Newsweek Attacks Christianity for Christmas: Refutation of Kurt Eichenwald’s Article

And greetings. Welcome to the dividing line on a Tuesday afternoon the only dividing line for this week it is Christmas week 2014 and Thursday is Christmas Day and so no we we won't we don't like doing the webcast when there's absolutely positively no one watching or listening.

So well there probably would be we there there there might be a dozen people who if we did something on on Thursday would actually would actually listen and that's frightening to me. It's very frightening that anyone would actually do that.

Probably a jumbo edition of the program today that'll make up a little bit for the fact that we are a little bit short on dividing line time this week and I was going to do some basic stuff as I could talk a little about Christmas.

We're still gonna do that basically because it appeared in the article but this morning and I was gonna go back and look but I ended up investing so much time in a tweet fest conversation with the author of the cover article for Newsweek magazine that I just didn't have time to to go back and look at it and that's that's a shame.

But Kurt Eichenwald and I had an extensive discussion which if you're interested you can go to dr. Oakley 1689 on Twitter and follow the conversation that took place there. It ended suddenly 33 minutes ago without any announcement that it was ending.

But that's okay. It is available there if you want to take a look at it the article is entitled the Bible so misunderstood it's a sin. Now let me just tell you before I launch into this at some point in the next few minutes a my co-host is going to finally arrive here at the office and we are going to come to a screeching halt for just a few moments so that the co-host can make a few comments and then we will go back directly to the review of the article.

So I'm just gonna let you know ahead of time that there's gonna be we're not gonna take a break. We're good it's gonna be you know right here as part of the program but just letting you know that that will take place eventually and that that is that is the that is the plan.

Anyway there's nothing surprising to me whatsoever that News Week the week of Christmas would post yet another bald-faced attack upon the Christian faith. There's nothing new about this this is this is what the been about for decades and there's certainly nothing new.

Well I guess there is something new that the the level of of error in this particular article is shocking. I guess 30 years ago there might have been editors that would have caught some of the incredible errors talking about how the at the Council of Constantinople Jesus became father son and Holy Spirit.

You know I mean oh yeah stuff stuff on a level that that makes anyone who knows anything about church history just go. Really maybe 30 years ago there might have been editors it would catch up it just anymore as long as it's negative toward the Christian faith toward belief in the Bible toward evangelicalism as a whole whatever that is anymore it will end up in print.

Or does Newsweek. Even I don't think Newsweek does print anymore. I think it's just all online so and someone actually said on on Twitter that by doing this I was actually doubling Newsweek's readership this week.

You have to make sure they can get in when they when they arrive here. So just so you know anyway and that may be that may be the case but the the primary reason I'm responding this is not because there's anything new in it.

It is it is basically a really bad and badly understood repetition of the of Bart Ehrman without actually understanding Bart Ehrman. Okay so you know we've we've done the Bart Ehrman stuff. We have played entire presentations by Bart Ehrman and we've gone into the Greek text and we've you know we've we've done all this kind of stuff but that's just just what we're going to be looking at in this particular article.

But the reason to look at it is to document the fundamental bigotry and bias of the mainstream media. Now with that with that said my my co-host has has arrived and would she like to just just walk in maybe come here come here klemski doodles here hi hey there.

Oh hello. Well see these cameras right here there are people that are looking at us right now and they're watching us all over the place. Yeah see there's a camera right there see and they're looking at us and see see we're up there on the screen see up there on the screen see grandpa.

Yeah say hello world. You say hello world. Yeah yeah very good hello world. So you're my co-host right now. Can you say co-host. Okay that's close and this is called the dividing line is who's is that.

Oh shoes off. Oh I forgot Clementine has a an aversion to wearing shoes indoors which is pretty cool. It's pretty cool. And that's dad. Yeah and you don't know him. His name is rich and you say hi rich.

And of course I'm gonna tell everybody this is my granddaughter Clementine. Clementine that's right. And she lives in Georgia in Georgia. Right. Yeah. And where's my where's my hair supposed to be. Yeah yeah and but it's not there.

Is it. No no it's it's it's sort of gone. Yeah but that's okay. See and this is see that up there you get to watch this. You watch this every once in a while when grandpa does this. Don't you. Yeah don't you.

Yeah now you're on the dividing line. Yeah there you are. Can you see yourself. Who is that. Who is that. And who's grandpa holding. Who am I holding Clementine. I'm holding Clementine. And no I'm not holding dad.

Dad would be too big for me to hold. He's a big guy. He's a big guy. So I just want you to join me on the dividing line and say hi to everybody. Very good. You wanna go back to daddy. Okay just I need to give you your shoes.

Thank you. Don't forget to shore Betsy. Oh thank you for visiting me. Clementine. I appreciate that wants to go back to see grandpa. Grandpa's got to talk to everybody. Yeah yeah. And go make sure to go in my office and see all the all the stuff in there.

I think you'll like it. I think you'll like it. Ah I tell you it's you. You find out that you are. That you're getting older when you when you have grandchildren. And and of course this she just turned two just a few days ago three days ago and she is.

She's chattering away and and they say the most amazing things as we all remember. And she's so much like her mom. And so it's it's great to think back 23 years to the last time I had one that small and yeah.

So yeah she's she's a cutie. There's no no two ways around that one. She's she's cute. So I appreciate that for bringing her over bringing her over to visit and make her guest appearance on the dividing line.

And who knows maybe maybe next year we'll have more of a discussion of things. But I thought she did pretty pretty well. Anyways all right. I better clear up the clear up the coughing there because we have a lot of material to cover today the Bible.

Newsweek’s Anti-Christian Cover Story and the Need for a Response

So misunderstood. It's a sin. Well listen to how this begins. They wave their Bibles at passers-by screaming their condemnations of homosexuals. They fall on their knees worshiping the base of granite monuments the Ten Commandments while demanding prayer in school.

They appeal to God to save America from their political opponents mostly Democrats. They gather in football stadiums by the thousands to pray for the country's salvation. They are God's frauds. Cafeteria.

Christians who pick and choose which Bible verses they heed with less care than they exercise and selecting side orders for lunch. They are joined by religious rationalizers. Fundamentalists who unable to find scripture support.

They're unable to find scripture supporting their biases and beliefs. Twist phrases and modify translations to prove their honoring the Bible's words. Well obviously mr. Eichenwald has a rather strong anti-reformed I'm sorry anti evangelical bias.

He doesn't I don't think seem to really have much knowledge of serious conservative Bible believers. He certainly doesn't show in this article. There is no meaningful reference to any any serious conservative biblical scholarship on church history Bible translation the doctrine of the Trinity.

Anything that is attacked in this article the author shows no knowledge. And you can go to the Twitter feed. Listen listen to how many questions I asked that got no answer at all. But what he really dislikes.

Our political conservatives who use the Bible. You know what I don't like political conservatives that use the Bible and don't live by it either. I really don't. I'm not one of those folks that's waving the Bible around and saying vote for Republicans.

Because I'm not a Republican and I'm not a Democrat either. Neither of the two political parties are conservative enough for me. So I'm not either one. I'm one of those dreaded independents. But independents are normally in between the two.

I'm over there somewhere. So anyway I don't fit into these categories. So you might say well then why are you responding to this. Because in attacking these people he calls biblically illiterate. He says.

In the next paragraph America is being besieged by biblical illiteracy. Mr. Eichenwald demonstrates that he is biblically illiterate. And he is the the number of errors the the that we are going to document here are shocking.

But the scary thing is as a liberal he thinks he's biblically literate because he's read some Bart Ehrman and some some liberals over here and liberals over there. And that makes him biblically literate.

That's the danger. That's the danger. He says the Bible is not the book. Many American fundamentalists and political opportunists think it is or more precisely what they want it to be. Their lack of knowledge about the Bible is well established.

Well that might be true of certain people. The problem is that this article ignores the reality of serious biblically literate. Know the original languages. No church history. Know why we believe the Trinity and what it is.

Christians ignores us. We're not there. We're not there. We're nowhere around. Newsweek's exploration here of the Bible's history and meaning is not intended to advance a particular theology or debate the existence of God.

Baloney. Baloney. Of course it is advancing a particular theology. It's advancing a particular theology. It says the Bible is not truly the Word of God. Bye-bye we'll see you at home. Sorry. Bye-bye we'll see you at home.

She's cuter than anybody in the audience. So love you. Bye-bye see you at home. She's waving at me. Oh yeah. Yeah. That wrapped around. What is a little finger. Yeah. Wrap there she is. Yeah. Or I'm wrapped around.

I'm not sure how that works. But it doesn't matter. He's he's gorgeous. And. And you can't argue that one. Can you. Nope can't argue that one. What were we saying. Oh yes. There is a particular theology being presented here.

And it is the theology that the Word of God is not clear enough to actually address issues such as the Trinity homosexuality. It is a book. What's the what's the term is used here at the bottom. It's a long article.

The term that is used. The bottom here's here's under judge. Not one of the most misused text in the New Testament. Because she has told us a judge of the righteous judgment based upon the Word of God.

But so why study the Bible at all since it's loaded with contradictions and translation errors and wasn't written by witnesses. And includes words add by unknown scribes to inject church orthodoxy should just be abandoned.

You're telling me that's not a theological position. Of course it is by ignoring the fact that you have a position. You're hoping not to have to defend it. Been there done that. Mr. Eichenwald if you happen to be watching this and I've invited you we will open the phones in 45 minutes.

Wherever I am in my response to open the phones in 45 minutes. 877 -753 -3341. And we'll take one phone call from you. Nothing more. Okay. That's the only phone call will take. So you are presenting a position here whether you want to defend it or not.

Whether you can defend it. I don't think you can. But you are presenting a position. And you can't. You can't dodge it. You can't duck it. So rather it is designed to shine a light on a book that has been abused by people who claim to review it don't to revere it but don't read it in the process creating misery for others.

Interesting enough when you talk about misery for others what you frequently focus upon is the issue of homosexuality. And yet I saw no evidence that you have even attempted to listen to a meaningful biblical presentation on the nature of gender in the Bible only to the liberals.

I asked you if you had read Gagnon. You didn't respond. I asked you read Michael Brown. You didn't respond. I didn't bother to ask you if you read my book on the subject. Because that was obvious the bias here.

This is not. This is not journalism. This is a hit piece. There is no attempt at fairness. None. No attempt at fairness at all in this article. None. And shame on Newsweek. And shame and mr. Eichenwald.

For for doing this mr. Eichenwald I've written 24 books maybe 23 in the one I'm writing with a Muslim scholar right now. I'll be out later. You look at them. You will never find me writing material like this.

Never read the same-sex controversy. We interact with the other side. Read whatever Christians should know about the Quran. I am fair with the Quran. In my experience we conservatives read liberals. I went to fuller theological seminary for crying out loud.

We read the liberals. We interact with the liberals. We understand the liberals. The liberals don't think we have anything meaningful to say. And so they ignore us completely. That's what we have here.

Translation, Transmission, and the Textual Variants

Okay. When the illiteracy of self-proclaimed biblical literalists leads parents to banish children from their homes I would assume again that has something to do with homosexuality. When it sets neighbor against neighbor.

Not sure what. When it engenders hate and condemnation. Probably homosexuality. Again when it impedes science and undermines intellectual advancement that must be accepting the great wisdom that man is.

But the result of cosmic accident. The topic has become too important for Americans to ignore whether they are deeply devout or tepidly faithful believers or atheists. This examination based in large part on the works of scores of theologians and scholars some of which dates back centuries.

This is examination based on scholarship. That's what it's saying. No it isn't. It's based on a narrow range of scholarship and ignores all of the responses it assumes. For example the Bauer hypothesis assumes it states it as a fact even when the sources that it cites recognize the holes in the hypothesis.

I doubt very much that mr. Eichenwald has ever taken the time to read something such as the heresy of orthodoxy. I suggested it to him. I suggested it to him. Will he read it. I really get the feeling.

I really get the feeling that he will not. But he claims that this is an examination based on scholarship. And so that's the standard that needs to be used. So when you say things like all Christians didn't know they were textual variation when that was one of the first things that's talked about in patristic sources.

You have such things as a diatesser on you have the hexopla. You have the discussions of textual variations in the third century. When you when it goes all the way back to then and is well known by any biblically literate person to this day and we deal with these things and we talk about these things.

Then you're gonna be held to the standard a scholarly standard. And ask why would you say these things. Why would you make these statements. Why would you say at the Council of Constantinople Jesus became father son Holy Spirit.

When no one no one no one would ever say that you cannot provide a single source. It would even come close to saying that that's a gross misunderstanding. You've not read anything in the Council of Constantinople mr. Eichenwald.

And you know it you know you've not read anything. You're reading secondary sources. It's just a fact anyway is a review of the Bible's history and a recounting of its words. Then you better be accurate.

It is only through accepting where the Bible comes from and who put it together that anyone can comprehend what history's most important book says and just as important what it does not say. Well I agree with that.

The problem is that the facts you give are not the facts of history. And you don't seem to know the other side. You're giving a very biased perspective. He says no television preacher has ever read the Bible.

Neither has any evangelical politician neither has the Pope. Neither have I and neither have you at best. We've all read a bad translation a translation of translations of translations of hand-copied copies of copies of copies of copies.

And on and on hundreds of times there is a gross misunderstanding of barter here is a man who does not understand the difference between translation and transmission. Because there are many men other than myself who have read the Bible.

Read the Bible in Greek. Read the Bible in Hebrew. Preach from the Bible in Greek. Pete preach from the Bible in Hebrew. And we can examine the critical texts. The Biblia Hebraica stuttgart tensia. We can examine the Nestle on 28th edition.

We can look at the UBS now fifth edition. We can look at textus receptus. If you want to. We have them all right there. I've got them right here on the screen. We'll be looking one the textual variants that you massacred in your conversation a little bit later on.

That is a clear indication that you do not understand the difference between translation and transmission. Evidently you don't believe that we can obtain the original readings. I would I would objure you sir listen to my debate with Bart Ehrman and listen to the questions I asked him.

And listen what I asked him to show us where he thinks we do not contain in any Greek manuscript the original readings in New Testament. And he gave us one example a conjectural inundation. One example.

If you'll really listen to Herman you'll discover that what he says is we're just tinkering with the text. We're just tinkering with it. We've we've gone as close as we can get. And for the vast majority the text of New Testament.

He has to admit we have the original readings. Even when there's a variation we'll have to admit yeah. One of those variants is is the original. Yeah. That's true. I'm sorry sir. I have. I have read Ehrman.

I have listened to Ehrman's classes. I have debated Ehrman. I have reviewed Ehrman's debates when he's debated other people on this program. I know more about Bart Ehrman than you will ever know mr. Eichmann.

I can vote. Excuse me. I can vote. And the reality is you don't know him. You don't know what he's saying. You don't understand what he's saying. And so for you to say no one has ever read the Bible is absurd.

It is absurd. You make the King James the standard. Really. I'm sorry you even claim to have studied textual criticism. But when I asked you who who did you study under whom. When where. You refuse to answer.

Maybe you can tell us in in a few minutes you know four o 'clock our time six o 'clock Eastern Standard Time. I'm not sure where you are. About 400 years passed between the writing of the first Christian manuscripts and their compilation in the New Testament.

That's true. But it's also irrelevant. How is canonization relevant to the accuracy of say manuscript p52 from John chapter 18 or a p75. The gospel manuscript p66. Gospel manuscript p46. Have you examined any of these.

We regularly talk about these manuscripts on this program. As our our regular listeners would be able to explain to you we show them on the screen. We talk about them. We know about these things. The first book still tests are written 1 ,000 years before that.

I would if it's the 400 that I disagree. I would. I would if it's it. But if you're saying the writing of the first Christian manuscripts then you know 1 ,500 years approximately would be would be good.

He says there were no printing presses until a thousand years later. Yep handwritten manuscripts both Old and New Testament. We discuss it all the time. He says these manuscripts were originally written talking about the New Testament in koine or common Greek and not all the amateur copyist spoke the language or even fully literate.

It's true by the way there were some professionals who were used in the period when Christianity was a religio illicita. But there were others who were not. We can tell by looking at which manuscript is which.

These are things that we study. These are things that we actually do know some copy the script without understanding the words. And koine was written was known as script yo continua or magiscule script meaning no space between words and no punctuation.

Well almost no punctuation. There actually was some. If you have ever done any reading of these manuscripts which of course you have not. Because you admitted you don't read Greek. So a sentence like we should go eat mom could be interpreted as we should go eat mom or we should go eat mom.

That demonstrates that once again you don't read Greek. Because unlike English Greek utilizes case case endings and verbal verbal endings and prefixes to not only indicate tense mode voice or and so forth but direct objects and things like that.

Greek is considerably clearer in its ability to carry data in a smaller number of words in English. That's just a reality that again you would know if you stay the language then we have this statement.

None of this mattered for centuries because Christians were certain God had guided the hand. Not only the original writers but also of those copies. Who are you talking about. Are you talking about again.

I can go back to origin and go back to tell you. I can go back to the earliest almost the earliest. Right. There's nothing in Ignatius. I don't think there's anything in in Clement or Justin. I'll take that back on Justin.

There might actually now that I think about it be something about. Yeah. There is in Justin discussion of a variation in in Justin Martyr we can go all the way back there and all the way through the history of the church I can document document for you in every single century the knowledge of the Christian people in regards to the means by which the the New Testament documents and the Old Testament documents were transmitted to us in handwritten format and the variations that exist therein.

But in the past hundred years or so. Yeah like Erasmus didn't talk about these things in 1516 in his annotations. In the past 100 years or so tens of thousands of manuscripts the New Testament have been discovered.

It's actually been taking place ever since the time that Erasmus collated the first printed edition. It's been taking place anyway dating back centuries. Well yeah vast majority from after 1000. But especially the discovery of the papyri in the 1930s biggest development that has taken place.

But of course Sinaiticus Vaticanus Alexandrinus the the unsealed text in the last century. Very important as well. And what biblical scholars now know is that later versions of the book differ significantly from earlier ones.

In fact even copies from the same time periods different from each other. What do you mean by significantly mr. Eichenwald. The reality is that if you apply the same rules of hermeneutics and exegesis.

And again listen to my debate with airmen if you don't believe me I asked him these things. You apply the same rules of hermeneutics and exegesis to what is called the Byzantine manuscript tradition which was what underlies the King James which is the majority text.

You apply the same rules of interpretation exegesis to that as to the most eclectic modern text that we have that goes back to the earliest manuscripts. And you will not come up with a different teaching.

You will not come up with a different theology. You will not debate that more than once. Date again. Quote. There are more variations among our manuscripts in their words in the testaments. Is Dr. Bart Deerman a groundbreaking biblical scholar and professor at the University of North Carolina who has written many books on the New Testament.

Yeah problem is even ermine will admit that taking that sentence by itself is to misunderstand what he's saying now. I fault him for letting people do that. Do you know how many words are on the New Testament.

Mr. Eichenwald. 130 130 thousand 162 in the Nestle all in 27th edition. In the coin a Greek. Approximately 400 ,000 textual variants. So there are more variants than there are words. 99 of them cannot be translated out of Greek.

99 of them. So in reality sir serious scholars will tell you they're about 1 ,500 to 2 ,000 meaningful textual variants that could be viable. That is they could be original and they actually impact the translation of the language into another language such as into English or German or anything else.

1 ,500 to 2 ,000. That's a whole lot less than 138 thousand 162. So that is a misleading statement. And you did not qualify it because sir you don't know what needs to be qualified. That's the problem.

Did you interview anyone who could give you another perspective. Did you even think about it sir. Why not. Why not. That's what. That's what believing Christians who read this kind of stuff and consider this to be an attack upon their faith would like to know why the unfairness.

Why the bias. Why the bigotry. That's what we want to know. Is that is that not a fair question. I've written a book told you about before whatever Christian needs to know about the Quran. How many pages is this.

Just over 300 pages. A small book. Lots of endnotes. Lots of references to the Hadith. References the Arabic. I've learned enough Arabic to at least work with the text. And certainly no expert. But since I've studied Hebrew it helped a lot.

If a Muslim asks me why are you so unfair I'm gonna give an answer. They've never said that. Not a one of those reds has said you were unfair. If I can be fair to the Muslims. My question to you is why can't you be fair to the Christians.

Just a question. Just a question. Then you started talking about some of the textual variance and you did admit most these discrepancies are little more than the handwritten equivalent of a typo. But that error was then include included by future scribes again that's a simplified view.

There were also minor changes made by literate scribes centuries after manuscripts are written because of what they decide were flaws in the accounts they are recopying. Possibly. And you know how we know that sir is because we can actually discern what the original is.

Because we couldn't we wouldn't know that would we. Yeah. Then you give an example. Here's the example. And this is this is where most Christians do not have the resources that the resources are available to all of us but do not have the resources to be able to check out what you're saying.

For example an early version of Luke 316 the New Testament said notice it said an early version singular. I caught that most people wouldn't an early version Luke 316 the New Testament said. John answered saying to all of them.

The problem was not that no one had asked John. The problem was that no one had asked John anything. So a fifth century scribe fixed that by changing the words to John knowing what they were thinking said.

Today most modern English Bibles have returned to the correct yet confusing John answered others such as the New Life Version Bible use other words. That paper over the inconsistency. Now I've never even heard the New Life Version Bible sounds like a paraphrase.

To me paraphrases should not even be included in this because they're not translations. Most people would look at that and go. Well that's a little troubling because most people can't look to what we have on the screen right now.

And that is accordance Bible software. My my chosen version here and unfortunately that's a little bit small but this is my I'll I'll take the instant details off here and we'll blow this this side up a little bit right here right here is this is any 27 apparatus.

I should change that to any 28. Shouldn't I. Well I've got any 27 here which doesn't have any changes in the Gospels. Anyways. Um here is the variant he's talking about. You can see the variant that's marked here in the Greek text.

Right here right up against up a credit top Lego and passing hot. Yet you want ace. And here's the one manuscript one single manuscript that reads differently. And what is it Codex D. Now what is Codex D.

Well in the conference that we did prior to my debate with Bart Ehrman in Florida which have we put that up. The actual conference is up. Oh good. Which is available on YouTube. I do any what now you're wondering about.

Now you're second-guessing yourself. Aren't you. No that's not Clementine. Any other that's rich. We certainly recorded it. Yeah you know that's a good question. You have to look into it because I thought those are pretty good presentations.

Yeah. Well we'll have to look into it because I didn't like it. I think American vision has it. So we'd like to. I'd like to ask if we would have at least the presentation that I made because I went through Bart Ehrman's favorite textual variants and we talked about these things.

And one of the main things I talked about was this exact manuscript Codex Bessie. Canterbury Jensis Codex Bessie is the New Living translation and look New Living Bible of the ancient church. It's not really meant to be a manuscript of the New Testament.

The author was paraphrasing for example in the book of Acts when Peter is released from prison the author tells us that he descended as I recall 29 steps to the street. The point being that scholars have recognized when Codex D is by itself without any other support from what's called the Western text from the Latin Vulgate or things like that it's not.

It doesn't have any possibility of being original and neither does this. So you picked a particularly bad example. There's really no question about what is found in Luke. Because if you only have Codex D it's it can't be original.

It just goes off on its own far far too often. So where'd you get that example. Have you read any books on Codex D on. It's on its textual proclivities. Good question. Lots of interesting pictures in here.

The author clearly does not like conservative evangelicals. Then he starts talking about the Percocet adultery and I you know when I I've traveled literally all over the world when I did my two-part presentation in South Africa on New Testament Reliability just a few weeks ago literally in October one of the things I said to the audience was folks one of the reasons I'm talking to you about things such as the longer ending of Mark John 753 through 811 the Percocet adultery.

The reason I'm talking about these things is unbelievers use these to bludgeon us over the head. We need to talk about this stuff in this context now for our young people be encountering out there in the context of unbelief.

And I cannot think of a better example than this here it is now is the Percocet adultery some major issue some something where well you know it's like it's like how Dan Wallace describes it. He describes it as his favorite story that's not in the Bible.

And in fact what's interesting is I was I still have in my Evernote thing for the dividing line and I don't think I got around to it. There was a an attack against me on the Puritan board because I raised this very story on the Janet Mefford show when I filled in for her on the nationwide program a year ago this Pat was it this past summer a year ago this past summer I can't remember now.

Anyways when I filled in for it was a year ago this past summer when I filled in for Janet Mefford during one of the hours I spent one of the entire sections the program specifically talking about the Percocet adultery and I said in that that I would never preach from this as the Word of God because it is not original it.

In fact I think one of the primary reasons to to demonstrate that the Percocet adultery is not original is because in some manuscripts specifically in family one it is found in Luke after Luke 21 38 and in family 13 it's found after Luke 24 53.

When you have a Percocet that is found in multiple books in different places that is clearly a percocet fine trying to find a place to land. It was a very favorite story but it was not original with John and so I would not preach from it.

And man there were people are angry with me about that. But I tell all my audiences about John 753 John 5 for the longer ending of Mark 1st John 5 7. We address all of these things. They are well known and there are strong solid answers for anyone who will use these things.

So he says unfortunately John didn't write it. Scribes made up sometime the Middle Ages. Again. I'm sorry Mr. Eichenwald use your resources do some research. It is. It is an early edition. It's not Middle Ages.

It's I'm sorry but it's not a Middle Age thing. It hasn't earlier. It's it's fifth century. It's not the Middle Ages. I guess you could redefine Middle Ages to push it back to the fifth century if you wanted to.

I suppose it does not appear in any of the other three Gospels. Irrelevant. Or in any of the early Greek versions of John. Well earliest. Yes it's not super late. But the evidence is clear that it is.

It is not original with John. I agree but you didn't even get that quite right. Unfortunately then we have the longer ending of Mark but once again the verses came from a creative scribe long after the Gospel Mark was written.

In fact the earliest version of Mark stop at 16 a. You're overstating your case on this. Now again I agree that Mark originally ended at Mark 16 a but the evidence for the long-running of Mark is significantly better than for the Percocet adultery.

And it's much earlier much earlier. I think you're an ass makes reference to it. So you're talking into the second century. So you didn't get that one quite right either. But again then you talked about first John 5 1 1st John 5 7 which isn't even in the category of these.

It is a much later. I mean it's not found any Greek manuscript for the 14th century. A word similar to it are found in Latin but it came plainly came in from the Latin. You need to do some reading on Erasmus and the origination of the Texas Receptus and things like that get a little more accurate.

And what you're stating. You talked about Luke 22 20 which we've talked about in regards to Bart Ehrman Luke 24 51. These first appeared in manuscripts used by the translators who create the King James Bible but are not in the Greek copies from hundreds of years earlier.

The King James translators did not use manuscripts. They use printed editions. They use the five editions of Erasmus. They use the 1551 Stephanus and the 1598 Beza. I wrote a book on this. You might find interesting but since it was written by an evangelical conservative evidently that doesn't really count with you.

Then translation transubstantiation don't have any earthy idea what in the world that means. Then comes the problem of accurate translation. Well by the way you you didn't really come to a conclusion.

You didn't seem to wrestle with the idea that we continue to have all the original readings. You didn't wrestle with the tenacity of the text. You didn't wrestle with the number of manuscripts that we have the earlier manuscripts that we have.

All you did was throw out textual variants. And you didn't come to any conclusions. You didn't even come to conclusions that Erman comes to. You didn't talk about any of his favorite ones. Why do you think that just simply throwing those things out means something.

What were you trying to communicate. There are those of us who believe in biblical inerrancy that know far more about textual criticism than you know. We know about every single reference you gave and many more that you are not aware of.