Dr. Drew Show, Jordan Cooper on the ESV, A Bit More Anjem Choudary

Well, greetings, welcome. It's an unusual day to do the dividing line. It's a Monday, but we've completely changed the schedule for this week.

We'll start off with that. I suppose I announced over the weekend that I'm going back into the lion's den on Tuesday afternoon.

4 .30 we will be recording another edition of the

Dr. Drew show on CNN's HLN network. When they called, the first thought that crossed my mind was, nah.

But then I had written and had said, if I have enough lead time, if someone will tell me ahead of time,

I can get over there. I've sort of had a rule for a long, long time.

I remember once Norman Geisser was going to be on a local radio program.

And we were going to, you know, people contacted me.

Hey, you should call in. You should call in. And look,

I've been on radio many, many times. I've sat here many, many times. When you call in here and I have the phones up,

I don't have the phones up today for some reason. I may get to them later on. If I do, I'll bring the phones up. But I have control.

I can mute you. I can put you on hold. I can dump you. I know how it works.

So I sort of have a rule. Why go into a battle with your right arm cut off?

Just don't even bother. Well, Skype is a wonderful thing, and it allows us to do some great things.

We've had some guests on the program via Skype and Google Hangouts and stuff like that. It's wonderful, but you're really at a disadvantage.

And when I was on two weeks ago, that was a real disadvantage. Because even as I've watched the video, you know, recorded it, watched it,

I couldn't hear what was being said back to me. If you've been on Skype, you know that you might get half a word.

What was that? And you have to stop. And it's just not an ideal situation to be in at all.

And so I thought, well, if it's on Skype again, there's no reason to do it.

Now, the reason they were calling is I had sent the link to the dividing line where I responded to the after video, the hour long program to the producer and said, please share it with the crew.

And so that's that's what got this going. And so I threw him a curve and said, well, how about if I'm in studio?

And well, we really don't have a budget for that kind of thing. I wasn't asking for any money. I'll get over there myself.

I'll take care of myself. Oh, well, let me ask and call back,

I don't know, 10, 15 minutes later said, sure, that that'd be fine. That'd be fine. I'll send you the details as to where to go, when to be there, stuff like that.

And so that's when I told everybody about that. And I appreciate everybody that made it possible for us to not have to be borrowing from the

South Africa trip to pay for this and so on and so forth. So, you know,

I've seen all sorts of comments on Twitter and Facebook and stuff. I do not expect to be treated fairly.

I do not expect to be given a great deal of time. I think just simply by being there,

I'll get more time than I got last time. I know it's a lot harder to shut somebody down who is sitting there.

Now, I won't be up with the with the cool folks. I'll be sitting where the on the front row where the transgender guy was or gal or whatever.

I don't know. Last time around. And but I'll be there.

And at the very least, I figure I'm going to have probably twice as much time as I did before because of that.

Won't be as easy to when I when I'll be able to hear what people are saying to me and respond to them in a more efficient manner.

And, you know, look, I don't just don't think the time's quite quite there yet where we just need to retreat into our

Christian ghettos. When you have the chance. I would not suggest this for the vast majority of Christians, but it's not my first time into a situation like this.

I've been in situations similar to this where I know I'm in the minority. I know

I'm going to be shouted down. The reality is I sort of thrive in situations like that.

I can respond to people. I can I can handle things like that a little bit better than your normal Christian can.

So why not take the opportunity when it's offered? So it also gives me the opportunity to invite them to be on this program.

There has been some mention of showing some clips from that dividing line.

Mm hmm. That's a that's a transparent aha.

Mm hmm. But the very least, at least if there are some serious minded people in the audience and if there aren't, why are we bothering at all?

They might want to go see that for themselves, get to listen to the whole thing, might get some new listeners that way.

Who knows? Why not take the opportunity? So getting up real early in the morning and heading for for for it's in town.

I don't like everybody keeps saying it's in Atlanta because I guess they figure everything with CNN is in Atlanta. But no, it's in it's in Southern California.

And so, you know, it's a quick hop over and I'll be staying there over over the evening and coming back on Wednesday.

And teaching Wednesday night was a long day. I'm running into a really, really, really, really busy period here with a lot of traveling.

I'm going to be speaking in Tucson this coming Sunday in Flagstaff the Sunday after that.

Salt Lake City at the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Salt Lake City the weekend after that.

And Denver the weekend after that. So four weeks in a row away from my church.

That's really weird. And I'm missing Wednesday nights, too, because I'm teaching right now at Phoenix Seminary.

So I figure I'll be fired by the time I get back. And then

I'm in church one week and then the next week I'm speaking in Boulder. And the next two weeks

I'm preaching at our church. So there I've got one week where I'm not preaching over the next seven,

I think, or eight. I don't know. I've lost track. I've lost track. So that also means, by the way, that the dividing line schedule is going to be exceptionally hit and miss.

We're going to try to maybe do some Google Hangout stuff. But, you know, when you're traveling, you can't guarantee the quality of your connection and stuff like that.

So we'll just see. We'll just see. It's going to be this summer. Summer finally got here in Phoenix, by the way.

No temperature starting tomorrow below 110 for the high. And so long to the to the 70s.

Yeah. And Rich is the... See, the key to harmony in a ministry is

Rich's office is on that side. That side of our offices and mine's on this side of the offices.

And literally we could not be any farther apart than we are. And so, yeah, his

AC croaked. And so, yeah, it's hot.

This morning's ride, I did a 67 mile this morning and it was it was toasty.

I was getting pretty toasty by the time I got back. Haven't really acclimated to the heat yet. And it finally it finally got here.

But no complaints. It took its time getting here to be to be certain. So anyways, for everybody who's been going on,

I'm really concerned about that. You know, they may not be fair to you. I know. I know. I'm I'm well aware of it.

Fully expecting it. In fact, I'll be off my game if if they're not coming after me with fork and tongue.

Now, one thing, though, I did discover today is other than Dr.

Drew and the Mike Cath Cart, whatever the name is, who really wasn't overly active in the last one.

The ladies are going to be completely different. For some reason, the lady who decided that I'm insane and the lady who decided that I'm unloving and and mean and terrible and all the rest of that stuff, they're they're not going to be on for some reason.

I don't I don't know why that is. It's strange. But anyway, so I don't know what to expect, honestly, in in that context.

But we'll see. We'll see. I want to. I'll tell you right now, I want to get into what what it means to be loving as a

Christian, to be able to explain to folks that if you want to see what loving looks like from a

Christian perspective, you don't look at Bruce Jenner, you look at the cross and that to be loving towards someone is not to encourage them in self -destruction.

You know, hope to get to some of those things, but we'll see. We'll see. I mean, I don't

I don't have any control over that. I've got to go with with what I'm asked and try to do the best with that that I possibly can.

And so there you go. So I know, I know, I know what's coming. And we'll just, you know, just pray that I'll be ready and be able to give a give a good testimony.

And who knows where that'll lead? I don't know. We'll see. So pray for that.

And that's also why we're on on Monday. And then the plan right now, anyways, and of course, this could change if there is any interruption in travel.

I get back on Wednesday. And I teach Wednesday night.

So right now, my thinking is I I land here in Phoenix, drive straight here and we just do an hour program.

It may start at one forty seven or whatever, but we just get the second program the weekend coming straight back.

And then I continue on to home, get changed stuff, head off to teach for four hours at Phoenix Seminary.

So that's sort of the plan right now. If there's any interruptions and travel and stuff that could go right out the window and we'll see.

If I absolutely had to go straight from the airport to teach, I could pull it off. So we'll we'll see how that works.

So that's that's that. Pray for that opportunity. I had a bunch of people ask me to comment.

On. A article that was posted on Pathos, which is normally not my favorite place to go, but no, no, no, no, not yet.

What are you doing? No, no, no. I'm just looking for names here. Jordan Cooper's article, we shouldn't exclusively use the

ESV, which was posted two days ago, the 13th.

And. You know, at first I was like, nah, not really interested because we've in fact, we had him on briefly, didn't we?

Didn't he call in once we talked about atonement once and, you know, but there were a number of people.

And it's it's an issue related to the subject of textual criticism and modern translations.

And there there remains not only a lot of confusion on that subject, but there's a lot of tradition there, too.

And Jordan throws some of that in here. So. I thought I'd comment on it before we finish up.

We finish up with. Our last few moments of the debate between Sam Shamoon and Jim Chowdhury.

Basically, what Jordan Cooper was talking about is in regards to the history of the

ESV. He says the ESV is largely a revision of the earlier RSV.

And basically what he's saying is we shouldn't just use this. He's got some criticisms of the ESV. Well. ESV has undoubtedly.

Demonstrated that marketing works. But. I. I certainly believe we have all of the

English translations that we need. There is absolutely no need for any further

English translations. And 90 percent of what we have could definitely be retired without causing any problems.

The reason that we have the number of English translations we have is simply business.

It's business and it's money. Basically, the large

Christian publishing firms all now have their own English translation.

Zondervan's got the NIV and Word. It's not

Word. Word got bought by Thomas Nelson. Has the New King James. And Crossway has the

ESV. And Holman has the Holman Christian Study Bible. Holman Christian translation.

And so the point was that it came a point in time where if you want to put out a study

Bible. You didn't want to have to pay royalties to someone else because that would cut your margin of profit on each of those study

Bibles. And so. Let's be honest. The origin of the

ESV comes from business. And almost all the modern translations.

That's the case. I don't think it was so much so back like NASB in the sense of publishing houses and things like that.

Lockman's not some big publisher of books and stuff like that. Anyway, that's where they came from.

And we don't need any more NLTs, which I didn't even consider to be a

T in the first place. We don't need any more, you know, super simplified first grade level translations of the

New Testament. We've got a glut of them and most of them are not really worth the paper they're printed on the first place.

So ESV came along and man, I'll tell you, Crossway knew how to market the thing.

I mean, they they Lockman could have learned something from them because, you know, the

ESV isn't all that different from the NASB. I've frequently called it the

NASB without semicolons. And but but Lockman held way too tight to the

NASB. They held way too closely to it and kept it too tightly licensed and stuff like that.

And the ESV guys come along and man, they're hand them out on college campuses and at Bible colleges.

And, you know, they they locked John Piper in a room and so he sang his praises and and they just did it right.

And it has just exploded and taken over the market. I suppose that's what

Jordan Cooper is talking about here is the the nigh unto ubiquitous nature.

That's sort of funny with being a Lutheran ubiquity. Anyway, a little pun there that only a few people will get anyways.

But it has taken over and it has just beaten the

NIV to death. Of course, the NIV ends up being purchased by, you know, big secular corporation that didn't know how to handle it and has blundered along those lines, too.

So it's really become the big boy out there. There's no question about it.

So he gives some of the background, says the ESV is largely a revision of the earlier RSV. Generally, conservative denominations rejected the use of the

RSV due to its translation of the Hebrew term Alma and Isaiah 7 as young woman rather than virgin.

Yeah, I I remember when I was a kid, you know, my dad was was death on the

RSV. I mean, not only what he doesn't mention here is the role it was associated with World Council of Churches, which to any conservative denomination was, you know,

Gail Rippling or ask. OK, as far as as you can't have anything associated with that liberal denomination, that liberal group.

And and it was an extremely liberal ecumenical group and things like that. So, yeah, there there and there was the translation of Alma as young woman and things like that.

Such thus translations such as the second Catholic edition RSV and ESV serve as conservative revisions of the

RSV. Unfortunately, however, some of the problems and translations of the RSV then carry over to the ESV.

One example is Philippians 2, 6, which is translated was in the form of God rather than the Greek present tense being in the form of God.

You know, it's funny that the Lutheran Lutheran take on the Carmen Christie is pretty odd itself.

So I'm not really sure if this has something to do with that or not. I don't know. One might get the idea of reading the text of Jesus only was in the form of God and gave up his deity.

Some of the revisions are also quite odd, such as and here's here's what I want to talk about.

One of the things I want to talk about, such as reference to Jesus rescuing the Israelites from Egypt in Jude five.

This particular phrasing has very limited textual basis in the manuscript tradition here and in several other places. I actually prefer the rendering of the original

RSV. Now, I just wanted to mention in in passing that.

The ESV actually anticipated. The 28th edition of the

Nestle All in Greek text this point. Some of you know that the 28th edition came out, was it last year or the year before?

I lose track of which year it was, but relatively recently. And I've told folks, I don't even know if you need to bother investing in the 28th edition.

That's the island because there weren't that many changes. And what's happening is it's being conformed to another major project that's going on.

And so the only changes that they made were in like the pastoral pistols, Jude and the

Catholic epistles. And so they're just there isn't just that that much in the 28th edition.

And the 29th is probably coming out fairly quickly because of the ongoing work and other things.

But the one big change was in Jude five.

And of course, if you're using your phone or something, you have to put in Jude one five, which is weird. But anyway, the

ESV anticipated the change. It was going to be made in the 28th edition.

So now they're the only ones pretty much matching up with the 28th edition where they do have in their reading, in their main text.

And I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus who saved a people out of the land of Egypt afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

And Jordan Cooper says, well, you know, it's a minority reading. Well, he's he's going to go on and basically start promoting this ecclesiastical text stuff again, which we've addressed many, many times.

And in fact, I should I should try to remember when we and I'll never remember to do this because I never remember to do these things once I get to blogging the show for some reason.

But I should link back to the disputatio that I did with Doug Wilson, many, many, many, many, many 1990s.

I don't remember what it was. I think it was. Ninety six, 97, 98, somewhere around in there.

Douglas Wilson used to have a publication, I think it was called Antithesis. And he had a.

A feature called Disputatio. And it was a pretty interesting way of doing things.

You'd have a debate, a dispute. And I don't remember it was almost it wasn't quite

Twitter like. In other words. Each participant had,

I think, 150 words, not 140 characters, a lot more, believe me.

I think you had 150 words. And you would make a statement and then

Doug Wilson make a statement and you'd make a statement. I don't remember how many rounds there were. Eight, ten, something like that.

It's on the blog. It's one of the it's one of the what do we call it? Legacy, vintage, vintage.

It's one of the vintage articles. They gave us permission a few years ago. Well, and I could be wrong about that may not be one of the vintage articles they gave us permission to.

If you if you just put in disputatio in the search engine, it will it will pull it up.

And. Have you noticed I'm using a different way of listening to stuff now. I've got just one little flesh colored, almost almost

CIA agent like thing in my ear rather than the two rather than these things, which

I've had for years and years and years. But I stick it behind my back and sometimes it slides down and causes problems.

Anyways, we're not supposed to tell things like that because we're so professional around here. And so anyways, so we did this disputatio because Doug Wilson back then, he probably still is.

I haven't seen him say much about it, but Doug Wilson was pushing the ecclesiastical text perspective.

What's the ecclesiastical text perspective? Well, it's the idea that the

Byzantine text represented by the textus receptus has been accepted by the church.

Now, the irony here is that that that phrase textus receptus came from an advertisement.

The Elsevier brothers in 1633 and advertisements back then used to be in Latin. And so they they had come come up with their own

Greek text based upon Erasmus and and Stephanos and and Beza.

And they're trying to sell it. And so in the advertisement, they use the phrase textus receptus, the received text.

This is an advertisement for crying out loud. There was no council that said this is the received text.

It was it happened to be the default text at the time because it's what they had. It was not like someone sat down and said,

OK, we're going to select the Byzantine platform over against the other.

They didn't know what the Byzantine platform or the Alexandrian platform was. Erasmus had half a dozen manuscripts.

He didn't even trust the best one that he had. You know, it just it's so anachronistic.

And yet you can you can make it sound so good. You know, well, this was the text reformers, not purposefully.

It wasn't it was by default, but not by not by choice. And unfortunately, sometimes even reform folks prove themselves to be a little bit less than discerning on certain issues.

There are certain things that reform folks can get into that are just sort of on the margins, just a little bit out there.

This is one of them. There's another one I could mention that would get me in a lot of trouble. But. And so Doug Wilson was presenting the ecclesiastical text, the church has accepted this text and these these modern eclectic texts, these modern textual critics, you know, it's it's it's changing all the time.

We need we need to have an unchanging standard. Well, what they don't seem to realize is there is no one ecclesiastical text.

There is no one textus receptus. There are five editions of Erasmus. One is Stefano's, one of the actually it's a more one, but one popular one,

Stefano's, one of Beza. They all differed from one another. And there are simply readings in the textus receptus that are absolutely indefensible.

They are indefensible. And yet there are people that will overlook that and go, but it's better to have that that unchanging standards.

So I, I refer people to and Credenda .org book and channel just mentioned it's still it's still listed in their archives and we got permission.

So it's on our site as well to be able to post that particular. It's in Twitter.

I am looking at Twitter. I don't see you on Twitter.

You're not in my feed. I don't know why. I don't know why. I mean, I follow you, but I don't know why it's not there.

So you can you can pick it up in a number of different places. And the reality is,

I think. I don't even think it was a close debate, even if you only had a hundred.

Once we got into specific texts, specifically to 22, the wheels fell out from under Doug Wilson's position, in my opinion.

As long as you don't get specific, as long as you stay in generalities. Oh, it's it's easy to make that position sound good.

There it is. Now I see it says three seconds ago. But once you once you if you have a textual theory that cannot actually give you a text, that's not a good textual theory.

And it's, you know, every time years and years ago, I took on Theodore Liedis on this subject, who has since passed away in a car accident.

Theodore Liedis was a big, plesiastical text guy. And there was this big, huge exchange we did back in the days of BBSs.

And it wasn't even wasn't even on, quote unquote, Internet. And once you get into actually having to come up with a text and answer questions about specific verses, that's where what sounds like real nice theory just falls apart because you can't do it.

It doesn't allow you to actually practice textual criticism. And I guess you just have to say, well, whatever

Erasmus did, whatever that Roman Catholic priest who wrote in defense of transpantiation did, we're good with it.

OK, whatever. That's going to come out a little bit later on. But going back to Jude five.

What you have here would be a very clear reference to the deity of Christ.

I mean, if it's Jesus who is taking a people out of of Israel, out of Egypt, I'm sorry.

Well, we know who did that. We know that was God that did that. If that's Jesus doing that.

Wow. Now that's the reading. The term Jesus is found in Alexandrinus, in Vaticanus, 3381, 2344, a few others.

And in some manuscripts of the Vulgate, that's the textual data on that particular.

That's not a lot of sources, but that's very early sources. There's there's a major textual variant here.

And I would never I would never use Jude five as a primary evidence of the deity of Christ because it is a textual variant.

It has to be put into that category where you note the variant and note, therefore, that its testimony has to be taken in light of the fact that there's a variation there.

So. You keep that in mind, but I say kudos to the

ESV for anticipating. What was coming in an essay on 28th and just simply on the basis of textual critical principles.

It's it's hard to argue against the reading, given its exceptionally primitive foundation to be wonderful if we had some.

We do have one papyri, P72, and it has a very interesting reading.

It's Hati Theos Christos. The God, Christ, the

Christ of God, if it was the you possibly. That's a hotbox reading.

That's that's the only manuscript that has that reading. So it's really hard to understand where P72 is.

It'd be nice if we could if we come up with some more papyri of Jude. Jude, because it did have to fight for canonical inclusion, has a very different textual history behind it, similar to Revelation along those lines.

But it is it's a fascinating reading. And of course, the ESV is going to have a textual note somewhere down at the bottom someplace.

It's going to discuss that particular issue. At least it should have that particular thing.

I'm looking here and I don't I don't see a textual note in my electronic version, but and I don't have an

English or ESV in here as far as a paper version. So but the information is is is there.

So I happen to think that that the reading Jesus there has some very strong support, but that's where it's going to we're going to go to that here in just a moment.

I also wonder sometimes whether the ESV should even exist, he says, going back to Jordan Cooper. In many ways, the

ESV is trying to replicate the same translation, textual ideology of the NESB. I'd agree. Though originally a revision of the

ASV rather than the RSV, the NESB is in many places identical to ESV, like I said, without semicolons.

Both were put together by conservative biblical scholars to render an accurate formal equivalence translation of the earliest manuscripts.

Quite true. The updated NESB of 1995 basically does the same thing as the ESV. So what need was there for the

ESV in the first place? Well, he knows what that is. Unfortunately, the reason for so many translations often has less to do with the need for the church to have new translations and more with the profit gained by companies owing the copyright to various translations.

Again, it was pure business. It was don't want to pay royalties to somebody else.

I don't think anyone would really argue that. I don't think anyone's going, oh, the church is in so much need of a new

English translation. No, I don't think that was anyone's argument at the time. In places where the

ESV differs from the NESB and the RSV, I generally prefer the original RSV rendering. However, the liberal leanings of the

RSV in a few minor places are problematic because that this is weird. This is where I just went, eh, what? Because of that, my preferred formal equivalence translation from the critical text is the second

Catholic edition RSV. Go figure. Lutherans, they're just mystery, mystery all over the place is this.

Why is Lutheran? It's a mystery. You know, it's it's just that's the way it is. This is a slightly revised version of the

RSV, which utilizes modern language and fixes the translation of both Alma and Monogonace.

I don't know what the second Catholic edition RSV does with Monogonace, assuming it's unique or something. Finally, this is where I think a lot of people were wondering and asking me to comment on this.

Finally, I wonder whether the critical text should even be the basis upon which our Bible translation should be built.

Yes, these editions do try and incorporate the most ancient available text, but those ancient texts are only from one small region of the world,

Egypt. Well, this is a common misunderstanding amongst people because we talk about the

Alexandrian text. And so the assumption that people make is, well, that's the text that exists in that one particular area.

The problem is the reason that Egypt gives us so many of the earliest manuscripts is because of, of course, its climate and the fact that a moist climate is going to destroy papyri, especially.

Whereas the dry desert climate of the biblical lands or Egypt itself, very perfect for maintaining even papyri for a long, long time.

And so while there was a text type that was predominant in the

Egyptian area, not everything that's been found in Egypt is necessarily of that text type.

And the Alexandrian text is certainly represented outside of the

Egyptian area. Basically, scholars look at three primary textual families, and that is the

Alexandrian text type, the Western, which is generally represented by the Latin text, but also by, you know,

Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis and other manuscripts like that. And then the Byzantine manuscript tradition.

The majority of scholars in the field view the Byzantine manuscripts as secondary, secondary in the sense that they are not individual

Byzantine readings might be represented within the papyri, but the text type as a whole demonstrates a secondary nature because of the conflation either of readings found in the

Alexandrian or Western together. Or sometimes you'll have divisions within the Alexandrian manuscripts and the

Byzantine will have both of those. And if you if you have a growing text with conflating conflations represented in its readings, that has been taken by the majority of textual scholars as an indication of the secondary nature, the later nature of the

Byzantine textual platform. Now, of course, the majority of manuscripts are

Byzantine in nature. Why? Because that is the textual version, the textual family that had become firmly entrenched around what is modern day

Istanbul, ancient Constantinople, Byzantium. And especially after the

Islamic expansion between 632 and 732, you have

North Africa and the and the Holy Lands being taken over by Islam.

That's not overly positive for the production of biblical manuscripts. Greek is still being used and copied there in Constantinople, and Latin has become the primary language of of the

West, even starting as late as early as the end of the second century. And so, of course, history tells you why the majority text is in the

Byzantine. But the vast majority of scholars have recognized that that to take the

Byzantine and establish it as the standard. And there are, you know, Dr. Robinson at Southeastern, primary advocate of the primacy of the

Byzantine manuscript tradition. But that perspective has not persuaded the vast majority of folks because we recognize that the earliest manuscripts, the ones that have the fewest generations before the original and what we have in our extant copies are going to have more weight than just simply either counting noses in the majority manuscript tradition or establishing the

Byzantine manuscript tradition as being the the standard by which everything else needs to be needs to be analyzed.

And so when Cooper gets into this,

I think he's missing some of the more important elements of the background to this particular issue.

He says because of that, that is this idea that these texts are only from one small region of the world.

And I think it's missing what happened in history and things like that, because that our translations are largely limited to that particular textual tradition.

Well, now he's showing he hasn't done a lot of textual criticism because there if anyone has looked at the the development of the critical text over time, you will see that there has been a rebalancing.

Once the papyri are found, of course, the major unseals, Westcott and Horton stuff were way over influenced by Sinaiticus Vaticanus.

But there has been a move away from just slavishly reproducing those manuscripts.

And there are a number of readings that have been adopted in the more modern

UBS five and a twenty eight and twenty seven that are that go against the

Alexandrian readings. Are they is it still the majority of that? Yes, certainly. But not not the case.

Anyway, so it's not just the translation of the Alexandrian text, the

Byzantine is taken in consideration, the Western is taken into consideration. The issue is the weighting of these of these various translate of these various families.

This also means that as more many limit that particular text tradition rather than the broader range of biblical text in the

Roman Empire. I just I just disagree. I don't think it's correct. This also means that as more manuscripts are found, the text will continue to be revised and more and more new translations will be released.

There's no connection between the two. There's no connection between the two. Yes, the text will continue to be revised as it must of necessity be.

But that doesn't mean new and more and more new translations will be released. There might be revisions of continuing translations, but there's no logical connection between the two.

It's like, oh, we found new manuscripts come up with a new English translation. No, I don't even see where the connection there is.

This can be rather confusing for the average churchgoer with scripture memorization. OK, it also is somewhat odd that the text we use today is one that never existed in the past.

And it is an attempt to reconfigure an original autograph that we don't actually have. Someone's been doing some reading, but I don't

I'm sorry, Jordan. But I just I just don't get the feeling that you you actually do textual study on a regular basis.

I just there's there's you just don't speak as someone who does. OK, this can be rather confusing.

The average churchgoer with scripture memorization. Well, that's true. I suggest people that you find a particular translation, utilize that translation.

I don't know that I think there's there's lots of stuff to be talked about, about having a standard translation in a particular, you know, in the pew

Bible or read from the pulpit or there's all sorts of issues like that. But.

You don't determine the text based upon pragmatics like that. That's one of the problems I have with it, with the with the

TR folks. And then it is also somewhat odd that the text we use today is one that never existed in the past.

Now, I think what he means by that is that there is no one single manuscript.

That reads like the NA -27. And of course, there is or 28. And of course, there is no single manuscript that reads like the

Texas Receptus either. That's true. So what are you going to do? Say, well, we have to have a particular manuscript that we're going to.

We're going to make this one this one copyist. Again, it doesn't show an understanding of the multifacality of the transmission of the text.

The fact we have multiple lines of transmission. And I think that's why the position tends to spread, is because people don't understand the way that the

New Testament text actually has been preserved for us. As much as I and I'm never going to I'm never going to finish and Jim, if I don't hurry up.

As much as I reject the King James only IFB movement, there is a point to be made regarding the preservation of the text.

Oh, the Texas Receptus demonstrates a much broader textual tradition in most places, which was in use throughout the majority of the history of the church.

Jordan, if you're going to go this direction. The only way to go here is to go with a

Byzantine platform, a Byzantine priority argument. I'm sorry, there is no argument for the

TR that will survive even minimal cross -examination. It's not possible.

There are readings in the TR that have no manuscript basis at all, period.

Stop going back to the TR, people. Erasmus, yay

Erasmus. He had six manuscripts. OK, he made mistakes.

Stephanos and Beza did not fix his mistakes. And the TR will never, ever, ever, ever live up to its name.

And the TR that you people are holding in your hands, this one right here, the blue case bound

TR from the Trinitarian Bible Society, is a Greek text based upon an

English text. As you know, this is Scrivener's work. Scrivener went back to those seven printed texts the

King James translators used, saw where there was differences, came up with this text based upon what the decisions of the

King James translators were, and that's where this came from. There is no manuscript in the world that reads like this.

It's not there. OK, so this is not where you want to go. If you want to have a scholarly position, go get

Dr. Robinson and go read his stuff and make the case for Byzantine priority.

Now, it's going to come down to a fundamental presuppositional commitment.

I've tried to reason through it, and Dr. Robinson will tell you, I've contacted him,

I've talked to him, I've asked the tough questions, and it eventually comes down to a presuppositional commitment.

But that's the best that you can do. The Textus Receptus is a dead end, and it's impossible to defend against folks like Bart Ehrman.

You're putting yourself, and you're just, you know, how many toes do you have left after you shoot them all off?

I don't know. If we truly believe that God preserves his word, shouldn't this have some theological implications regarding the text that we use?

Yes, but Jordan, the way he preserved it is not in the TR. The way the

New Testament was preserved for us was in the multifocality of the text. Multiple authors at multiple times writing to multiple audiences resulting in multiple streams of transmission.

That's where the preservation takes place. That's what we can say to the Muslim and say it is absolutely impossible that the changes you think have been made in the text of the

New Testament could have been made in light of the manuscript tradition we have today. When Shirley MacLaine runs around saying that the

Bible used to have reincarnation in it, and they took it out of the Council of Constantinople, we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that's impossible.

Absolutely impossible. That's where the preservation is. Just because people don't understand that, they want to go for the, well, you know,

I'm tired of all these footnotes at the bottom of the page. Let's just glom onto this. It's indefensible. It's indefensible, folks.

You can't defend it. You can assert it, but you can't defend it. It sounds real good in the pew.

It sounds real good in the Christian ghetto. But if we get out of the ghetto and try to take it anyplace else, it's not going to work.

It's not going to work. Now, let's be honest about this tradition as well. As there is no one unified manuscript, this tradition is rather consistent.

Well, given the time frame in which it was made and the circumstances in which it was made, yeah, it's rather consistent.

That doesn't mean that it's representing the original. The idea of the preservation of the majority text is also— wait a minute.

Majority text? That's not the TR. The TR is not the majority text. There are numerous places in the

TR. 1 ,800 plus places, Jordan. The TR disagrees with the majority text.

Which one is it going to be? You've got to decide which argument you're going to make because you're making two different arguments that are contradictory to each other.

It's also consistent with the fact that the Old Testament citations in the New Testament are quotes from the versions in transmission in the first century.

You mean the Septuagint? The apostles themselves believed that the text had been preserved and didn't seek to go back to an original autograph that no one had.

I don't get it either. I don't know. Believe me, I'm sure we'll hear.

I'm sure we'll hear. There will be a podcast or something. Anyway, if you wanted me to comment on that, there is my comment on that.

I only have a few minutes left, but there's only like a minute and a half, and I've got to finish up Anjum here.

We've got to get to it. Anjum Chowdhury, Sam Shamoon.

A couple weeks ago now, listening to what we're documenting here. We're documenting the sadly consistent reality that in my experience, in the vast majority of Muslims with whom we're going to speak, and even more so amongst the

Salafi, Wahhabi Muslims of the world, there is a non -reflection.

Non -reflection. Not looking carefully at the viewpoints of others.

Just simply repeating stuff that they've heard. Especially stuff from Ahmadiyya. So we jump back, and like I said, we only have...

I think I can actually get this done if I stop talking. Here we go. I thought he was

God. Why does he need to be given power? And I can go on and on about the misconceptions that you have about Jesus.

Sounds to me like he's thumbing through his notes, going, um, where's some more of my anti -Deity of Christ stuff here?

How much time do I got left? Man, that clock's moving slow.

And about your understanding about what exactly is the Son of God. I know I have one and a half minutes. I'm monitoring the time now.

And you know... Stretch! You go on, look at Mark.

Jesus prays. He can't do miracles. Look at Mark! Jesus prays.

He can't do miracles. Um... Jesus prays.

Yes. Once again, we have to ask the question, do you really think the God -man would be an atheist?

Prayer is something that is a righteous duty, and from the

Bible's perspective, this is the Son of Man, the Son of God, who has been in perfect harmony and communion with the

Father for all of eternity. You think they're going to stop talking? I mean, it's so painfully obvious that Angem has no idea and is not concerned about the fact that he has no idea what

Christians actually believe. And I just... You know, when

I hear Christians misrepresenting Islam, I am bothered by that.

I don't want that to continue. I don't want Muslims to feel that we are showing them disrespect by misrepresenting what they believe.

It diminishes the Christian witness. But from the Salafi perspective, no big deal.

No big deal. I'll be honest with you. There are very few Muslims that I've met. A few.

I'm not going to name them, get them in trouble. But very few Muslims that I've met that really seem to have any kind of serious concern about our eternal destiny.

I mean, they want us to say the Shahada. That'll be great. But if you don't, hey, you know, the hellfire is yours.

And my perspective is, when I speak to a Muslim, I really want them to come to know who

Jesus is. There are a few exceptions. But they're in the minority.

And I have to wonder if, from their perspective, Christians that really, really want them to know are in the minority, too.

Now, of course, they tend to look at... They tend to identify a much broader spectrum of people as Christians than I would identify as Christians.

But anyway. He said he doesn't know the end of the world. He denies he's perfect.

He despairs of hope. This is called scattergun, okay? This is scattergun. This is where you throw...

You're not even giving references. You know, remember Zakir Hussain? You just throw all this stuff out knowing that the only people you're trying to convince here are your base.

It's sort of like politics right now. You know? I was just listening on the way into a radio program.

They played a section from Hillary Clinton. And right now, what you're doing, it's called solidifying your base.

You're trying to get the people who already like you to continue liking you, basically. And so it's just, bam!

Throw this out there. Throw that out there. Boom, boom, boom, boom. And it happens in debates, too.

Just throw a bunch of stuff out there. Don't even bother with the references. Let's not have any time to talk about why

Jesus said what he said about the day and the hour and how he can't possibly believe that Jesus ever said those words because he identifies himself as the sun.

And the sun's above the angels and above men. And they don't believe that. You just throw it all out there.

Just scattergun. And you're not trying to convert anybody. You're just trying to keep your base happy. All of these things.

How can you really be God? Think about it. Open your mind. Open your mind, yes.

And, Jim, listen to yourself. In Mark 5 30, Jesus doesn't know that a woman touched him. How does he not know?

What is your criteria for being a God? Maybe I won't get it done.

When you hear that, I don't want to run past this so quickly that it's not of any use to anybody.

When you hear someone, this is the fig tree, and Jesus didn't know somebody touched him, they've almost become what we might call urban legends amongst

Muslims. And it does seem to me that these individuals are willing to throw these arguments out without even looking them up.

Without even taking the time to go, okay, all right.

So in Mark and Matthew, you have the story of Jairus' daughter.

And Mark gives a much fuller... In fact, if you want to see a discussion of this, this was a part of my second presentation at G3 back in January.

And it's up on the website. So if you want to see a full discussion of Matthew telescoping and Mark giving the full thing.

But the point is, you really have to read the story of Jesus' healing of the woman with the issue of blood in such a horrifically, grossly, surface -level way to think that Jesus is going, hey, hey,

I'm in a crowd and somebody touched me. Who was it? I mean, really?

It is so painfully obvious to any serious interpreter that Jesus is purposely bringing this confession of faith out of this woman.

And yet, here you have, you know, because of the attitude of the

Salafi, just throw this out, throw this out, throw this out. It's disrespectful.

I would say it is not even consistent with the best insights that Islam has developed.

But it is, unfortunately, the most common thing you're going to encounter. And so be prepared for that one.

I mean, of all of the synoptic issues that you could be prepared to deal with, remember, that's the one that came up in my debate with Shabir Ali at Biola in 2006.

That was the very first one. And in God's providence, we had just covered that in Sunday school a few months earlier in that synoptic study, which we're going to finish someday.

It's only been 9 or 10 years. We're about to get to the crucifixion.

So, I mean, it can't be too much longer, one way or the other. We're going to get it done. And we will finish with Anjum Chowdhury.

Someday. Someday. But since I'm going to be leaving for a while, and this is going to be sitting here... Well, actually, it's in Dropbox, so I can actually probably do this wherever.

We will finish it. We will. So, prayers appreciated for the recording of the program tomorrow evening.

I don't know when it's going to air, but it'll be probably Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday. One of those three days.

We will obviously try to put on Twitter, Facebook, and the blog once we have the indication of when that's going to be.

So you'll be able to watch. And, Lord willing, I'll be able to give you a report on Wednesday, as soon as we fire up the program.

Sometime during the day, watch Twitter, watch Facebook. We'll be able to give you a little more information once I land, basically.