Pennsylvania Homosexual Representative, Choose Your CT, Beza and Matthew 1:23

Alpha & Omega Ministries

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

Comments are disabled.

00:34

And greetings, welcome to The Dividing Line, I didn't have to wait for you to type that into anything, though I don't have anything on the screen.

00:40

It's good to be back here in Phoenix, Arizona, where I thought

00:48

I could predict the weather, but I couldn't. I barely got rained on at all. The whole time

00:55

I was in London, and then Holland, and then it's sort of off, but it's showing more in the back, but that's okay.

01:04

It's weird. It almost looks like it's zoomed in or something, but anyway. But then

01:09

I come back to Phoenix, and the very first thing is I get rained on. That's really weird. So it's got all this space back here, but it's almost like it got bumped or something.

01:21

Yeah, it feels like, it looks like it's zoomed in, doesn't it? He's doing, he's doing, no worky.

01:31

Even though I got you in that nice London shirt, it's not going to make it worky -worky.

01:37

I suppose if I could reach up there and just move it, that would really mess everything up, wouldn't it? So anyways. Oh, here we go.

01:47

Yeah. Okay. Anyways, good to be back for a while.

01:54

I've got so much traveling this year. You know, I was counting up the number of debates that potentially are scheduled right now for the rest of the year, and there's another five before the end of the year.

02:06

It puts past 170 debates on all sort of, it'd be one thing if they were on similar topics, but what an idiot

02:18

I am. And then we're looking at at least two or three at the beginning of next year. So it's just sort of like, okay.

02:25

But anyways, it's, it's, it's nice. Nice feedback. Yes. Someone already mentioned,

02:32

I did want to point this out first. It arrived in, in one piece. There we go.

02:39

There is my Jeffrey Rice rebind of my, now let me show you.

02:46

This is, you can't, oh, okay. I don't know.

02:53

You can't really see it real well there, but the, this is a really like giant print. Did they even call it giant print?

03:01

Upfront, but this is a, no, it doesn't say anything about it. Maybe they don't like to put that up front because you feel like you're blind or something, but this is, the date in it is 1978.

03:15

So it's the 1977 copyright of the NASB, which means in poetic literature in the

03:23

Old Testament it still has these and thous. And it's, it's not super big.

03:30

It's pretty thick. But it's, at my age, it's still readable.

03:36

And so it was the one that I chose to, to send to, to Jeffrey and post -Tenebrous

03:45

Lux Bible rebinding. And it was waiting for me when I got home and it is beautiful.

03:51

It's a little different hue than my Nessie Olin text. Some people noticed that I used the

03:57

Nessie Olin text in the debate in London with Adnan Rashid when

04:02

I got into Mark 8 and Jesus' call to take up the cross and follow him and so on and so forth.

04:09

But it is beautiful. It's got a beautiful Cairo with the Alpha and Omega on the front. And some of you know why that's particularly special for me, but we won't go into that right now.

04:20

And so, yeah, great to have that and really do. If you're wondering, there's, you know, you had the original

04:28

NASB, then you had the 77 revision, then the 95 revision, and then there's going to be another revision next year.

04:35

I have, I could have asked to review the 2020 stuff.

04:41

I just haven't had time to. I haven't had anything to do with it, if you're wondering.

04:47

And I know some folks who have some questions and some issues with what they have seen.

04:55

I don't know. I haven't had a chance to really get into it and talk with the folks.

05:00

But I do know that there are a lot of folks who want to continue the 95, even after 2020 comes out.

05:08

So I don't know how that's going to work. But anyways. So, yep, got it. And some of you saw that my daughter,

05:15

Summer, has, I found one of her Bibles that she really liked from her childhood.

05:22

I managed to track down a new version of that and had

05:28

Jeffrey do that as well. So there you go. It is, it is beautiful. I'm sure you'll see it as I'm traveling around.

05:35

You know, it's obviously a whole lot easier for me to use electronic stuff when I travel because it doesn't get torn apart.

05:43

Traveling bags and stuff like that, you know, taking stuff out and putting it back in for TSA inspections, stuff like that.

05:50

You can just, you can just really trash stuff. So I, you know, I'm not sure exactly how much

05:56

I want to carry everything around, but I did, I did have my Nessa on 28th with me because I've got a cover for it that sort of helps that kind of stuff.

06:03

So anyways, let's get to some important issues here. A lot of people right now talking about Pennsylvania State Representative Brian Sims and two videos actually that he did.

06:22

Initially, all I saw was him just in a shameful fashion berating a woman who's praying for children outside of a

06:34

Planned Parenthood clinic. But I guess before that, he had gone down there at some other point in time recently and was videotaping three teenage girls and asking if anybody knew who they were so they could, what's it called, doxing them so they could put their names out and shame them.

07:00

This is the left today. This is the totalitarian left today.

07:06

No morals, no ethics. If it promotes our ways, it's great.

07:14

And if it doesn't, then it's not. And it was interesting to me that when

07:21

I first started seeing discussions of this, almost nobody mentioned the fact that he is also Pennsylvania's first openly homosexual state representative.

07:30

And yes, I do see those things as closely related. And we have to in the

07:37

Pete Buttigieg, however you say his last name. Butt -ed -edge.

07:44

Butt -ed -edge. Ed -edge. I can't hear you through that thing.

07:52

It's not not doing me any good for you to sit there going when I can't hear a word you're saying. Butt -edge -edge.

07:59

Butt -edge -edge. Butt -edge -edge. Butt -edge -edge. That's okay. Well, whatever. Real sharp guy.

08:06

Rhodes Scholar, whole nine yards, five languages. Being a Rhodes Scholar today does not mean what it did 50 years ago.

08:13

What it probably means is you've only gotten a very narrow education. Now that's sadly what most scholarship means today is you've gotten extremely narrow.

08:21

You know, 1 ,500 years ago, it meant you had a very broad, but things change with time. Anyways, with his candidacy and his attacks upon Vice President Pence, which he's using to promote, it's all political.

08:37

We all know that. And I think that may end up boomeranging on him.

08:44

His name has come up in the polls, but I'm just not sure how much farther that can take him.

08:51

We'll see. We'll see. If he does make a run deep into the primaries, then there's going to be a lot of discussion of the fact that he is not only homosexual, but a...

09:08

It won't be long before even questioning the term married will get you in deep trouble.

09:15

Already is in Canada. I mean, obviously the same judge that would warn a father that he can't refer to his daughter as his daughter because she's decided to be a guy or get arrested.

09:31

Obviously, the same kind of judges that are that morally vacuous and evil and insane will do the same thing if you do not honor two men and call that marriage, even if that means you're dishonoring everything else, even if you're dishonoring women and dishonoring real marriage and dishonoring

09:50

Christ who established these things and ordered these things. That's where we are.

09:56

So my understanding is that there's going to be a big old rally outside that Planned Parenthood in Pennsylvania and, you know, whatever.

10:09

However, my first response was, I would just love to see this guy run into Jeff Durbin outside of Planned Parenthood.

10:19

I said that to Jeff too. He's traveling back to Virginia right now or yesterday. We may have been at the airport at the same time.

10:26

I don't know. But that's why, for example, the first Sunday when all the elders of Apologia are going to be there is

10:38

June 2nd. I mean, we are all traveling so stinking much, but I would just love to see the ninja take this guy on.

10:49

It would be very, very, very enjoyable. So someone just said,

10:58

Dana Perino said that the woman Mr. Sims was braiding will be on Tucker Carlson tonight.

11:04

So I may see if I can tune that in. I'd like to be able to watch that.

11:10

But this is what we can expect. And given the deep infection of critical theory, and remember, critical theory,

11:21

CT, you can put any letter you want in between race, gender, whatever.

11:27

It has the same effect. Blow it up. Blow it up. Divide, destroy any possible unity, speak only of power structures.

11:42

In fact, I saw an article, a fellow by the name of Brad Palumbo last month wrote an article called

11:53

What I Learned When I Enrolled in a Race, Gender, and Oppression Studies Class. I have to admit,

11:59

I'm tempted. I'm really tempted. What would that be like? And he says that anyone who has spent time on a college campus has likely run into victimhood ideology.

12:14

Yet, while many campus conservatives are put off by the identity politics and liberalism run amok that have transformed many academic departments into adult daycares, they often don't try to understand the ideology corrupting the modern academy.

12:26

So I did exactly that. During my final semester in college, I intentionally took a course focused on race, gender, and the history of oppression in the

12:35

United States. Of course, this featured ample study of buzzwords like racism, privilege, and identity.

12:43

The most jarring realization, liberal academics define oppression so loosely that their victimhood narrative can never end.

12:55

To which I say, that's the whole point. Because the whole intention of critical theory is to destroy, to break something.

13:05

There is no endgame. There is no... It does not give you a map to reconciliation, to unity.

13:14

There is no way forward. It is to destroy everything. And once it's destroyed everything, then it will be discarded by those who used it to destroy everything.

13:25

So it's not some transcendent truth, because critical theory doesn't believe there's such a thing as transcendent truth.

13:35

And once it's done what it's intended to do, like poison, then you just throw it out.

13:41

And once you now have the opportunity of creating something new, then you will get rid of it. Because then it would then work to destroy what you're trying to create.

13:49

So you can't do that. So you'll just toss it aside. And all of these privileged minorities, you know, the black, lesbian, transgender, whatever, they're going to discover that the people pushing for totalitarianism don't care one whit for them.

14:11

Once their usefulness is done, pfft, out of here. If you're not going to have something positive to contribute to the new world order, you're out of here.

14:25

Forget about you. They don't care. You're only useful right now to break down Western culture.

14:32

That's your whole use right now. And that's going to go away. And so just take that to the bank.

14:39

But just as there is, he says, they define oppression so loosely that their victimhood narrative can never end.

14:49

There will always be victims because there will always be oppressors, whether anybody is oppressing or not. And that's why

14:56

I said what I said from London, that when you look at someone like Bradley Mason, what happens when you replace covenant theology with critical theory?

15:07

We've got two CTs. When you replace covenant theology that unifies, that provides consistency through generation with critical theory that destroys, there is no end game.

15:24

There is no redemption. There is therefore now much condemnation in the woke church.

15:32

And that is of necessity because the woke church has traded covenant theology for critical theory.

15:42

And the one CT unifies, the other CT destroys. You can't put them together.

15:49

There is no coherent way of doing it. That's why you look at every single denomination, every single theologian that eventually makes that trade, it all falls apart.

16:03

Their trajectory moves very rapidly toward nihilism, toward the left, but toward nihilism because you've taken out the heart and put something in its place that cannot function as a heart.

16:19

So you have serious issues there. But yeah, liberal academics define oppression so loosely that their victimhood narrative can never end.

16:27

Quite true. That's the reality of all of this stuff. That's what's happening in all those situations.

16:38

And so yeah, when this is happening so quickly that especially people of my generation, and I don't know how people in my parents' generation who are quite elderly now,

16:57

I don't even know how they keep up with any of this. Probably most of them don't even want to.

17:07

I mean, at least I've been experiencing this for a number of years now, not the acceleration that we're going at now.

17:14

But can you imagine if you grew up during the Depression, looking at the world around you right now, you'd go, what happened?

17:23

Did the aliens invade? I mean, what really is going on here?

17:30

It must be very, very, very disconcerting in a major, major way.

17:36

And certainly as, you know, I was watching stuff over in, it was interesting in talking with some folks in London, you know, they were saying, our political system is non -functional right now.

17:57

It can't accomplish anything, it can't do anything. And I'm like, yeah, I know the feeling. When was the last time the

18:03

Congress actually functioned as a legislative body? The left has made it very, very clear.

18:10

They work as a bloc now. There's, there's, there's no such thing as, as stepping out of your group to do what's best for the country.

18:21

Because now what's good, critical theory and depression, whatever that means, however, that's defined and it'll be defined politically.

18:32

It's not like there's some consistency here. The thing about critical theory is it can be used in so many wonderful different ways to destroy everything in, in its path.

18:45

There's no consistency. And I well realize that many of the people pushing this stuff, it's not that they are convinced.

18:53

That's what's scary really about evangelical or reformed people who become quote unquote woke is that it sounds like they actually believe this stuff.

19:03

I happen to know that most of the political people that are using this stuff as tools, they don't believe it.

19:10

They don't, they don't think it's true. They just use it to get people to do stuff.

19:18

It has psychological advantages to get people to do things.

19:24

You throw out these, these fallacies and you get people to act on them. And how many times do we see our own government now, the

19:32

United States, I guess this is pretty much anyone in Western cultures. Our governments will do something simply for the sake of doing something.

19:42

It's all visual. It's all, it won't help anything. But how many times is there some new law rushed through that wouldn't have stopped the tragedy?

19:51

It wouldn't have stopped the shooting or anything, but we did something.

19:57

See, it's all the visual, it's all, uh, it's all basically based upon believing that most of our constituencies now in our nations can't do critical thinking anymore.

20:11

And they're right. We don't, we don't. And that again is one of the things that I thought would keep things out of the reformed churches, but I was wrong.

20:22

So Scriptura didn't do it. Not that it wouldn't have if we continued to believe it properly, but here's one area where I really don't know that we have believed it in a, uh, we haven't applied it in a, in a proper, in a proper way.

20:41

And the whole concept of being able to think critically, that's something that is glorifying to God.

20:46

We have the mind of Christ. Christ was not a muddled thinker. And when we use terminology like, like thinking

20:55

God's thoughts after him, that's a high calling. That's a, that's a high calling.

21:02

There was a day when, when Christians recognized that to, that to think clearly and logically and rationally was to reflect

21:13

God's glory. Now it's just all emotion and feeling and we've, we've totally imbibed the world spirit at that point.

21:22

And that's what has, that's what loosened the hinges on the door and let it fall in so that all this stuff is coming into the church now that we thought, well, those liberal

21:35

United Church of Christ people. Sure. Them. Yeah. Cause this stuff's been, been, someone sent me something from, what was it, 1990, 19, late 1980s.

21:48

And it, it was a, um, one of the liberal denominations might, might've been

21:53

United Church of Christ, might've been one of the others. Um, it reads like what we're getting now today, even in our own reformed circles, the topics were the same.

22:04

Look what it did to those denominations. They are on their death bed, absolute death spiral of membership.

22:13

And now we're bringing it in going, this is great stuff. There you go.

22:19

There you go. Um, hi, John Wilkinson, atomic glue,

22:24

John. That's interesting. I looked over and see a picture of myself, uh, on Twitter and it's like, um, uh, it's on TV.

22:32

That's scary. Uh, I, I didn't, still not sure about this video stuff. I felt much more comfortable audio.

22:39

I have a face for radio as many people like to say anyway. So there you go.

22:46

Um, I don't like talking about this stuff.

22:52

And you might say, well, you talk about it enough. That's because there continue to be developments and if we want to interact with the society as these things are developing, know how to give a response, we have to.

23:07

But I, I had, I have had people contact us to say, thank you for addressing this.

23:15

I do know that there are voiceless people, voiceless in the sense that they work for religious denominations and things like that, where they cannot say anything.

23:26

Their jobs would be in danger if they were to say anything. Um, but yeah, so, so I do know that there, that there are some of you have expressed your thanks, but many others can't say anything about it at all, but they're just, this is just a all energy out, doesn't feel like any positive feedback type of a topic.

23:54

You know, when I, when I deal with almost anything else, uh, we're going to be talking about some textual critical stuff here.

23:59

At least at that point, I have seen so many times over the years where our discussing textual critical issues has grounded people in the word, giving them greater confidence, giving them the opportunity of defending the faith in many, many different contexts.

24:13

So yeah, that's great. That's, that's exciting. Uh, I, you know, you get a positive out of that.

24:19

You feel built up. You feel like you're, you're building something up. It just seems like this particular subject, this social justice, critical theory, break it all down so we can build something else mess, um, is, is just, it's all drain and no, no positive.

24:40

And yeah, it's really tempting to go, you know what? Forget it. But you can't,

24:46

I mean, how can you, you have to deal with the reality that it's not going to be long to where we will not have the freedom to give a biblical anthropology of man because you have to, because you won't be able to use category cisgendered categories because that would be offensive and hate speech.

25:09

We all see it coming. It's already happened in Canada and in essence, and it's just going to keep snowballing from there until something happens.

25:21

And so you, you can't close your eyes to it. I, I'd love to, I'd love to, but it's the, it's the madness to which we have been called to be lights in the darkness.

25:34

And the darkness really doesn't like that light at all, but that's what we're called to do. So, so there you go.

25:43

So there you go. Some of the things looking at there now, let's shift gears.

25:50

I had some time, thankfully on the 10, 11 hour, was it 10 hours?

25:57

I think it was about 10 hours. Huh? 10? Yeah, I think it was 10 yesterday. 10 hour flight home from Heathrow.

26:07

That started off fun. I won't go into details, but the day you're leaving, the hotel has a problem.

26:20

The elevators stop working. Can't fix them. You're on, now there's, since there's a ground floor and then a first floor, you're on the 10th floor with all of your luggage, luggage, enough luggage for over two weeks overseas.

26:38

And you get to take that down the stairs. That's how my trip started off.

26:44

Oh, and the hot water heater stops working. So there's nothing but frigid, cold water.

26:51

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But you know what? I still got home. In one piece.

26:56

That's the important part. Things could have been a lot worse. So anyway, so I had time to be actually doing some reading because normally

27:05

I catch up on some of the movies. That's the only time I watch movies because it makes time on a plane go by really fast.

27:12

And there was nothing. I mean, British Airways, guys, that was, man.

27:18

I mean, about the only thing on there was Aquaman. I ain't watching Aquaman. I got more important things to do than to watch

27:24

Aquaman. I mean, that was the worst movie selection

27:32

I've ever seen on a plane. It was horrible. So I got a lot of reading done. You know how you can turn on that interactive little map thing where you can watch the little plane slowly going across, up over Greenland and stuff like that, just barely moving.

27:51

Yeah, that's what I put the screen on. But anyway, so we got some reading done and I forgot to track it back down.

28:00

Sorry about this. But I mentioned when I was in London that an article had been posted someplace about all my myths and lies and all the rest of this stuff, such as the well -known documented fact that John Froben, Erasmus' printer, did put pressure under him, on him, to get the initial

28:23

Novum Instrumentum published in 1516, that he did describe it as precipitated rather than edited.

28:32

I mean, you put those two words here, they have meaning. These TR -only guys, they try to exalt

28:43

Erasmus' work. And we're going to listen to little Steven Anderson a little bit later on, and he tries to do the same thing.

28:51

It's interesting the parallels. Sorry, guys, but there are parallels between TR -only -ism and King James -only -ism.

28:58

And one of the main things is to try to exalt the origination of the TR, which means you're having to exalt

29:03

Erasmus. And so they try to diminish any of the issues. And so that's why

29:09

I've said that this book, Beyond What Is Written by Jan Kranz, is a one -volume demolition of their position.

29:18

Not because Kranz is even addressing it. He's not. But in addressing what he is addressing, specifically lay the foundation to be able to address the categories of conjectural emendation that would be applicable to Erasmus' annotations and the comments also made by Theodor Beza.

29:43

In the process of doing that, he has to expose to us and to an audience that doesn't have access to a lot of the original documentation, especially with Beza.

29:56

Some of this stuff is hard to track down. I mean, the annotations, yeah, you can find them in Latin and stuff like that, but a lot of Beza's stuff is much more difficult to track down.

30:06

To an audience, what he's doing is explaining to us the process that led to what we call the

30:18

Texas Receptive State. Now, he's actually not even dealing with all of it. I would love to see a discussion of Stephanus, Robert Estienne.

30:28

And we don't have my 1550 text right now. Once we get it back, I want to show you some stuff.

30:34

Because once you start talking about Beza, Theodor Beza, the 1550 becomes very, very important because Beza utilized the rudimentary collation of manuscripts that's published by Robert Estienne in his third edition, which happens to be the 1550, the one that we have.

30:53

And so in the process, what we learned, for example, is we've learned that Erasmus did not have a very high view of the

31:04

Book of Revelation. And that's why there's so many errors in it. And that's why there's so many problems in it.

31:11

And that's why he was willing to back translate from the Latin into the Greek, not just for the last six verses, but for other texts, creating readings that had never been seen before, which the

31:21

TR only advocate has to defend if that is going to be his final text.

31:27

Now, if you're a TR guy and you say, but the TR needs to be edited, great. Now you are in our camp and you have to come up with a consistent textual critical methodology to allow you to do that.

31:39

But you see the people that are having impact in Reformed Baptist circles and in conservative

31:45

Presbyterian circles are people who are, and that's why I wanted to bring that graphic up and I wish

31:51

I had. What was the terminology again? They described themselves as doing a preservational or providential textual criticism versus restorational.

32:05

I think was some of the, they're trying to come up with all these new descriptors to try to differentiate what they do from what

32:11

I guess the rest of us do, whether believing or unbelieving. But the problem is they aren't doing anything.

32:17

They can't do anything. If you say the TR is the standard and you have to have some type of providential textual critical methodology, you're not doing textual criticism.

32:29

You're not analyzing readings. You're not analyzing manuscripts. You're defending a given text.

32:36

That's not textual criticism. That's tradition defense, nothing more.

32:44

And so don't pretend that you're doing textual criticism unless you can recognize that Revelation 14 .1

32:52

should read one way and the TR reads another way. If there is no place where the TR is an error, then you're not doing textual criticism.

33:01

And Erasmus and Beza and Robert Estienne would all agree with me on that. They would say, what are you people talking about?

33:08

And when the people who created your text would never ever buy the conclusions you're coming from, you might want to think about that.

33:15

You might want to go, maybe we've gone off the deep end here someplace. So anyway,

33:22

I wanted to give you an example from the book and get into a little text here.

33:33

And before you tune out, some of you just get really bored by stuff like this. I understand we cover stuff that nobody else covers.

33:41

Okay, that's just how we've done it. Some people are geeking out right now and you're firing up Accordance and you've got your

33:48

TR over here and your Nessie Holland over there and you're telling the kids to get out of the room. And I know. And the rest of you are just leaving the room.

33:59

That's what's going on. But this is a relevant text for a lot of apologetic reasons, for dealing with a lot of other groups.

34:11

So stick with me here. We all know the text of Matthew 1, 23.

34:24

And it is a citation, of course, from the prophet

34:30

Isaiah in chapter 7. Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name

34:36

Immanuel, which translated means God with us. And what is interesting is the discussion that Dr.

34:49

Kranz provides regarding Theodore Beza. I've been using his name already, but Theodore Beza is

34:57

Calvin's successor in Geneva. And he began producing, and again, just like Erasmus, his primary focus was on the

35:09

Latin translation. The Greek was just sort of there, but it was never his intention to collate mountains of manuscripts and do all the rest, to create a critical

35:22

Greek text or anything like that. That was not his intention. That wasn't Erasmus's intention. The Greek was a necessary thing to be dealing with.

35:32

But the funny thing is the TR came into existence by three different stages, each of which was more concerned about the

35:43

Latin. Now, by the time of Beza, since Beza is post -Calvin, now you're getting the third generation

35:50

Reformers, and now you're starting to get into the situation where the

35:55

Reformed world is now having to do intellectual battle with the Jesuits and the post -Trent

36:03

Catholic resurgence, what's called the Counter -Reformation. And so you see some of that in Beza.

36:10

For example, Beza's primary concern is harmonization, defense, interestingly enough, not against, you would think in those days, against the

36:24

Muslims, Roman Catholics, defending against the Roman Catholics. And so that becomes very, very important in his thinking and how he is dealing with that.

36:37

So what's fascinating is there is no consistent textual critical methodology that can be assigned to Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza.

36:53

That's why I have said, and that's why that, uh, did

36:59

I, I just, you know, I never played that. Oh man, I missed, I missed what would be one of the most enjoyable things.

37:06

Uh, I do have it around here, but remember I linked and I'm gonna have to pull this up because I totally forgot about this was when

37:13

I was in Holland. Um, Dr. Kim, Dr. Gene Kim, um, that, that brilliant man, uh, from, uh, the

37:24

King James only church over there, we had, we had played the, the link of him bringing up my name and then doing that weird thing in front of the camera.

37:35

You're like, okay. All right. And then the guy sitting there with his Bible fanning him cause he's on fire.

37:41

And I'm, you're like, this really goes on in church. Yeah. Okay. Wow. Anyway, uh, he put out this video that was about what, about 21 minutes long,

37:55

I think. And he's just ripping on me. I mean, it is,

38:02

I, for a while I said, you know, we see here the maturity of a 12 year old, the 12 year old taunting. It's more like eight year old.

38:09

12 is a teenager and they know how to use. No, this is about eight. His maturity level during the taunts literally are things like liar, liar, pants on fire.

38:18

That's about eight years old, right around there. He'd say, yeah, yeah. Go with 10. Okay. All right. Yeah. That's a nice, nice in between.

38:25

Just childish. The man is just, just has the maturity of a tiny little child.

38:30

And it's, it's, it's shocking to, to listen to, but I don't think a minute goes by where there's not something about wicked, vile men, me, uh, stupid.

38:43

I mean, just, it is, it is sad to sad to watch. Um, so yeah, you've got, you've got those, those folks, but he's trying to deal with this type of stuff too.

38:57

Um, and I'm trying to differentiate. I try to differentiate between the different groups, but you need to, you need to help out by coming up with better argumentation.

39:06

Um, about this stuff, um, but he, the, the, the thing that prompted his video was he was responding to my challenge to the true love riddle group, where I said, here's what you guys need to do.

39:22

I challenge you to come up with a consistent textual critical methodology that when applied to the manuscripts we possess today would produce the

39:32

Texas Receptus. Well, he just goes nuts on this.

39:37

He clearly has no idea what any of this conversation is. He hasn't read any of this stuff. He probably never read

39:43

Kranz, obviously. Um, and so he doesn't even know what we're talking about. He's really not a part of this conversation, but he takes that isolated thing, ignores its context, and then proceeds to rip and shred on me all to his own embarrassment, obviously, but his people are never going to watch a program like this.

40:01

Anyways, they're too afraid to, uh, to find out that he's, uh, full of hot air. So it was that challenge though, that I made to that group.

40:11

I mean, they're literally saying on Facebook to be confessional. We need to have a biblical method of textual criticism.

40:19

I'm like, what is that? Where does the Bible give a biblical method of textual criticism?

40:25

Interestingly, uh, Kim tries, and what he does is he looks at Antioch and Alexandria, and Alexandria is bad.

40:34

Antioch's good. King James came from Antioch. It didn't. That's a bunch of baloney, but, and that's our textual critical methodology.

40:41

Well, that's not a textual critical methodology. That doesn't explain whether you should be looking at the most difficult reading.

40:46

It doesn't talk about Homo Etelyatan. It doesn't talk about scribal habits. It doesn't talk about evaluation of manuscript weights, evidences, none of that stuff.

40:54

It's not, it's not a methodology. He doesn't do that kind of stuff, so he wouldn't know that. But the challenge to the

41:00

TR guys is you need to do that, and you can't. It is impossible.

41:07

And the reason it's impossible is if you just know anything about Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza, and that's why

41:13

I said this is such a valuable resource, then you discover that they used different methodologies.

41:21

They had different intentions. They had different purposes. And so, since the

41:28

TR is a mishmash, because remember, the TR that people are running around using today from the

41:39

Trinitarian Bible Society, this is a mishmash. It is a

41:45

Greek text based upon English translation. It's based upon the textual choices made by the differing committees, not one committee.

41:52

People always say, all the 54 scholars, they didn't work together as a single group. The New Testament was divided up into groups.

42:02

And so you, you, that's why you end up with different translations. So in the

42:07

Gospels, you shall not murder. In Paul, you shall not, you shall not kill or kill and murder.

42:13

Yeah, it's the Gospels, you shall not kill. And Romans 13, it's you shall not murder. It's exact same

42:19

Greek, different translation committees. Therefore, it comes out differently. And so at the same time, that means there's differing methodologies that were used in comparing the printed editions from Erasmus and Stephanus and Beza that they were translating from.

42:36

They weren't using manuscripts. They were using Latin Vulgate and they were using printed editions of the

42:41

Greek New Testament, but there were different committees. And so they use different standards. And so you've got different standards from Erasmus for each one of his editions, different standards for Stephanus, different standards for Beza.

42:52

And he changes over time. And then you have the King James translators using different standards from the printed text to create, eventually, this.

43:01

That's why there is no one method that will ever come up with this. That's why you have to use one argument for Revelation 16 .5,

43:08

a different argument for Revelation 14 .1, a different argument for Ephesians chapter 3, a different argument for Matthew chapter 1. You have to use a different argument, different argument, different argument.

43:15

And that's why your system is absolutely indefensible. It's indefensible.

43:23

That's all there is to it. You need to abandon it because it's indefensible. That's why

43:28

I said this stuff is bad for apologetics because the people on the other side out there are just as smart as we are and sometimes more.

43:38

So if it's an indefensible argument, don't adopt it. And this is why. So Erasmus has his own thing.

43:46

Erasmus, for example, really dislikes the concept of predestination. But Beza likes the concept of predestination.

43:54

And that's going to impact their choices. And so as the King James translators then are looking at, well,

44:01

Beza has this and Erasmus has this. You're going to have differing sources there and differing biases involved.

44:08

Oh no, what do we do? Well, that's why you need to have committee done translations.

44:13

And that's why you need to have as much information as possible. And you need to have an overarching committee that looks at what the various committees have done.

44:21

That's why you have to have a agreed upon methodology of doing textual criticism.

44:27

Now, I know people argue, I know, I know, I know that you can argue that even today, the guys at Munster that are working on ECM are not absolutely consistent in their application of their stated principles.

44:42

I agree. I agree. But they're trying to be. There was no, it wasn't even an attempt in the production of the

44:51

TR. It couldn't have been. It was before the ability to collate manuscripts in the sense of even knowing which manuscripts are which.

44:59

One of the fascinating things is Kranz addresses the question in Stephanos, Stephanos, the 1550 text,

45:09

Stephanos has a small number of manuscripts that he cites and he only cites them in certain texts.

45:16

It is not a complete collation at all. But his

45:22

Beta, his B text, we now know was

45:28

Codex Bezae Canterburgiensis, which was given to Beza, that's why it's called

45:34

Bezae Canterburgiensis. 05 is the number we've assigned to it today. It's the living Bible of the ancient church.

45:39

It's wacky. It's wild. It's crazy. But that's Stephanos' B. But Bezae didn't seem to know that was

45:47

B. So there were times when he's using Stephanos, which was years before him, and now he has that manuscript but doesn't know that Stephanos had that manuscript and so he gives it double weight in certain readings.

46:05

See, we don't have that problem today because we have the cataloging system and now we have high quality digital photography and we can compare these things.

46:12

We know which one's which and so on and so forth. But that wasn't a luxury that they had. So when you want to put forward a text created by that process, that's your problem.

46:23

It's not ours. That's your problem. So anyway, so Matthew 1 -23.

46:32

What is interesting is to look at, they shall call.

46:42

They shall call his name Immanuel because in the Hebrew, it's you shall call.

46:50

You shall call, not they shall call. So there is a difference between the

46:57

Septuagint and the Hebrew. Now what's interesting, and I told you there's some cool background stuff here.

47:03

Even if you're not necessarily into textual criticism, there's some other stuff here that's worthwhile learning. What's interesting is by the, you don't have this with Erasmus, but by the time you get to Beza, you are seeing the formulation and foundation of what we would call

47:24

Reformed Orthodoxy. Beza is important in that. He's a huge step in the codification, filling out the teachings and the positions of his mentor,

47:40

John Calvin. And that impacts how

47:45

Beza does textual criticism. So one of the ways that it impacts how he does textual criticism is in light of the argument with Rome now, the supremacy of the

48:03

Hebrew truth, the Hebrew text, is being held to by the

48:10

Reformed over against any differences with the Greek Septuagint, which is problematic because the

48:19

New Testament writers quote the Septuagint. And so Beza, for example, one of the things that Beza does over and over again, and this again is so contrary to the argumentation of the

48:30

TR guys today, is Beza's comments are filled with his saying, well, this reading probably was a marginal gloss that became, that was brought into the text.

48:46

Dozens of times Beza will say this, even if we don't have any evidence of it.

48:52

He will look to harmonize text based upon the conjecture of a marginal gloss.

49:03

And when we get to this, he simply doesn't like the idea that Matthew could write, they will call his name

49:14

Emmanuel, rather than you will call his name Emmanuel. And so, he says that this should be changed to the second person, singular, kalesais, from kalesousin or kalesousi in the

49:36

TR that didn't include the movable noun. So, Kahn says this incongruity is more than Beza is willing to accept.

49:46

He adopts kalesais translated as vocabus already in 1556. In 1556, he justifies his editorial intervention as follows.

49:54

I know that in most copies, kalesousi is read, that is, and they will call, and, or, and he,

50:02

Jesus will be called, which reading was also followed by just a martyr. But as our Stephanos noted, that some old copies agree with the

50:09

Hebrew, and as great force would seem to lie in this apostrophe by the prophet, seized by God's spirit in which he addresses himself to the virgin, who would be born so many centuries later as if she were present,

50:22

I have followed my own judgment in this matter without, in my opinion, any damage to the meaning.

50:31

From Stephanos's edition, Beza could only know that kalesais is the reading in Stephanos's second manuscript, that is,

50:40

Codex Bezae. This is one of those situations where Bezae, Bezae himself did not realize that Stephanos, his second manuscript was, had now been given to Bezae.

50:55

And so he's thinking that this is two texts that have the same reading when it's only one.

51:05

It is not likely that Henri's collations, Stephanos's son did further collations that Bezae had access to, contain further attestations for this reading.

51:14

In 1582, a remarkable change takes place. Bezae still points out that kalesais is the best attested reading, both in Greek manuscripts and patristic sources.

51:25

But now he drops the reference to following his own judgment and writes as follows. Now listen to this folks, this is important. But it is preferable to follow the received reading.

51:39

Let me read that again. But it is preferable to follow the received reading so that it is an apostrophe of the prophet seized by God's spirit in which he addresses himself to the virgin who would be born so many centuries later as if she were present, which has great force.

51:57

With the received reading, Bezae obviously intends kalesais, his conjecture based upon his understanding of the

52:08

Hebrew. This change in Bezae's annotation was commented on very critically already by Wettstein, since within a few decades, a very weakly attested reading is turned into the received one.

52:27

Bezae actually does not hide the fact that the reading is weakly attested, but it remains remarkable that he can treat a reading adopted by himself as received.

52:38

It wasn't received. Received by whom? And what caught my attention here was that so many of these young guys that are buying into, hey, you know, if all

52:51

I've got's this, then I don't have to worry about textual criticism anymore and I can just preach this and I don't have to worry about those footnotes.

52:57

It's the received text after all. Received by whom? Received by whom, guys?

53:08

I mean, if Bezae can refer to a reading that he himself adopted. Kranz points out a couple of times where, you know, between 1516 and 1535, that's 19 years.

53:21

You forget what you did 19 years ago. There were times that Erasmus thought that Greek manuscripts supported his reading when that was where he had messed up 15 years earlier and just didn't realize it.

53:34

Bezae did the same thing. So now Bezae calls a reading that he thinks should be there the received reading when it wasn't received by anybody but himself.

53:48

And that's the other thing, but it says Kelesusi in the TR. Right, because there's still a next step of interpretation, which is going to be the

54:00

King James translators. So they have to decide between Bezae and Stephanos and Erasmus and so on and so forth.

54:08

But Bezae and Erasmus, numerous times in their annotations and their comments said, leave it to the reader.

54:16

It could be this, it could be that. Man, we did that today and you're casting doubt on the word of God and all the rest of this type of stuff.

54:24

They did it all the time. They did it all the time. So it just struck me that here

54:29

Bezae could go, the received reading. Received by whom?

54:35

Over what period of time? Based on what? Erasmus had a significantly more developed textual critical methodology.

54:48

That is an interest in manuscripts, not so much manuscripts, nobody really had an interest in manuscripts at this point.

54:57

Much more of an interest in the scribal activities.

55:04

Erasmus went much more into depth into various kinds of scribal errors. Bezae just sort of lumped them all into marginal glosses that ended up being brought into the text, something like that.

55:16

In fact, what's fascinating, in his first edition, Bezae individually identifies the various manuscripts as Stephanus -less and then he goes, you know, that's too much of a bother.

55:28

I'm just gonna say in certain manuscripts. So you don't even know which one he's referring to. He became less specific over time rather than more specific.

55:35

They don't care about which domain, what manuscripts they are, what quality they are. There's no analysis of any of these things that we do regularly in textual criticism today.

55:46

It's not present. It's not present. And this is why, fundamentally, when you push on all these things, the only logical place for the

55:57

TR guys to go is to abandon any historical battle at all and to completely theologize this.

56:04

To create a theology of providential preservation and I'm just simply going to say this is it.

56:12

That's what Doug Wilson did, you know, when I pushed him in the book. Which one? 1550

56:19

Stephanus. Why? Because it looks good. That's all you can do. You don't have a methodology that can actually answer that question.

56:29

You just have to just go, ah, 1550 Stephanus. That's what we're gonna go with. That's all you've got.

56:35

You don't have anything else. Don't pretend you've got something you don't have. You don't have any basis for saying 1550 versus the third edition of Erasmus versus the second edition of Beza or finally the

56:50

Trinitarian Bible. Why not just do what Peter Ruckman did? Peter Ruckman described a process of purification all the way through to the

57:02

Schofield Reference Bible. That's the final stage of the process of the purification of the text.

57:09

Why not do that? It has as much basis in history. It's all just a leap of faith that says, well,

57:16

I'm going to identify this one. That's where I'm going to put my foot down here, boom, and then just defend that one.

57:23

But you don't defend it historically. Don't even bother to defend it historically. You have no reason to defend it historically.

57:29

Just simply say, nope, nope, I can't answer those questions. I can't talk about where it came from.

57:34

I can't talk about how Erasmus came up with the reading or Beza. It doesn't matter. I'm just simply taking this as my final authority, and I think you should, too.

57:44

I can't tell you why, which is why I have said from the start this movement is absolutely destructive to any meaningful apologetics.

57:57

Because it is. Because it is. That's all there is to it. Well, anyway, so Matthew 1, 23.

58:05

There are others we can look at, Luke 2, 22, and text in Ephesians we'll get to eventually.

58:11

But over time, over time, we will get to those. How do you, in one webcast, go from talking about social justice, critical theory, the homosexual representative in Pennsylvania attacking people outside abortion clinics, to a discussion of the difference between the second person singular and the third person plural forms of kaleo in the

58:45

Greek septuagint, as understood by Theodore Beza? How many webcasts can you listen to that will take you that far?

58:58

Bradley Mason said that I am, in comparing me to Tom Askell, he said I am by far the most incendiary of everyone.

59:07

And so looking at the meaning of incendiary, I said, is that why my daughter says I'm a hot mess? Maybe there's a connection there.

59:15

I'm not sure. Incendiary, hot, I don't know. Whatever. I don't take what Bradley Mason says overly seriously, one way or the other.

59:22

But there you go. Okay, folks. Once again, sincere thanks to everybody who made the trip possible that I just came back from.

59:32

And I've got a lot more to do this year. We are scheduling debates right now in Sydney, Australia, Johannesburg.

59:42

So we continue to need your assistance in the travel fund to be able to make these things happen.

59:49

As we get details and get things locked down, we'll give you information. But these are going to be big, major, important debates that hopefully will be very useful.

01:00:00

And some of them we need to get done before we won't be able to do them anymore, if you know what I mean, some of the topics that we'll be addressing. So your assistance in that area is very much appreciated.