Westminster Confession of Faith

Webcasting around 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 afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line those who down in Dallas area

We'll be seeing you this weekend. If you are able to make it looks like there's gonna be some interesting weather down there

But that's okay. It doesn't look like it's gonna be like cold or anything. Just windy and rainy and stuff

Of course, I'll be flying back in MD 80. So I hope it isn't too windy Do you really do not like those airplanes?

Anyway today on the program? I mentioned a couple of topics we want to get to but I hope you saw the blog last evening or this morning.

I Really really really wish I had known about this two weeks ago. I really do

Jesus interrupted Revealing the hidden contradictions in the

Bible and why we don't know about them Now, I'm sorry, but that is not a scholarly title

That is a conspiracy Driven we want to sell books and we don't care that we're blasting

Christians in the process title that's what that is and I really wish

I had known when dr. Ehrman was talking about why I that's just not a debatable subject. We I'm a historian not a theologian

I would have really liked to have been able to said then why are you writing theological books? I would like to have been able to bring this out here's here's the description from the publisher and Picking up or Bible expert

Bart Ehrman's New York Times bestseller misquoting Jesus left off Jesus interrupted addresses the larger issue of what the

New Testament Actually teaches and it's not what most people think

Yeah, we need experts to tell us what the New Testament really teaches guys We're not smart enough to read it for ourselves because well, none of us have a

New Testament, right? well Okay Here Ehrman reveals what scholars have unearthed.

Oh my goodness What scholars have unearthed in other words what liberals have been saying for a long long time but we want to sell books just like Standing in the grocery line at the grocery store

What scholars have unearthed about Jesus? shocking new revelations

Huh? The authors of the

New Testament have diverging views about who Jesus was and how salvation works

No one's ever ever thought of that before Nor has anyone ever responded to that before now.

We've only been doing it for hundreds of years The New Testament contains books that were forged in the names of the

Apostles by Christian writers who lived Decades later, I Love that decades there.

He's talking about the pastoral epistles primarily, you know We've already mentioned the fact that he you know We played his interview with the infidel guy and he's only thinks that seven of the

Pauline epistles are real. So and Again, you're sitting going. Oh scholars have unearthed this

For years we've been talking about oh like a new perspective on on Paul, right? Whereas what's what's the new perspective on Paul based on a diminished

Pauline corpus on the same ones that Ehrman has so anyone who actually knows anything about the

New Testament isn't nothing's been unearthed. This is old Liberalism being repackaged so as to get people who don't want to believe to buy dr.

Herman's book Sorry, but I love this who lived decades later

Not centuries decades later Jesus Paul Matthew and John all represented fundamentally different religions

Yes, one was a Buddhist one was a Hindu and one was a Mormon. Yeah, right different religions

Give me a break. You've got to be kidding me

Established Christian doctrines such as the Suffering Messiah the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity were the inventions of still later theologians

These are not idiosyncratic perspectives of just one modern scholar as Herman's skillfully demonstrates they have been the standard or widespread views of critical scholars across a full spectrum of denominations and traditions

Yep, the liberals been out there for a long time. Nothing new about that Why is it most people have never heard such things?

This is the book that pastors yes pastors need this so you'll have nothing to say on a

Sunday morning Yes pastors need this book pastors educators and anyone interested in the Bible have been waiting for a clear and compelling account of the central challenges we face

When attempting to reconstruct the life and message of Jesus, please, please, please, please, please

You don't face these challenges. You're the one making them Don't done that we face.

Oh But what do you expect what do you expect? Oh, I wish I had known I would love to have worked some of this in to the debate just a few weeks ago, but I'm sorry, but that is that is grocery store pulp magazine advertising.

I Find it a little bit hard to to connect that with the fellow who sat across from me

You know basically making arguments about well, I go to SBL and those of us were experts. We just know this stuff

You just need to believe we have to say then you turn that around and You're using this kind of advertising this kind of outrageous

Ridiculous look at what scholars have unearthed I Just like to put this back you know about a hundred and thirty years ago and Go back to Germany and you would have been able to write a

Jesus interrupted book and it would have contained in it Stuff like well scholars have discovered that the

Gospel of John was written around 170 AD Well, they don't believe that anymore, but they certainly believe it then and it was taken as the the affirmed and confirmed results of Modern scholarship and and of course

Who was who was looked down upon then anyone who would still believe what Christians had believed all along about the authorship of John?

Yes, so yeah, I've already pre -ordered. I'll I don't know how

Big this book could get but Obviously a lot of this stuff has already been addressed

I mean the reinventing Jesus book that we carry has will have all sorts responses this

You know the Trinity deity of Christ written on that Would love to arrange a debate on those subjects dr.

Ehrman, but I you know, I just don't know if we can sell You know enough Firstborn children to come up with his speaking fee to do that again.

I would I would love to do it Maybe we could try challenging him through his publisher or something like that and have them pick up the tab or something

Who knows they've obviously got all the money in the world. So But anyway, I I just found that absolutely

Fascinating I truly did so it's it's something else Anyway, I want to talk today and we'll get to our first caller is on the similar subject, but I wanted to talk today a

Little bit about another Area of discussion that has come up in regards to the debate and that we had discussed prior to the debate as well

Alan Kirshner mentioned this Kent Brandenburg fellow Who had blogged before actually listen to the debate

Not overly shocking that then when he finally gets done with it his his incredibly prejudiced biased and bigoted

Responses what it is, but I I just I quoted some of the material on on the website where he was he gave his his conclusions and Demonstrated his detestation of Calvinism along with everything else, which was was rather funny, but I was reading some more of what he had said and I ran across this now.

I don't want to I don't want to paint everybody on the Puritan board and this guy's

King James only sort of wild -eyed You know way of speaking

Which is rarely overly coherent, but it's it's interesting to read But it is interesting that he says something very similar here as sad as it could get in the debate

White couldn't muster up a defense the historic position on preservation as seen in the Westminster Confession London Baptist Confession He couldn't explain a scriptural position on preservation perhaps because he doesn't even know what one is.

He hasn't given it enough thought He has been so busy reading Bart Ehrman and Dan Wallace and Bruce Metzger and Kurt and Barbara Allen that he hasn't sorted through the passages

In scripture and preservation their historical understanding reading turrets in a no one and others now, of course, everybody recognizes the lie when you see it and Unfortunately King James only folks are willing to lie.

That's just a fact We've documented it many times and of course since I've written an entire book on this subject and mr

Brandenburg should know that since he goes and print lies about it then we just need to call a lie a lie and that's that's all there is to that but What about that?

What about this this idea? Well, I had mentioned on the on the blog

That I want to talk a little bit about some of the things that I've seen from the truly reformed now There's two uses of the term

TR TR in textual areas is textus receptus, which is a Latin phrase for received text

Which actually is a name given to an entire family of texts Oliver Asimov's all

Stephanus Beza and then Scrivener's text which he created. I've got one here in my hand in the 19th century

Where he went back looked at The choices made by the King James translators and then create a

Greek text based upon the choices made by the King James translators Which means of course

There's not a single manuscript entire world that reads exactly like the TR that people carry around the Trinitarian Bible Society blue case bound version

But be that as it may that's what most people identify as the TR is that particular text and Basically I the other use of TR is the truly reformed and that's the folks that Basically draw a very tight circle around themselves and say we're the only really reformed folks and and you don't really get to Be called reformed if you don't do everything the way we do it and and look like us and talk like us and go to Our churches and things like that.

There's a number of them out there anyway I Asked the the following questions of the people who?

in essence Say that the TR is is what you should believe if you believe in the

Westminster Confession of the London Baptist Confession of Faith I had mentioned a number. Well, maybe about a month ago or so now that on the

Puritan board a Thread was active then it's been closed since then. I still have the the

URL here and it had been started by Robert Paul Weiland who

I think may be on the line. I'm not sure here says Roberts But this is Colorado Springs and that says

Pittsburgh, so I don't know But anyways, we'll find out here in a second get some background here. So folks have some idea what in the world we're talking about In this thread and this was this particular post was

Where to go there it is January 25th, so it was shortly after the debate and He made this comment, let me just just read down here

I would imagine that dr. White will switch from his critical text philosophy to sound orthodoxy and Prove the inspiration of the scriptures.

However, that is not what I am holding him to concerning this point Dr Why is explicitly teaching that the critical text philosophy is sound orthodoxy thus

I would require him to answer the question from the critical text philosophy and not from his understanding of orthodoxy Sound orthodox principles would argue that God has providentially preserved the

Greek text in the Byzantine manuscripts extant today That's that's what he defines as sound orthodox principle.

You have to hold to the Byzantine manuscripts now, which one I don't know because that this is where where You can make this sort of ecclesiastical text position like like theater latest in you can make it sound good

There's one major problem with it when you ask Specific questions about how the text should read

Because the Byzantine manuscript tradition is not a monolith It may be very very similar for obvious reasons, but there are still

Issues and the TR is not the Byzantine manuscript tradition either for that matter.

There are variations between the two and So you still have to answer the question.

How are you going to determine the readings of certain texts? That's why I asked Specifically, how do you determine the readings of Luke 2 22?

Revelation 16 5 in the final six verses revelation. I chose three for Trinitarian and three witnesses purposes

There's there's more we could look at but those happen to be I think the best ones look at If you can't answer that question if it's well, you know

We don't have to know exactly then I really find the position irrelevant and we can just dismiss it because if you can't answer that Question we can't give us a methodology that will actually allow us to determine what the text is

Then I think you're wasting your time and everybody else's time to be talking about these things to be perfectly honest with you

And that's why I ask the specific questions. So Sound orthotics principles would argue that God has providentially preserved the

Greek text in the Byzantine manuscripts X and today That what we have today in the Byzantine manuscripts are the inspired word for word copies of the autographs

The textus receptus is a collation of these manuscripts and consequently contains the sacred apographa of the autographs

Now, of course, I would immediately want to ask That we have today in the Byzantine manuscripts which one

Which one I mean look at the book of Revelation look at how many places the Byzantine Manuscript traditions splits and readings in in the book of Revelation.

It's all over the place. So which one and Who determined this when? What council was it why is this council binding on me?

What did they examine? Did they have access to the information we have today? I think those are all perfectly acceptable questions

The advocates the critical text are not psychologically ready to admit providential preservation. No, that's not true

I believe in providential preservation. I don't believe in Your theory of providential preservation, it doesn't mean that I don't have a very clear and compelling one of my own

Which I've presented many times Because of the above last paragraph they would have to admit that the

Byzantine manuscripts stand within such a Providence That these manuscripts contain more of the autographs than they desire to admit.

I'm not really sure I follow that. But anyways Here's the main main thing personally I believe dr

White has been so browbeaten by King James only advocates that he is unwilling to admit the texas receptus as a legitimate copy of the autographs

Now I can only respond to that the texas receptus contains blatant errors

That is a fact. I Cannot believe that that is a copy of the autographs because if it is then the original contained blatant errors

Yeah, I don't know how much more plainly I can put that The TR is wrong at Luke 2 22 the

TR is wrong at Revelation 16 5 the TR is wrong at the end of the book of Revelation because Erasmus translated from Latin into Greek to get what's in it, so Why on earth what counsel what what and here's the real issue?

What consistent argument from a fellow believer in sola scriptura? Who rejects the binding authority of Roman Catholic councils

What kind of argument can such a person? Consistently mount to force me to use an errant

Greek text as my foundation That's what I want to know and how can the

TR qualify as being mentioned in? 1 8 of both London and Westminster When you can demonstrate that it hasn't been kept pure that there are problems in the

TR documented problem They're not really problems as if we don't know what the original was in Fact we do know in Luke 2 22

Revelation 16 5 there's really not all that much of a problem with the last six verses of Revelation these are all problems that developed in the production of The early printed editions the

Greek New Testament and Erasmus Stephanos and Beza We know that that's not really an issue But it seems to me that there's a lot of these folks that have this tradition, and they're so dogged about it

That even though they would eschew the ruckmanite rippling erite da wait type

King James only ism Recognizing its anti -reform bias and the sort of wild reason it goes into that kind of stuff for some reason when it comes to this subject

They Don't seem to see that they have to allow for the same level of examination critical examination of their own text

That they are demanding for the critical text, but they won't do that. It's just oh no no no no no no no

You just gotta accept the Byzantine text. It's like well, but why? Can you explain this to me can you know what's what about the differences between the

TR the Byzantine manuscript tradition? Which Byzantine text do you mean can can you identify the text can you explain to me?

You know if you take the Byzantine text and are there not texts in The TR that you have to reject that Erasmus has served from Latin Vulgate especially the

Kami Ohanian These are these are questions that it seems some of these folks just want to avoid even talking about it

Well, we can't talk about that. We only want to talk about the critical text like wait a minute I'm standing out there with the with the

Muslims. Okay, and they ask specific questions I've got to be able to give specific answers, and if your system does not allow me to give specific answers

Then I don't think your system works that's that's really all there is to it and So that's some of that that is a real real concern for me to see reformed people

Holding to a tradition a form of tradition that Just is it just seems to me

They recognize when other people are doing that they recognize when Roman Catholics are doing that I mean most these people if we're in the same room with the

Roman Catholic and We were arguing about Marian dogmas. We would be on the exact same page

We would argue in the same way. We would make the same area. We would attack the the tradition concept in the exact same way

But when it comes this one issue We don't we don't address it

It's I don't know It's very very much a matter of concern for me, and I think we've got to be you know

I've got to be consistent if I'm you know In it the ad the sad thing is a lot of the criticism in fact

I would say that the People on the King James only or the TR only side of things have been the most vociferous critics

Since the urban debate of anybody else Now of course I would not want to see any one of them on the stage with Bart Ehrman that would be ugly

Because it would become very circular very very fast, but that seems to be where where the loudest voices are

People in that in that spectrum and So I I personally find that rather interesting so there's some of the questions

You know I read directly from it Personally I believe that dr. Wiseman so browbeaten by King James only advocates that he is unwilling to admit the

Texas receptus as a legitimate copy of the autographs That has nothing to do with King James only advocates it has to do with knowing a little something about the additions of Erasmus and Stefanos and Beza something called conjectural

Emendation something about codex beza can't a virgin sis being at the Council of Trent and about 500 readings of it being copied out and sent to Stefanos The differences between them

Erasmus is reliance upon Latin Vulgate the existence of readings in the

TR that have absolutely zero Greek manuscript support none nada

That's what that comes from has nothing to do with King James only advocates it has to do with that So anyways, there's there's my concern so We have one one person on hold

I don't have any other information other than from where and about the Puritan board The lines are open for you at eight seven seven seven five three three three four one

It was interesting before you take our first call that It was just posted in channel again

But Excuse me who was yeah, I can't Brandenburg that fell I read earlier the the fire -breathing

King James only guy I doubt I'll call him the show, but I would debate James White anytime on this subject

Well Maybe we could go over to California and do that sometime if it would be worthwhile to folks, but we'll we'll see anyways

Let's go ahead and talk with Robert Robert. Is this the Robert? Yes, this is the

Robert, what are you doing? Right. How are you? I'm doing well. What are you doing in Pittsburgh? God bless you.

I'm a student here at reform Presbyterian Reform Theological Seminary and I was the one who wrote that yes.

Yes. Yes Well, I well, I would have put you on immediately, but when I looked at this it says Colorado Springs Yeah, yeah, that's where I used to live.

I Had to move out to to the seminary here to finish my education

Okay, so it will be an education talking to you because you are a very learned man.

All right Well, I would have put you on earlier, but I thought we had two different Roberts I'm afraid Robert isn't the most unique name if it was something like You know some

African. I enjoyed listening to what you said. Okay, so How Robert can the

TR be a legitimate copy of the autographs when There are those textual problems with it.

I guess that's It has nothing to do with me about being browbeaten by King James only advocates. All right, there's some

I apologize I apologize to you if I had misrepresented you and it didn't

I didn't mean it any kind of I understand that I'm sure you're just expressing, you know your your view, but How can that be

I've always asked folks if you believe the TR is is literally

Legitimate copy of the autographs. How do you deal with the issues that it presents to us in those in those particular texts?

Well, I mean, I understand the TR to be a collation of all the Byzantine manuscripts

Not for instance, there are Byzantine manuscripts that say the same thing so you don't have to use certain

Byzantine manuscript because you just be Redundant. Okay. Well, I guess that's

I guess it's one of the first questions. I have is what TR are we talking about? I mean, I mean, I heard I heard art farstad say he knew of a hundred and six editions.

So I couldn't verify that but are we talking about the Trinitarian Bible Society?

Are we talking about particular edition of Erasmus? Which we have the Trinitarian Bible Society is generally

I think the accepted view of the TR But I mean I would I would think that it would be the one that was used by the

Westminster Confession of Faith Because you did ask whether or not there was some counsel that you had to subscribe to and the

Westminster Confession of Faith at chapter 1 section 8 says the

Old Testament Hebrew, which was the native language of the people of God of old and the

New Testament in Greek Which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nation's being immediately inspired by God and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages and therefore authentical now

I mean, I mean it seems like the Westminster Confession of Faith is talking about the

Texas Receptus as the Texas Receptus is A collation of the

Byzantine manuscripts because that's what they were using back then well again that that leaves us without the ability to answer the question of any specific reading because in 1633 the

Elsevier brothers Attached as an advertising blurb the the phrase textus receptus

But right we don't the problem is that the King James translators?

Did not use any one particular printed edition they primarily relied upon the 1598

Beza, but they did at times choose from Erasmus and Stephanus and go against Beza and the blue case bound

Trinitarian Bible Society Edition did not exist in 1648 Scrivener made that on the basis of the textual choices of the

King James So the question the question I have is what is the Westminster Confession of Faith talking about at this point?

I believe the London Baptist Confession of Faith says something similar to this Yeah, I don't think it's making reference to the 1525

Bomberg or anything else that existed at that time I think it is a general statement of the preservation of the text of God's so that God's people have always had his word in Each in each generation that's why it says in all ages as I recall is phraseology and the fact is that If you limit that solely to the

Byzantine manuscripts Historically that just doesn't work. I mean there's an entire period of time when when the

Latin Vulgate predominates There's entire reaches of the church that didn't have Byzantine manuscripts,

I mean look at look at Alexandria I mean, how did area somehow stand against the entire church including the corruption of the area around Antioch and Byzantium with?

Arianism in the fourth century if he didn't have the Word of God available to him But we know that what he had available to him was what's called the

Alexandrian manuscript tradition So I don't see how we can force that statement to to walk on all fours in essence and identify

Either the Byzantine manuscript tradition or Even make the identity between the TR and the

Byzantine manuscript tradition since the TR is based on maybe I mean Stretching as far as I can stretch here with Erasmus Stephanus Beza and any other manuscripts that the translators may have looked at Maybe two dozen and we have so many more than that today

So I don't know how did you do you really think that that's what they had in mind? Well, I mean we have what five thousand extent manuscripts today five thousand seven hundred and fifty -two as of November Okay, and the majority of them attest to The Byzantine manuscripts, which is because they the 94 % of them are past the year 900.

Yes, okay And so therefore I mean Erasmus having let's say 12 copies

Like I had some hyperactive copies. No, actually he didn't in fact the best copy he had he didn't trust

The oldest copy he had was from around 1 ,000 and the interesting thing is here and this is this is again,

I think a very important question there were variants between the six man six or seven manuscripts he had and Erasmus had to apply textual critical principles to determine what reading he put in the

TR So if Erasmus used textual critical principles based upon his rating of the manuscripts

Why is that wrong today? I didn't say it was wrong. Okay, so we can do that today.

I don't have a problem with textual criticism I think textual criticism is a very important field of subject.

Mm -hmm. The problem that I have is using these Alexandrian texts Now so Erasmus according to Scrivener.

Mm -hmm knew about the the Vaticanus Vaticanus Be manuscript, but rejected it as corrupt.

That's not true. That's not Here and well a plane a plane introduction to the criticism of a

New Testament I understand that by one page of 109 now I understand that but a couple couple you're getting anachronistic here.

First of all, sure Erasmus wrote to his friend bombastius in Rome After the first publication of his first edition and asked him to check

Vaticanus in regards to the Kami Ohanian And by the way, just for consistency sake here you would reject the

Kami Ohanian, right? No, but it's not part of the Byzantine manuscripts It's a

Byzantine reading. No, it's not It's a ninety ninety nine point nine percent of all

Byzantine manuscripts that contain first John we reject it So it's not a business manuscripts that do have it or Byzantine.

Well anything after the 15th century would be called Byzantine But the fact the matter is if you collate the

Byzantine manuscripts, it will reject the comma look at look at well I don't go on. I don't go on majority text.

I don't go on the majority text principles. I don't follow those Of the manuscripts necessarily reflect the the

Yeah, and you don't either new American Standard the new the

Bible that you use uses minority readings doesn't it? Yeah, but I'm consistent that and you're not because you've been arguing that the

Byzantine manuscripts are the ones that we should be using and yet the majority of the

Byzantine manuscripts do not contain the the Kami Ohanian and so how can you even create a

Collation of the Byzantine texts. I mean, you know how the comma ended up in the

TR It wasn't in the first two editions So would you say the first two editions of Erasmus were corrupt because the the

Kami wasn't there Well, the first edition had a lot of problems with it because of it because of the typing well and because it was rushed

No question and those but the problem is many of those problems are still in the TR to this day

Okay, but I'm well, I mean we're skipping around a bit but to my eye as I understand it the

Kami Ohanian is Found in in the Byzantine text

It's not might not be the majority of the Byzantine text the it's found in Byzantine text the business any collation of the

Byzantine manuscript tradition as a Tradition unto itself would reject the

Kami Ohanian Okay, so you're telling me that first John five seven and eight is not found in any

Byzantine text I never said that I said any collation Because you're talking about 15th and 16th century manuscripts here.

It comes in from the Latin Vulgate I mean if you want if you want to start accepting

Erasmus's insertions in the Greek manuscript edition from Latin Vulgate Then again to be consistent.

There's a lot of other stuff. We need to be putting in and taking out That's been but one of my big problems with the

TR only position In his prologue to the canonical epistles says that Irresponsible translators left out this testimony in the

Greek codices. So Jerome must have had some Greek texts that had Well, there's where's the evidence for that?

I mean you might John Calvin's Commentary on first John five. Well, I mean,

I mean John John Gill References it and his commentary on first John. I mean historically there are no

Manuscripts that contain it. Where did they go? We have today, but where is the evidence that they were there?

I mean, it's just I mean, I can Jerome's testimony count Well, again, you're just citing the

Latin Vulgate It would well the Latin Vulgate of the day of Erasmus is not the same thing as the

Latin Vulgate of the day of Jerome there were obviously many accretions that took place that was the very birth of Textual critical studies was the recognition that the

Vulgate had changed over time as well You cannot assume that the multiple versions the

Vulgate that exists at the time of Erasmus are identical to the text Jerome has But the point is the point is to the fact that he had

Greek text that had this the Johannine comma in it well, first of all, he never called it that uh, there are no manuscripts extant that contain these things and The Byzantine manuscript tradition if you collated it as a tradition would reject it if you accept it

Then what you're saying is that you don't have any Standard by which we're going to go other than the

King James text an English translation Because well, you're basically if we were going on on on Greek texts only

Yes. Yes. I I would have to agree with you that the majority of the Byzantine manuscripts

Do not have the Johannine comma in it. Okay, so if that doesn't mean that it's not a

That it's not endemic to the text Okay, so the the entire Byzantine the

Byzantine manuscript tradition For hundreds of years can lack a vitally important text

Please explain that in light of your interpretation of the Westminster Confession 1 8 which says pure through all ages

Because we have Byzantine manuscripts that have the Johannine comma in it. Show me one from the 9th century

I Am NOT prepared to answer that question at this time. Well, there are Claims to be a perfect scholar.

I'm okay Robert. How about how about we put this way? Yes Theoretically there are there is no evidence in a

Byzantine manuscript of this being the common possession of the people of God for hundreds of years does that cause a problem with your interpretation of The phraseology found in the

Confession of Faith throughout all ages because because again, I just don't think that's what they meant But but when it says you know

They have been kept pure how I mean if there's entire hundreds of years to go by Without anyone having this stuff in their hands

How can that fit into the reading that you're giving of of the Westminster Confession of Faith?

I don't understand it. Okay. Well, I have to I have to be Shall we say

I Have to do theoretical here. I can't I can't give you absolutes

But we have for instance a Byzantine manuscript that has the Johannine comma in it in the 12th century

Which was a copy of a manuscript let's say that was written in the 11th century

Which was a copy etc, etc, etc But no, you're not So it was there early, okay

Alright, so so you just assume that was there Even if you can't give the manuscripts that that that contain that what how about leaving the

Kami Ohanian? How about Revelation 16 5? Revelation 16 5.

Well, I thought we might talk about the last verses of Revelation because you did mention that earlier. Yeah Well, you know if you've not looked at Revelation 16 5 it'd be very similar

I have documented that the reading found in the

TR today and in the King James The King James says and I heard the angel of the waters say thou art righteous

Oh Lord, which art and was and shall be because thou has judged us All the

English translations before then Coverdale Geneva, etc, etc All of the

Greek texts Erasmus Stephanus all say Just are you

Oh Holy One who is and who was? It is well known that Beza made a conjectural emendation

He had no manuscript evidence upon which to act and he changed it changed. Ha ha see us which means the

Holy One to Sominos, which is the future form so it would be it would be more flow which art and Weston shall be

No Greek manuscript reads as the TR no Byzantine Manuscript reads as the

TR no English translation before Beza reads as the TR But taking taking what you say then

I would say that it would need to be changed that there's an error in the TR on that matter Okay, so the

TR can be amended who would have the ability to do that I Think the

TR should be amended according to the the textual evidence in the Byzantine manuscript

I don't believe that the Alexandrian manuscripts, which is where I'm which is where my point of contention is should be used to amend the

Greek text Okay, I think the essence of the critical text and since the 1800s

Well before I ask you why The earliest texts we have should not be given more weight than texts from a thousand years later

How however? Can you collate? Byzantine manuscripts if you've already demonstrated that you have a pre commitment to such things as the

Kami Ohanian If we have talked the comma Ohanian is in the

Byzantine manuscripts But it is it is not in any way shape or form

The Byzantine manuscripts do not present a monolithic text. How do you how do you determine?

given that I assert to you that any reading of First John 5 in the

Byzantine text is going to reject the Kami Ohanian How do you determine what the

Byzantine manuscripts are going to be? Do you do so sort of backwards engineering from the King James? Well, there's testimony among the

Latin So you know as to the old Latin interpreter is certain it the comma is to be seen in many

Latin manuscripts of an early Date and stands in the Latin Vulgate edition of the London polyglot clotted

Bible So and the Latin translation which bears the name of Jerome has it and who in an epistle to is to the canonical epistles

Prefixed to this translation of these canonical pen epistles Complaints of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters.

Okay, so the Latin then Can overthrow the majority testimony of the

Byzantine manuscripts Do you realize how many texts will now need to be changed in the

TR as a result of this? Well, no. No, I don't think that's that's necessarily the case.

Why not? We're looking up because again Robert. I'm just looking for consistency because I know you are when

I when I'm standing in front of Muslims in London I need to be consistent

I am telling them they need to be consistent in how they handle their

Quranic text I can't come to them and say well I'll use one standard for this text and I'll come up with this means of establishing a

Reading that falls out of all Greek mania the entire Greek manuscript tradition that in that hundreds literally half a millennium or more passes where no

Christian reading a Greek manuscript ever reads it this way, but I'll come up with a way to defend that reading but I won't be consistent and make the radical changes to the rest of my text that I would necessarily have to do if I were to follow this methodology and They're gonna look at me and say well then clearly you're not you're not working with the facts in a fair way

And that's why I keep coming back to my reformed brethren who who promote this thing and go all right, how do you answer that and It has nothing to do with King James only folks.

It has to do with I've yet. Not I haven't gotten an answer right well I mean

We're gonna have to go back to Jerome's Testimony that because Jerome says that it was in the Greek text well, but you know what um without First of all that it's which is why he put it in there in the

Vulgate to begin with Well he had Greek text that said that the Johannine comma was in it now

We don't have those Greek texts today, but we can trust Jerome's commentary Other passages that you're talking about concerning the

Latin Vulgate do you have such a testimony that that Jerome made concerning this again if you want to go to Jerome's commentaries and Start inserting everything that he said

Into the text what your mate you have any idea the radical alterations to the text that are going to have to be made to be consistent based solely upon some kind of a reference in Jerome That has no

Greek manuscript evidence supporting it. I mean you're in essence making a

Western text the the overriding interpreter for the entire

Byzantine manuscript tradition That the result would be a complete revision of the

TR well and and that inconsistency Does Jerome consistently say that irresponsible translators left out this testimony in the

Greek codices well again? His commentaries, and we'd have to look at specifics But his commentaries are filled with references to textual critical issues

But but you do not accept Ninety -nine point nine nine percent of what he says on that subject.

That's my point. I'm looking for Consistency okay, you said you wanted to say something about I can't believe it's already quarter till we went blowing past our break and everything

I said you you said you wanted to say something about the last six verses of Revelation as well you seem to want to go there, so I want to make sure you had a chance to do that All right, well,

I I don't read Latin, but I saw references saying that Erasmus never said that he translated out of the

Latin That found in the annotations that statement that supposedly comes out of the annotations is not there

Okay, so When you say that Erasmus Retranslated the last six verses yeah out of the

Latin mm -hmm. You don't have any proof of that I believe that almost every single

Work on the subject Erasmus verifies that and if that's not the case Then you have a much much much bigger problem

And that is there's not a single Byzantine manuscript in the world that contains those readings, so where'd they come from? We know we know which manuscripts well

Says it came from 2049 Okay, so from one so so one

Greek manuscript revelation. It is that is 2049 the the commentary from st.

Ephraim Manuscript 2049, but is that we know what he used he used a the commentary from Ephraim, and he extracted the the

Greek from that that much we do know and so If that's what 2049 is then then great the problem remains that you can't verify.

What's in the last Section because it's not there so again

I'm Using a Greek text 2049. He's translating out of 2049 a

Greek text But that's not what he himself said he identified the source that he used for the book of Revelation as being a commentary

He actually had to extract the text out. That's why there's so many problems in Revelation He did not have he borrowed he he tells the story that Froben's putting pressure upon him.

He cannot find a any hand any manuscript of Revelation and so he talks to Johannes Reuchlin and Reuchlin lets him borrow

The Commentary that he has on Revelation and he extracts Its Ephraim's commentary he extracts the

Greek text from it, but the last page is missing so If that's 2049 the last page is still missing.

It doesn't really make any any difference and Doesn't husk ears. I mean I have it in the other room, but he doesn't come up with the readings that Erasmus did

He doesn't come up with the word order that Erasmus had there's no Greek manuscript to my knowledge

Anywhere that has the word order that Erasmus has so that's what husky is saying

Is that manuscript 2049 has the word order? Concerning the text of the apocalypse volume 2 page 644 rich next to my desk

Upper upper left -hand side you'll have husk ears concerning the text the apocalypse, please I've got it right over there.

We'll take a look at it because I'd like to know what you're referring to Can you read? Let's see

It Second Peter, where's my page second

Peter 3 15 and 17 in regards to what?

Well you mentioned earlier about the older manuscripts And I think that Peter this passage to Peter 3 15 and 17 might shed some light on those older manuscripts

Okay Why don't you why don't you make the point for me because I have no idea what you're talking about since this can't be

Talking about older manuscripts or anything else. Well, I Peter in the passage is talking about the wisdom given to You know, let's see if I could find it the wisdom given to Paul, you know

As in also is pistol speaking in them of things in which something's hard to be understood

Would you they that are unlearned and unstable rest as they do the other scriptures?

Unto their own destruction Okay, so we have evidence here in the first century that heretics were

Corrupting manuscripts has nothing to do with corrupting manuscripts. Well, I mean Ancient manuscripts that are being corrupted by heretics, but it's not talking about manuscripts.

It's talking about the scriptures No, it's talking about the teaching. They're resting Paul's writings. It's talking about destruction.

Yeah, it's changing the manuscripts It has no sir. You're making a huge leap there

It says as they do the other scriptures, that means these people were just corrupting all scriptures Yes, they were corrupting.

They were corrupting scriptures. They weren't changing the scriptures They were twisting the meaning of the scriptures has nothing to do with changing the text

I've never seen I've just never seen anyone interpret the text that way I'll probably have evidence from Cyprian and others saying that that Unbelievers were taking the text and doing some crazy things with it

There's no way when you argue with Jehovah Witnesses concerning John chapter 1 and they insert that letter a

Into the into the script. They're changing the text of scriptures unbelievers and unlearned men are are profuse and trying and seeking to change the scriptures but second

Timothy but second Peter 316 is talking about people who twist the message in Paul's writings. It has nothing to do with changing his manuscripts.

Not only that the Writing. No, I completely disagree.

I see no basis that whatsoever and I would imagine that the vast majority of Reformed scholars who interprets exegete that text would agree that what's being said

There is that they are twisting the message of Paul not that they are altering manuscripts of Paul's writings There's nothing about manuscripts here or anything else.

I Just don't see any basis that whatsoever Now, what did you your reference to?

Volume 2 page what? Page Concerning the text 44 or something like that.

I don't know. I don't you Just I have some things here

Looking at I don't have 644 pages mine. Well, no 649 so I would have a

Kenyon Greenlee You had given

You had just given the reference. Oh, okay. Here it is page 644 volume twos page 644

Makes mention of a Greek text 2049 or in his

I think his is 141 in Support that there's nothing on page six.

You don't have this. Is this a reference you got out of a secondary source? Yes I used to have the text itself, but I had to return it to a library so I can relook it up and There's nothing on this page in regards to There's no discussion of Him using 2049 or what was the other one?

You said? 141 141 Instead for example, you do have a listing here of All the manuscripts that go against the readings that he has

I Do not I do not see what you're referring to. I'm sorry. I can't respond to if I can't find it

Look it up. I'll give you a call again. Yeah Bruce in his the canon of Scripture.

This is a direct reference. I have the book page 145 Some light may be thrown on the question by a remark of Tertullian.

There are two ways He says of nullifying the scriptures one is Marcian's way He used a knife to excise from the scriptures whatever did not conform with his own opinion

Valentius on the other hand seems to use the entire test Instrumentum which here he means the

New Testament, but perverts its meaning by misinterpreting it Valentius was contemporary with Marcian.

He came from Alexandria in Egypt and lived in Rome from about 135 to 160 Yeah, there's no question of any of that.

But what is The heretics were changing the text. I was denying the first Peter 3 or has second

Peter 3 has anything to do with Heretics changing the text the fact of matter is that the majority text that we have for the first thousand years is

Alexandria not Byzantine and The fact of matter is well, yeah that we can make we can make things up Robert I mean again, how do you debate that?

You can you can you can you can conjecture all you want But that's why your position can't go into the marketplace is you're going how many manuscripts do we have of the

Alexandria? Have a handful. Well depends on what you're talking about.

I'm sorry copied. Yes, they were copied with a Byzantine manuscripts It's sort of hard to know even where to start here

That's just not true There were entire scriptoriums for hundreds of years who copied these things

The reason they stopped being copied is called Islam is lam

Okay, it has nothing to do with with with people decide that these were bad or something in any way shape or form the reason the

Byzantine manuscripts are the majority is because Byzantium didn't get taken over by Islam until 1450 the

West and so don't you see Providence there? I see Providence in in what in the in the fact that there is one particular text type in that area

You want Providence Providence's we have p75 today Providence's we have p66 today

Everything's Providence you would say that's not Providence. I mean, it's real easy to identify Providence to fit a particular theory

I prefer going with the facts and try to drive my theories from them the

Islamic Horde down south He didn't send them north.

Oh and that must mean that does that mean they were terrible down south Does that mean does that mean the Christians who are suffering under Islam today are worse than we are?

I'd say that well, that seems to be what you just suggested He sent them down south and they destroyed the manuscripts down south.

No, actually, I think I said they stopped producing

Manuscripts in the areas where Islam took over for obvious reasons

We obviously have manuscripts from that area because we still possess them to this day

Some of them were buried in the ground long before 632 to 732 and when Islam expanded etc, etc.

I did not say they destroyed manuscripts I've never even suggested that Islam was God's instrument to destroy the evil

Alexandrian manuscripts The fact the matter is that the Alexandrian manuscripts are just as clear and just as plain and in fact in some ways more plain

On the on the key theological issues of our day especially regards the deity of Christ then later Byzantine manuscripts are and that's a fact and I could take the most

Alexandrian manuscript in the world of the New Testament and the most Byzantine manuscript in the world of the New Testament and if you apply the same exegetical principles to both of them you will not come up with some different faith in any way shape or form and So I agree with that good good.

So why would God send them south just to destroy the Alexandrian manuscripts? I don't know.

Why would do that? I I don't pretend to Even begin to understand why would

God preserve the manuscripts of the Byzantine texts and not those why did God? Yeah, why'd why'd

God preserve the Latin Vulgate in the Roman Catholics? I mean, that's a real great that that is an argument Rome has used

And it's an invalid one a very invalid one. Well, thank you. Thank you Robert. I take up all your oh, hey

I think I think people have found to be very useful and I appreciate you calling in today sorry, I didn't get

John earlier, but again, I Just looked at your signature and it said, Colorado Springs, so I just figured there was a difference.

So God bless. All right. All right Whoo. All righty

Well, I I think that that was very very very useful. I really really do so next week back here

I've got a bunch of clips Jimmy Akin Tim Staples stuff like that. We'll move on to some of those things Hey, unless there's some more to discuss maybe there will be who knows if you're in a

Dallas area Hopefully see you this weekend. See you later. 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 six oh two nine seven three four six zero two or write us at p .o

Box three seven one zero six Phoenix, Arizona eight five zero six nine. You can also find us on the world wide web at a omin

Org, that's a o -m -i -n dot o -r -g where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks