Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
The world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us. Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence.
Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now.
It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three three three four one. And now with today's topic here is James white.
And good morning, welcome to the dividing line the last dividing line of 2008 and If you are a young person just coming to realize that each year goes faster than the one before I Have some insight for you.
It only gets worse. Oh Yes, it's it's a member remember the roller coaster right as it tips over and starts going faster and faster. Yeah, that's yeah, that's what life is all about there. But anyway looking forward to 2009 programming note first of all.
Not gonna be here Thursday, but we will we will do a dividing line on Friday instead probably a morning one. So we'll just repeat this time on on Friday and Work it out that way so that you can get your your fill and we can continue Making progress to what we're making progress to an item number two.
Just mentioned in the blog last night and a lot of people are excited and a little bit amazed That you can still make it on the cruise basically at half the price it was before and Why well? I'm not a thousand percent certain, but I'd assume it's the economy the economy stupid.
I would imagine that The I was told anyway that just a few weeks ago. You could get high-end hotel rooms near Times Square in Manhattan before Christmas for 99 bucks. And if you know anything about what hotel rooms in New York normally cost that gives you an idea of what's going on.
They need warm bodies In inside the ship Basically is how it works, and that's great for you because we're talking $150 per person. Please note the little asterisk just at $2 .99 had a little asterisk.
There's always this tax thing you know. They always get you coming and going. You know but since it's only four day cruise It's not nearly as much as it would be for like a seven or something like that but it's half the price basically is what it was before and You know We'd love to have you come along and yeah, I know it's short notice, and yeah, you should have a passport.
We are going to Mexico. And they do require that now. So I realize that everybody can do it. But for some of you who were just going you know a little bit out of reach well now It's half the price it was before so Love to have you come along with us.
I certainly have a feeling I'm gonna be fired up just a little bit after the Bart Ehrman debate, and oh yeah so I'll be Gary's got to behold me back. You know and so well We're gonna have opportunities for the theology talks on the ship and stuff like that.
It's a great time, so just wanted to let you know about that and Then it is fascinating to me That over the past couple weeks. I have had two Christians. Both of which would probably be Well I imagine they're both Baptists of some stripe or another who have contacted me to Insist upon the fact that I am NOT a Christian.
I am a false teacher. I'm an unbeliever and the first I blogged about and that was Matt Thomas out in Hawaii and He's the fellow who writes just like Peter Ruckman does with the all caps and stuff like that and and He informed me that in fact I was just looking at what I posted back on the 18th.
If you want to hook up my webcam I can pray for you and ask the Lord and Savior of the King James Bible to deliver you. The Lord and Savior of the King James Bible now there was one. I had not seen before but there you go.
And it was interesting to me because Brian Miller had at the beginning of the program. We've been reviewing Been telling me that That's just a straw man these I've never met anybody the King James Bible alone equals word of God alone.
That's just a straw man. It's easily knocked down. Yeah. And as soon as he says that the recommendites come out of the closet to demonstrate that Brian needs to get out a little bit more so There you've got you've got Matt Thomas and we're hoping that maybe Matt will call in some time don't know when haven't heard back from him for a while here and Then Starting yesterday a fellow up in Canada Dave Hunt fan.
In fact, I put a video up. I haven't blogged it yet, but it's on my youtube page. Responding to some of the questions he asked but they a Dave Hunt fan called up nothing to haul up. He wrote in and has been writing rather regularly.
He doesn't seem to have a whole lot else to be doing he can really crank him out, but he wrote to inform me that I am NOT a Christian either and I pointed out, you know, not even Geisler and Hunt say that and he says well if you read hunt real carefully that is what he's saying and Of course he won't read my books and so he's just sending us, you know I'll start sort stuff that have we've refuted many many times were but he won't read the refutation.
So but the other thing is, you know, I said well feel free. Don't feel free to call. No, you need to drive me a freeway of getting on your program or call me at this number. So so you're not a Christian and if I'm gonna prove it to your audience you got to call me.
Okay, so this morning there was like three more email long emails from from. Again, you know not even up to Dave's level really of argumentation, but and I just wrote back. So sir, you know, here's where the web this is when the webcasts on there's a number.
If you want to call feel free. Otherwise, you really don't need to be writing me anymore. So anyway, it is interesting to run into all these folks who? Present that I did want to before we take a first call.
I did want to sort of expand a little bit on what I said at the end of the last program on this subject and I only had like well three and a half four minutes something along those lines I was talking about the Westminster Confession of Faith and the London Baptist Confession of Faith.
They both say the same thing at section 1 Chapter 1 section 8 the Old Testament Hebrew Which is the native language of the people of God of old and the New Testament Greek which at the time of the writing of?
It was most generally known to the nations. Being immediately inspired by God and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages are Therefore authentical so as in all controversies of religion the church is finally to appeal unto them.
I had been listening to a I'm sorry reading a thread on the Puritan board where once again this issue was raised. I have addressed that a couple of times before there has been some discussions the Kami Ohanian first John 5 7 on the Puritan board that in fact I participated in a number of years ago and One of the discussions basically was if you don't use the received text The TR then are you in essence violating your ordination vows in Disagreeing if you don't take an exception to the Westminster Confession of Faith 1 8.
Some of you may have read the Encounter I had with Doug Wilson on this subject a number of years ago in Credenda agenda we had this this crossfire type debate. This dispute Oshio as they call it where you have I think exactly 100 words.
And if you've ever sat down with a and typed out 100 words. It doesn't take long to type out 100 words, but that's what you have to do you have to go back forth back and forth. It's a it's a quick crossfire type thing in written format, and we did it on Doug's embracing of Theodore elitist his viewpoint of the ecclesiastical text.
Whatever exactly that is and you know as long as you don't get into specifics. You can you can really sound good talking about the text received by the church. And and used in all ages as long as you don't get into specifics if you just stay in the generalities.
That sounds great. But the wheels fell off of Doug Wilson's wagon when I got specific I Started asking him all right. How does this work and actually determine the text of New Testament? Because there are differences between the five editions of Erasmus Stephanus Beza the King James did not follow any one slavishly primarily followed the 1598 of Beza, but.
What makes that to receive text first of all that was one of the first questions is okay? If you call this to receive text who received it what counsel when? What did they examine. What data was available to them what manuscripts were available to them?
What did they know about ancient history? Were they right about the things I said I'd like to what counsel did this and no one can ever tell me that because there wasn't one. The closest you can get is the Roman Catholic Church enshrining the Latin Vulgate.
And that's not exactly what the Western Confession of Faith was talking about obviously they're talking about Greek and Hebrew not Latin and. So when it says which we have received. From who which one?
Show me the manuscripts to give me the data. How do you determine? The reading of say Luke 2 22 or Revelation 16 5. Or the Kami Ohanian for that matter. If the Kami Ohanian is in the TR. It's only in the TR because Erasmus put it there in his third edition.
It was in the first two or the first two not the TR. What Greek manuscripts of the preceding centuries represent to us the exact text the TR. You know you have to be able to be specific if it doesn't give you a text That you can actually identify then what good is it is?
It the the Scrivener's text that's not identical to the 1633 Elsevier brothers text which they themselves Identified as the text received by all. So which text are we talking about? We've got to be specific and they can't be that's that's the problem.
They can identify a general family. They said well the Byzantine manuscripts in general, but the Byzantine manuscripts disagree. Between what's the one another you have to engage in textual criticism amongst the Byzantine text as well so.
Which one is it? How do you identify it and and when did the church decide this and upon what that's what I want to know and so. When when someone says these things and when it says kept pure at all ages well.
When you look back through the history of the church I have a graph a graphic that I use in my presentations where I Demonstrate that in the first millennium. What would be called the majority text in Greek at that point is not the Byzantine textual platform and?
So if your theory Creates a text that changes from century to century and era to era. I would say that's a problem and That's why I would say that you need to be very much focused upon knowing what John wrote not what someone a thousand years after John thought John should have written and that's why this science and the pursuit of textual criticism is important and I think it's also why God has given us such a massive amount of information from which to draw in Discussing these particular issues, but it seemed to me the number of my reformed brethren.
And I have a feeling a number of them would not even call me reformed. That sort of seems to go hand in hand with some of this. But a number of my reformed brethren basically would say we need to be limited to the data that was available at the middle of the 16th century textually and I would say to you any citing anyone today That was writing before the discovery of the papyri.
They just don't have a foundation upon which to stand not to address the illogical issues obviously but to address the manuscript evidence as it's presented to us, and you've got to realize every single generation that has produced a collation of manuscripts had to deal with the textual evidence that was available to them at that time and As that has increased thanks be to God not decreased isn't that a wonderful thing.
But as as that has it has increased for some people. That's a problem rather than a blessing and I say it's blessing and I would submit that only those who are concerned about Intramural discussion won't see it.
That's a blessing. Certainly as I attempt to bring the reliability of the text of New Testament to the table in debating people like Bart Ehrman or debating my Muslim friends or Mormons or atheists wherever it might be.
I Find that to be a great blessing, and I don't honestly know how my friends who don't do that Could take their argumentation into the public square. Because they basically say well, you know what I really can't deal with you on this level.
I've got to deal with you only theologically. And we have to establish the concept of church and its authority and all these other things for I can even start talking about the text. But where did you get all the stuff about church in the first place?
Well? I got that from the text. Okay, well that that that could prove a little bit challenging now I Am 18 minutes to 45 minutes into the King James only radio program. They had the second edition of this just last Week ago tonight.
We go tonight. I think and Brian Miller wanted to answer some questions the beginning, but they had said they're gonna take phone calls and. So I listened and I heard him say things for example like Erasmus left the Roman Catholic Church wrong.
He didn't he died in fellowship the Roman Catholic Church. And so he was wrong about that and I heard him basically circle around a number of issues that I myself had raised. He was trying to respond to some of the things I had said on this program or at least as someone who reported to him that he said I said in this program, and I couldn't tell which and Finally he got to revelation 16 -5.
I had asked about revelation 16 -5 in the chat channel that the host Jason was monitoring and He didn't understand what the question was now. It's addressed in my book. It's could be much more clearly addressed in the next edition as it comes out.
But it was dressed in the book. But it is about the conjectural emendation made by Theodore Beza that appears in the 1598 edition of his text which was used By the King James translators and how all the English translations prior to the King James all the Greek versions all five Erasmus and Stephanus prior to Beza all had ha ha see us the Holy One at Revelation 16 -5 and Theodore Beza looked at ha see us and he said, you know, that looks a lot like a summon us and That would make it flow better who was and who is new is to come as ominous future form of I me in the participial form.
So he changed it without any evidence. There weren't any Greek manuscripts to substantiate. He just made the change because he felt it looked better. It flowed better and That's what's in the King James.
So all the arguments about Preservation and about God protecting his work. You have to throw them all out the window. If you're gonna accept the King James reading of Revelation 16 -5, you just have to chuck them all.
Because God did not preserve that until 1598 he let Christians go for a millennium and a half with the wrong reading of Revelation 16 -5 until the successor of John Calvin. Yes, the successor of John Calvin came up with the right reading without any Greek managers, and so I had asked that question and Brian didn't understand what the question was and it says Alice.
I'm just good while some others so I called I called the number and The guy who took the call wanted to put me on the air. But Jason and Brian said net ain't gonna do it took no phone calls at all would not let me on there even to explain What they themselves raised on the air Revelation 16 -5.
The fact the matter is they don't want to engage me because they know they cannot. Now both of them came into the chat channel into our chat channel. I have to make ministries chat channel after the program is over and So I was able to directly challenge them and I would encourage anyone to read the log of that of that discussion.
They had no answers. It all was circular well by faith. And I asked about Revelation 16 -5 and the answer was well if you examined every single Greek manuscript in the world. Might be in one of them someplace might be one of them someplace and You're just like that is the only defense you can offer is that I can't tell you where it is.
I mean doesn't that remind you of Hamza Abdul Malik in 1999 when I said you say these verses aren't in the Bible what manuscripts. Well, they're there name them. Well, I can't right now, but they're there the scholars say so what scholars name can't give you any names.
Utter Incomplete intellectual collapse total irrationality total circular spinning in in midair that that's that's all they have to offer. That's that's all there is to that position. They could not answer any of it and that's why our first phone caller is not either Jason or Brian.
Because they're not gonna well Jason actually said well, I'm not going on because you're a professional debater and you twist my words. So in other words you are dishonest and you would twist my words is the only reason the person won't come on.
So Again you know Some people say well, why do you deal with stuff like this because this is the best way to illustrate its other. It's utter bankruptcy. It has no means of defending itself. It just can't Let we'll let him speak for themselves.
I'm gonna play the whole thing. We're gonna go through this keep correcting the errors pointing out the the category errors so on and so forth and if those Individuals themselves come to see that there is a much firmer foundation to stand on greater.
That's that's great. But that's not my point. I'm not really overly concerned about them. I'm concerned about the listening audience and them growing in their Confidence, but you're not gonna be growing in confidence about the Word of God by holding on to King James only ism.
King James only Ism is an absolute Capitulation of The historical field of battle. It's all it is. That's all it is so Before we go on with that. I did say we'd get to our first caller, and let's talk with Bill.
Hi Bill.
Hi, how are you doing today. Doing pretty good? Always a joy to call you and always amusing to Watch the King James. Only position. Change the text critical methodology from verse to verse.
Yes, isn't it though. I mean for how many times do we hear them say well. They are they're basing this on just one or two corrupt ancient manuscripts against the majority. And then you show them Revelation 16 5 well there might be one some place.
We can't find it, but it might be there somewhere. I.
Told I told Dan Wallace one time. Given how they felt and how they did text criticism. He actually thought it was pretty applicable. I said that what we should call King James only of them was unreasonable.
Eclectic.
Well, let's let's make sure people understand that there is another term reasoned eclecticism. That is that is used in scholarship of a certain mechanism of textual critical study, but yes. Unreasoned eclecticism might be the the way to do so yes.
I do have one question you may remember I called before on this issue and And tried to engage at least a small-scale debate with one particularly not nice person whose name I won't mention, but you know who I'm talking.
Yes, I do. Anyway, have you ever posted on charisma before on?
Charisma yeah on charisma forum. Not to my knowledge. No, okay, well.
Well now this individual you don't talk about. The claim has come up that he debated you on charisma a number of years ago. Somebody pointed out that they doubted that a reformed Baptist would.
It is it is truly amazing how many people claim to have debated me who will never call this program and whose names I Can't even figure out or or when they do finally identify themselves ago. Well didn't I send an email to you once yeah?
That's where I got you. I sent you 47 back. You know and I felt I filtered along before that I didn't even get a 47 of them. You know as.
There's there's no end to the silliness at times. It was interesting we were on one of the well-known boards and. And of course I had you know I challenged him to meet on the debate board mostly. Mostly to Prevent interference because you get on those chat boards or whatever and you get 13 other people in there.
And he gets going a hundred different directions. Well. Another poster came on and made the point. When this guy was complaining about you and and something about you interrupted dr. Holland in the debate years ago or something like that and you had your own forum there.
And he wouldn't call your program because you could cut him off if you didn't like what? Well one poster hopped in there and said now I'm trying to figure this out. You've stated that you don't do moderated debate.
It's all about this other poster, and you've stated that you don't do unmoderated debate, so I guess you do invisible debate. But anyway, I just want to cut the claim was that you had posted there. I knew that a lot of claims that are just real specious are made about you guys.
Yeah, three all the time like well number of well a number of Roman Catholic conversions. You had oh, yes.
Yeah, there's a lot of stuff I Frequently what sometimes happens people will post like they'll take something from an article I've written and they'll post it on a web board. And I've actually had people Respond to somebody else who posts something I wrote on a web board and then consider that to be a refutation of me and hence It grows into a debate against me, and I ran and all the rest of stuff.
So I you know I I have no recollection of anything like that at all. I would love to see what somebody has to you know some some archives somebody has I used to back in all the 80s and into about 93 or so was.
You would have these things called BBS's Bolton board systems and on the Bible foundation BBS and on the Bible echo I engaged lots of King James only folks back in the 80s even before I'd written the book and Into the 90s so if if someone you know took something like that or you know who knows I?
Have no idea where people come up with some of the stuff they come up with but it is rather interesting.
Well yeah, I've just noticed that I mean basically the text critical methodology as I was noting just flips from verse to verse and You hear majority rules majority rules, but you throw first John 5 7 out and well It's in in fact.
I've heard this comparison. This is in well It's only an X number of manuscripts, but Matthew 1811 is only in so many in the NIV uses less and it's just kind of a General kind of a keep moving the goalposts and change you know.
Well, I really deal with the argument just throw another verse out there.
And all and all of it flows rather obviously from the fact that you have an established text you're seeking to defend therefore at any particular point. You develop a set of arguments that establishes that reading and whether that's the set of arguments you use in the next verse Just doesn't matter because you're defending the Word of God.
And that's why I've said so many times these folks start with the equation the King James Bible alone equals the Word of God alone and whether they mock that as Brian did or not he functions on the basis of that himself and If he doesn't see that that just means that he's blind to his own presuppositions and his own traditions.
And that's that's the problem. So all righty all right. Well. Thank you very much. Thank you Bill. God bless. All righty, let's. We've got just a couple minutes for a break. Let's even get a few more minutes of the radio program in here.
Picking back up now by the way. This is this came up a week ago tonight. Brian Didn't understand what I was talking about when I played this section. He says that Bart Ehrman is right in his argument on page 211.
He twisted that into my saying that he was supporting Bart Ehrman. I never said that Brian Miller would support Bart Ehrman. What I said was that Brian Miller said Bart Ehrman's right on the issue of If there's textual variance than the original was not inspired.
That's what I had said. And here's where exactly where Brian Miller said that is where we had stopped. Hello click click click click yeah, there we go. I Have no idea.
Yep, yep, yep. There are mistakes in the Bible and got then. God is not the God who he claims to be. Bart Ehrman's right if you take James White. Bruce Metzger's. I was trying to roll the thing back there.
And I think he got a little bit on the confused side. Let me roll it back. Just a little bit for us you can get the context.
He's taught we're talking Roman is right by George. If There are mistakes in the Bible. If there are mistakes in the Bible and Got then God is not the God who he claims to be. Bart Ehrman's right. If you take James White Bruce Metzger's and Bruce Metzger's Teachings to their logical end Then we find out that there are mistakes in the Bible, and then there is no stopping of fixing those mistakes.
You have anything to add Jason. Well, I think that. Okay. Right there.
That's all I was talking about is that he and Bart Ehrman both make the argument that if and now what Ehrman is saying Is if the later manuscripts have textual variance if God does not somehow supernaturally preclude every single writer from ever making a mistake if he does not supernaturally Cause every manuscript to read identically to every other manuscript then the original was not inspired.
Now I find that to be an absolutely absurd assertion. Absolutely absurd, but that's what Ehrman says, but here is a King James only us saying oh Ehrman's right. Well if Ehrman's right then Ehrman would tell Brian Miller that he's got a problem because there are no two Byzantine manuscripts.
There are no two old Latin manuscripts that are identical to one another. What's he gonna do with the differences between the versions of the TR and when you say this they just they just up. I just Accepted by faith.
There's a preserved Bible somewhere must be the King James because King James been blessed. So it just must be the King James, and that's that's that's all they can do. They don't have any other mechanism.
To actually deal in a meaningful way with this kind of factual argumentation. This is well. I just I said I accepted my faith dollar is to it and so they go from there. Eight seven seven seven five three three three four one we're gonna take our break be right back.
Public crimes the criminal mishandling of God's Word may be James White's most provocative book yet. White sets out to examine numerous crimes being committed in pulpits throughout our land every week as he seeks to leave no stone unturned.
Based firmly upon the bedrock of Scripture one crime after another is laid bare for all to see. The pulpit is to be a place where God speaks from his word what has happened to this sacred duty in our day.
The charges are as follows prostitution using the gospel for financial gain pandering to pluralism cowardice under fire felonious eisegesis entertainment without a license and Cross-dressing ignoring God's ordinance regarding the roles of men and women is a public crime occurring in your town.
Get pulpit crimes in the bookstore at a omen org. The history of the Christian Church pivots on the doctrine of justification by faith. Once the core of the Reformation the church today often ignores or misunderstands this foundational doctrine.
In his book the God who justifies theologian James White calls believers to a fresh appreciation of Understanding of and dedication to the great doctrine of justification and then provides an exegesis of the key scripture texts on this theme.
Justification is the heart of the gospel in today's culture where tolerance is the new absolute. James White proclaims with passion the truth and centrality of the doctrine of justification by faith. Dr. Jay Adams says I lost sleep over this book.
I simply couldn't put it down. James White writes the way an exegetically and theologically oriented pastor appreciates. This is no book for casual reading. There is solid meat throughout an outstanding contribution in every sense of the words.
The God who justifies by dr. James White get your copy today at a omen org. Hello everyone, this is Rich Pierce. In a day and age where the gospel is being twisted into a man-centered self-help program.
The need for a no-nonsense presentation of the gospel has never been greater. I am convinced that a great many go to church every Sunday yet. They have never been confronted with their sin. Alpha and Omega ministries is dedicated to presenting the gospel in a clear and concise manner making no excuses.
Man is sinful and God is holy. That sinful man is in need of a perfect Savior and Jesus Christ is that perfect Savior? We are to come before the Holy God with an empty hand of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Alpha and Omega takes that message to every group that we deal with while equipping the body of Christ as well. Support Alpha and Omega ministries and help us to reach even more with the pure message of God's glorious grace.
Thank you.
On a Tuesday last dividing line of 2008 looking forward to 2009 lots of challenges going to be going to Australia this year Lord willing back to the United Kingdom and Hopefully have next week of the week after a real neat announcement about something coming up in April here in the United States That I think is going to be very very very exciting.
So keep keep your eyes on the blog and Very much appreciate all of our blog readers. We get lots and lots and lots of folks who read that blog and We started seriously doing YouTube when I returned from a conference at the beginning of January of last year, so it's been basically 50 weeks we have we have been seriously working on using YouTube as a means of communication and Just last week.
We passed 1 million video views of the videos that we've posted We have 2 ,200 subscribers now, and I think we just passed 140 ,000 channel views as well. So that is very exciting. Like I said, the thing that excites me the most is when I see places such as Indonesia showing up on our Website as areas where hits are coming in from we are we are reaching people That we otherwise just simply would not be able to get to and that's that's a very very exciting thing.
So thanks to all of you who make that possible and So let's let's continue on to 2009. Let's take our another phone caller. Let's talk with Travis. Hi Travis.
Hi, Dr. White. How you doing? I don't know if you remember me or not. I met you at at the apologetics office.
Santa Fe I met a lot of folks at Santa Fe lots of real nice folks there.
I I've been talking with and I he keeps quoting me article and I over on the NASB translation committee.
I was a critical. I was a critical consultant. I was not on the committee. Okay, well he.
He has a lot of arguments based on the Greek. Uh-huh, and I just wanted to know if you could. Help me a little bit with that word. Sure.
You will find that almost all of these go back to just two or three major works that Did he did we lose him? No, okay. Sound like sound like you had hung up and So I thought we had had lost you there.
Apologize. There there are just a couple of works that People rely on and then other scholars pick them up and repeat their conclusions and so on and so forth. Arson a coitus is a term that possibly might actually have even been coined by the Apostle Paul himself and If if it was then we know exactly where it came from.
See Paul was extremely Fond of creating compound words to describe elements of the Christian faith to a Gentile audience and his source is the Greek Septuagint. The large majority of those who comment on the meaning of this ignore the the Tremendous reliance that the Apostle Paul has on the text of the Greek Septuagint because that was the text of the Bible of the people that day.
So when he's writing to a church it makes perfect sense that he would use The text that they themselves have before them and of course the early church views those Old Testament scriptures as These scriptures and New Testament is actually being written at the time but when you're making reference to the scriptures, it's it's going to be to that Old Testament when you go to Leviticus chapter 18 Leviticus chapter 20 and you look at the text now now rich is Distracting me by pulling up his microphone.
He's not supposed to do that. What are you doing?
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to distract you are distracting. You are a bad evil person because you had to reboot and so we don't have a little thing to communicate back and forth. Well, yes, but in the gay marriage debate you go into heavy detail into dealing with the meaning of that word.
Mm-hmm, so I would just kind of throw out that you know, he might want to get that. Oh, definitely.
Yeah, have you. Have you picked up the same-sex controversy?
Okay, we have.
Yeah, well there's there's couple resources we have the the gay marriage debate which is on which is available for iPod and mp4. It's also is it an mp3 yet? It's an exact mp3 and mp4 so you can get it either audio or video Online.
And then of course, I have a book called the same-sex controversy and beginning on page 146 is the subtitle the meaning of varsan equates and. So you'll have a whole section here and I'll just give you just scan over this some of this for you.
You'll find terms used in the Greek septuagint at Leviticus 18 22 and Leviticus 2013 and Leviticus 18 22 when transliterated from the subject into Greek. From the septuagint into English in stating that a man shall not lie with a man as one lies the woman it reads Metta arson oz arson oz means a male.
Who koi mess they koi ten. Koi ten means to lie with sexually have intercourse Gunai cos. So notice the two words arson oz and koi ten. Even more striking is the wording of Leviticus 2013. The subject has on koi Metta metta arson oz koi ten gunai cos arson oz koi ten.
A man shall not lie with a man. Note the close connection of arson oz male and koi ten to lie with sexually have intercourse. The term homosexual in first Corinthians 6 9 is made up of these two terms arson oz and koi ten.
Hence arson equates as A compound word is clearly referring to male intercourse. The next fact to consider is also very important. Arson equates is a term that most agreed did not appear prior to its appearance in New Testament and Specifically in the writings of Paul.
So where did it come from? Two possibilities suggest themselves and both end up having the same impact upon a reading of the text. The term could have been derived from rabbinic discussions of homosexuality.
Based upon the terms arson oz and koi ten and Philippians. I'm sorry in Leviticus 18 and 20 or it could have been coined by Paul. This would not be unusual at all for Paul seems to have coined a number of terms based upon the need to communicate the truths.
The Hebrew Old Testament the language of the Greek Septuagint. James B. DeYoung notes that 179 words found in Paul's writings do not appear in any known pre-christian literature. 89 of these appear only once in Paul's writings, of course.
It does not mean that Paul constructed all these terms. But it surely does shows a willingness on his part to use what might be called non-standard terminology to communicate his message. And most importantly since he draws so heavily and constantly from the LXX the Septuagint itself the Conjunction of the terms arson oz and koi ten from which arson equates is derived.
Proves that the Septuagint text of Leviticus is the most likely source of this term and I go on from there so yeah, we we do address it and Generally when you read The liberals and others who are trying to overthrow the biblical testimony on this subject.
You will see it they do not at this point Emphasize any of what I just presented to you. They they ignore the Pauline backgrounds the the Septuagint so on and so forth. Well, not only that but I'll have to tell you the story when when Jeff Neal who is my.
When Jeff Neal who is my. I'm getting a lot of noise in your background there. I'm not sure what it is, but when when Jeff Neal who is a co-author of the book with me and I were on a radio program in Phoenix with a Homosexual and a homosexual pastor when this issue came up.
And Jeff was addressing arson equates the way he put it was arson equates. That's that's what two men do in bed, and that's not eating crackers. It's how he put it so. Yeah, so that information is available.
Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Thanks Travis. God bless. All right, I've got my computer back and we're functional. It's not going to be too long till I have a Mac in here and it won't do what this one just Idea what what happened here, but we're back up and functional for the moment.
So going back to the program at this rate, like I said, we should finish this particular radio program sometime during 2009 but going back to.
What was said about Bart Ehrman. Just so you have the whole context or. Herman is right by George. If There are mistakes in the Bible if there are mistakes in the Bible and Got then God is not the God who he claims to be.
Bart Ehrman's right if you take James White Bruce Metzger's and Bruce Metzger's.
Teachings to their logical end. Now notice notice. The confusion here Brian is confusion confusing errors in the Bible with textual variation. They are not the same thing.
Category. Errors abound in King James. Only thinking then we find out that there are mistakes in the Bible and then there is no Stopping of fixing those mistakes. You have anything to add Jason? Well I think that the Jesus seminar proved that as well.
How they went through and marked the Bible in as to the.
Veracity of the passages in there and they're learned. And then I noticed Jason is just willy-nilly throwing me together with Jesus seminar and of course, I've debated the co-founder of the Jesus seminar on the historical liability of the Gospels, which Jason would never do and the reason for that is because he's not up to engaging those issues.
And again massive category error if. But follow the mindset here because this is what Dan Wallace is talking about when he talks about people who are willing to sacrifice truth for certainty. There are people who are willing to sacrifice truth.
For certainty these men are certain about their position, but they are certainly wrong. But they have certainty and their idea is once you abandon my certainty Then it's just a straight slide right into the Jesus seminar.
Tossing different colored marbles into bags as to what Jesus did or did not say he cannot see any other. Stopping point along the spectrum, which of course is ridiculous. To just say well, it's either my position or you're all in the same boat.
It's that kind of black-and-white thinking. That's you know, I can't get anybody to recognize what the problem is. They're only the Spirit of God can cause someone to see you know, what that really doesn't make any scholar.
Opinions. But it's a boy. This first half of the broadcast has went quickly. Now folks the second half of the broadcast. We're gonna be taking your calls if you'd like to call in and ask some questions.
We're also go unfortunately. Nobody called in and I couldn't call in because I was in Arabic class at that point to be.
Dealing with the question does the Bible evolve now folks. The chat rooms absolutely hopping right now. You'll want to hop in there that's the American voice comm and click on chat room. Give yourself a pseudonym and.
We've had some interesting visitors in there actually and hey, this is a very interesting topic one. That's not going to go away quickly as there are still those out there who want to defend The fact that the Lord has preserved the Bible for us in the English-speaking language.
And if he and it's our argument and I think you would agree with this Brian. It's our argument that if the Lord did not do so He actually was in violation of his own scripture where he said that he would preserve it for down down through the ages and.
You know if and once again the issue is not whether God has preserved his word. It is how he has preserved his word if our Bibles full of errors.
Then it's gonna be really hard to put our hope in the promises of those errors that are all throughout our Bible throughout the Word Of God folks. This is the Covenanters call radio broadcast and stay tuned through the break.
We've got a lot more coming up after the break and we appreciate you tuning in today. And Now folks the second half of this broadcast. We're going to be talking about does the Bible evolves does it does the Bible get better? and better as these new translations come out and We're going to see a number of things here Brian that That might be might surprise some people.
About some of the new translations and things like that. In fact, I'm going to look up a news article while you're talking. But we'll bring that up then and folks if you have a question call in 1 -800 -433 -1429.
Or ask it on the chat room. I'm trying to pay attention. But it's kind of hard for me sometimes Brian to type and talk at the same time. And so I was distracted earlier in the show, but yeah. It's tough.
I'm not I'm not a radio host or personality and I think everybody could tell when my voice is trailing off and I'm looking at. Some notes or something and and I thought my co-host had drowned or something but anyways We talked about In the in the first part of the show.
You know can God establish something for us to use and can we accept that by faith? And I think that's very important, you know. The arguments go on and on and on and on and you know, you look at the fact, you know.
Like I talked about a little bit last week well, these modern translators are doing the same thing that the King James translators did but Janice and Jamboree's did the same thing Moses did but that doesn't mean that their God was in their snake.
Now just follow this reasoning It has been rightly pointed out many many times That if you just would read Erasmus or if you would read Beza or you would even if you can dig out some of the discussions of the King James translators They are attempting to do what we do today and in fact The greatest anti KJV only document I know of is the introduction from the King James Translators to the readers if they would still print that with King James Bibles.
I don't know that King James only ism could survive because if you would just read what the Translators themselves said and oh, well, they weren't inspired, you know, it was just the result, you know, and if you just Put the translators themselves said you would see that they did not in any way shape or form view the text of the King James the way King James only is do and They did what we do today.
They recognized the need to Engage in the comparison of manuscripts and they knew that there would be advances and understanding for example Concerning the meaning of language and the words and language and there's lots of words especially in the Hebrew Old Testament that we have grown greatly in our understanding of since days the King James because the discovery of Cognate languages and more literature in those languages.
It could throw more light upon it. They recognized the need for a continuing work in this area. But the King James only is doesn't see any of that and has now compared that rather I think logical historical observation That the practice of textual criticism cannot in of itself be evil because well It was used to produce the text of the King James to Yanis and Yambres the sorcerers in Pharaoh's court and you just go Wow, where did the logic go on that one?
But that's the main problem with King James only ism. It's irrational. It's irrational because it uses double standards it can never use the same standard for the King James that it uses for every other translation can't do it not possible and Just as we say over and over again in dealing with our Muslim friends inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument and That's what you've got with King James only is you know what I'm saying?
Do you understand what I'm saying?
You know most threw down his rod it turned into a snake and Janice and Jambres threw down their rod and it turned into a snake. But was God a part of that? No, it didn't last and I and that's my contention.
Is that these translations, you know. And there's been we talked about this last week and I did a scroll through the chat room and a lot of questions on there. I answered last week and it's a shame but you know, what about all these old old Bible translations?
What about the Noah Webster Bible? What about the Charles Wesley Bible? What about the Coverdale Bible? What about the Geneva Bible? What about this Bible? What about that? But what about the RS? What about the revised version?
What about the RSV? What about the NIV the my contention is God now?
Hold on a second now notice he's mixed together a modern translations and Older translations. I had raised the issue not in the previous because the first I didn't hear this part of this program. But I had raised the question.
If your argument can be used to defend the Geneva Bible just as well as the King James Bible then your argument is bad and The only way they have around that as well. God didn't bless the Geneva as much as the King James.
Who's using the Geneva today? Well, I happen to read the Christmas story to my family the Geneva. They thought it was hilarious because. And this will always be remembered as the cratch Christmas. Because I didn't realize the Geneva doesn't use a term cradle or manger.
They laid Jesus in the cratch. CRA TCH. My daughter almost fell off of the couch laughing at that one because by they'd are they're already Complaining neither one of them grew up in the King James. The Geneva sounds much like the King James and they're like what in the world are you talking about?
But when I got to the cratch That was I imagine that's English related to crash or something I would assume but it was it did add some great humor but there's a CC since it's not being used then that's my answer to the question and it's just like.
Well, you know, there's there's no objection that can't be answered. But the problem is when you have to use 45 ,000 different standards of truthfulness to answer all those questions.
That might tell you a little something that your position really doesn't hold a part of them. They're not going to last. However, I think God had his hand on the King James Bible. What I believe is I think that that I believe that that is the Bible that God would have us to use in the English Language and that's why it stayed around so long and that's why it's still here.
It's been here for 400 years and I think it's going to be here a lot longer than that. Because God can establish something case in point. You can run down to certain a you know Fundamentalist Bible bookstores and and buy it buy a book let's call let's build a church and a man that wrote that book build a giant church or supposedly.
But and however, if you follow that book, let's build a church to the nth degree and you have a group of people meeting in a building and and There's a certain amount of order to it. Does that mean that you build a church?
No, because Jesus Christ builds a church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it and the Bible says the Lord adds to the church daily as such should be saved and the fact is is that God is in charge of some things and guard God Establishes some things in our lives and establishes some things for Christians to do and use and one of those things that God established and that God builds and they got us in charge of is the church and another one of those things I Contend that God has a has inspired and that God has established and preserved for us to use is his word and.
And I was very disappointed in this book the King James only controversy that that there is nothing left. There is nothing left for a believer to rely on except for the study of textual criticism. Textual criticism is a science and is the science of trying to discover what the original author? Wrote is science fallible or infallible now.
I'm not even a comment on the first part of that because God is in charge of some things. I don't know. I think he got Got a little bit distracted there or something, but. There is nothing. My book leaves nothing left.
Well, if you're closing your eyes and refusing to read the part where I actually present where God has preserved his word and how. Then I can understand that. And I can understand how King James only us who just are not reading it in any fair manner.
But those of you who have read it in a fair manner are going. Wow. Tradition can really blind you to what's right there on the page, isn't it? Because I've talked to so many people who have been greatly encouraged by reading the book in their trust of God's providential protection of the scriptures over time and.
The fact that he didn't just means that he's not seeking to actually understand what I'm saying in the first place. And that's where the problem the problem comes in but.
Yeah, it's it's sort of sort of sad to hear me ask you this is God fallible or infallible. Can God do what he said he did. Now if you're listening to the argument what he's saying is well.
You can't rely on textual criticism. You got to rely on God. Did God use? Erasmus who Brian the next time he's on will falsely tell people left the Roman Catholic Church. But who was actually a Roman Catholic priest when he made the text that Brian seems to think is somehow inspired.
Did did Erasmus use means or Did Erasmus just I don't know maybe one morning. You know, I almost hate to say it's because some of these folks actually pick up on this and start repeating it but maybe one morning Erasmus got up and went into his sitting room and there was the TR Complete it floated down from heaven and that's where it came from.
And you know, the sad thing is I could see certain people going. That's exactly how it happened. Yep. Yep. There was no textual criticism involved. He didn't compare manuscripts. Don't have to worry about those that last part of Revelation where the page fell off.
We don't have to let's not talk about how he wrote to his friend bombastious in Rome and asked him to look at Codex Vaticanus. Forget all that stuff. We don't want to know about history. We don't want to know about the facts.
Yes. Yes. Look at the Vaticanus, you know, yeah, exactly. Look at the Vaticanus. We just want to ignore all that stuff. We don't want to talk about that. No, no we just want we just want to say that he didn't use textual criticism and it just happened this way and We want to ignore the fact that he actually used the same methodologies that we would use today.
And he compared manuscripts and he recognized the existence of variants and he relied on certain manuscripts more than others. Sadly he relied on his least reliable manuscripts. More than one he had that was actually better than the others but he didn't realize that and and he made errors and that's just all there is to it and You can close your mind to these things and you can stick your fingers in your ears and and just go la la la la la.
I don't hear these things. I take it all by faith, but that is indefensible my friends you can't defend that and we live in a day and age where we need to be taking the gospel forward and Not just creating these little enclaves rebuild walls around go just don't listen to what they're saying out there just listen to us in here and.
That's all King James only ism can actually lead you to. Is that kind of circularity? So we are now 24 minutes and 37 seconds into the program. And hopefully we'll get through the 43 minute program eventually.
If we don't, you know, maybe I just need to hold off the phone calls until I finish it next time around or something like that. But we will continue and take your phone calls, too Friday morning remember to change change the time here Friday morning.
That'll be. Wow, January 2nd 2009 we'll be here Lord will and see you then. God bless.
The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries. If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at p .o Box 3 7 1 0 6 Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9. You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks.
Join us again this Thursday afternoon at 4 p .m. For the dividing line.