ehrman I for the first time

I really realized what in the world he was saying about this. I was listening to issues, etc And it was when he was interviewed on issues, etc.

I remember I was on South Mountain just like yesterday So remember where I was on South Mountain When I when it hit me, oh my goodness

Bart Ehrman is actually saying and this is what was good about being interviewed by someone who wasn't just you know, throwing him softballs

He's actually saying that if God inspired this there would be no textual variance

He wouldn't allow it and I'm like Where did he he didn't he didn't get that from Moody.

He didn't get that from Wheaton. He didn't get that from Princeton Where did he come up with this?

But it's the King James presupposition as well and they just go opposite directions with it it was

Not the understanding of Christians down to the ages. It was not the understanding of Calvin. It was not the understanding of Luther It was not the

Reformation understanding and even when you start talking about the

Apographa and the Autographa there

Every single person at the Westminster Confession of Faith had read Calvin and so they knew

That he had engaged in those Emendations or Acceptance of variant readings and their own text which they had right there had the variant readings

So whatever they meant by that it wasn't that There is a single united Manuscript or something someplace

Now a lot of what is said in Reformed Orthodoxy was in response to attacks by Roman Catholicism the

Rome What Rome wanted to do now, it's funny I Suppose in one sense

Rome still does this but in another sense Rome has capitulated because remember

And I'm obviously not even get close to finishing all this up the rate. This is going Yeah, I will mention he says

White will say he believes in a preservation of God's Word It is Clinton esque because he means word singular not plural the words

Being accused of Clinton esque stuff Wow by someone who is the master producer of straw men is sort of entertaining, but anyways

You need to remember that post Reformation Especially once you have the

Jesuits you have the counter -reformation you have, you know Trent beginning the counter -reformation

What Rome did was attempt to create an epistemological quandary and They still do that today.

It's it's central to their attack upon sola scriptura And In that context you're dealing with Rome claiming that She has the authority not only to interpret the text but to determine the text and That she has determined that the

Latin Vulgate is the inspired text and that it has ecclesiastical authority and That in fact you can correct

The idea was look Greek. That's the language of apostates. That's the language of the Eastern Orthodox Greek Orthodox and so They're dealing with this kind of attack that is promoting a particular form of the text

Latin Vulgate Which we would call the Western text day over the Greek They did not have the papyri

They only had one of the great unseals and Rome had that And ironically

Rome would want to make direct use of it because it's not a Western text

It's not supportive of the Latin Vulgate in many places They did not know of the

Byzantine text versus the Western text versus the Alexandrian text or what any of that had had to do with anything and so they're defending the use of Greek and Hebrew over against the

Latin Vulgate. That's the context of Much of what they're saying and why they're saying what they're saying and they're saying that those languages that the

The best collations we have of those manuscripts now they really when it came especially to the

Hebrew text were extremely limited as to what they had access to their Very very few manuscripts, but As even when it came to the

New Testament What they're doing is they're defending the general veracity of the original language manuscript traditions over against the claimed perfection and Interestingly enough ecclesiastical authority of the days ecclesiastical text and The ecclesiastical text of that day was

Latin We've the church has used the Latin text for 1 ,100 years

How dare you say we should use something? Are you telling us God has left us in the dark that we were missing something for?

1 ,100 years Exactly the same arguments that are being used by people today

We're being used by Rome at that time And a lot of people are not aware of that particular context

In interpreting what was written at that particular period in time so Keep that in mind when you hear people saying oh, well, you know

Reformed Orthodoxy said this that and the other thing remember what they're arguing against remember what they're the threats that they are facing are and Keep that in mind a lot of people don't

Certainly this fellow doesn't After he says it's painful he says part of it is that he and people like him don't believe their own position and they are fudging or spinning

Brandenburg, I have zero respect for someone like you

I Really do because not only do

I believe what I'm saying But I've taken what I believe out there and you haven't and so I Give your statements the exact weight that they that you have earned and that's zip

None whatsoever. And I think everybody else sees that as well. Well He talks about antics and The antics don't mean anything

But they work like the scoffers of second Peter three succeed with people about Christ's second coming blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

It really does end up sounding a lot like the the teacher in Charlie Brown.

Oh That's good. You know, I think we've taken I think we've taken this apart so badly that there's no putting it back together again

Um, but I'll look through it and see if there's some other things that we want to specifically, you know cuz he he does admit later on that Yeah White is also true when he asserts the

Rockamites cause most of the trouble and get the most attention So he admitted that he can't he can't say that everything

I said was a lie But he really does try to Anyways Again, it's important I Realize this isn't the quote -unquote ecclesiastical text stuff

But like I said the guy who made the accusation about London maps confession cited this guy

Cited Brandenburg and referred to him. So I Think it's important.

That's what we're dealing with it. And we are out of time for this week. That was at least

We did go longer than one hour on any of the proceeding progress. Not sure we did but did at least three hours at least three hours this week, so Probably back to a regular schedule next week.

I don't know because I have jury duty on Monday All I got to do is make sure

I'm reading my Bible and I should be here on Tuesday just fine We'll see we'll see

I have to call tonight and you know the hassle all this stuff is the broken system anyways

Lord well, and we'll see you next week. We'll let you know on Twitter and Facebook and stuff, but we'll see you then