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 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James white.

Critique of Bart Ehrman’s Jesus Interrupted

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 and 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. Irmin was talking about why I Just not a debatable subject. We I'm a historian not a theologian. I would have really liked to have been able to say 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 Irmin 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. Ah. 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 and he you know. We played his interview with the infidel guy and he's only thinks it's 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? Where's what's what's the new perspective on Paul based on a diminished Pauline corpus on the same ones that Ermin 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. Ehrman'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 Ermin 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.

The Westminster Confession and the Preservation of the Greek Text

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 and see 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 Curt and Barbara All in that he hasn't sorted through the passages in scripture and preservation and their historical understanding reading turrets in a no one and others.

Now, of course, everybody recognizes a 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 have 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 in the 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 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. White 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 a 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 asked 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 Texas 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 confidential 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 council 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 problems.

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 to fondness 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 you just no no no.

No, you just gotta accept the Byzantine text. It's like well. 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 then 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 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 personally find that rather interesting so there's some of the questions. You know I read directly from it. Personally I believe that dr. Y 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 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 bezae candabrigensis 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 watch 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 I did kind of I understand that.

I'm sure you were 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 in teen manuscripts. For instance there are Byzantine manuscripts that say the same thing so you don't have to use.

Okay, 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 one the Trinitarian Bible Society generally? I think the excited would be the one that was used by the Westminster confer. Not there was some God of old Which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nation's Westminster Confession of Faith.

Is talking about The Texas Receptus as the Texas Receptus. 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 Baysa, but they did at times choose from Erasmus and Stephanus and go against Baysa 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. 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 4th 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 Alexandria 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 extant manuscripts today five thousand seven hundred and fifty two as of November. Okay, and the majority of them attest to 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. But they had some hyper-accurate 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 1000 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 object. Mm-hmm. The problem that I have is using these Alexandrian. So Erasmus is according to script 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 that I understand that but a couple couple you're getting anachronistic here. First of all Erasmus wrote to his friend Bombasius 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 no, it's not.

It's a ninety ninety nine point nine percent of all Byzantine manuscripts that contain first John. We reject it.

Manuscripts that do have it are 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 principle of the manuscripts necessary. New American. 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.

Had a lot of problems with it. Well and because it was rushed.

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

Okay, but I'm I as I understand it. The comma Ohanian now 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 trends. 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 didn't 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 Johannean 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. Yes. Yes I I would have to agree with you that the majority of the Byzantine manuscripts do not have the Johannean comma in it. Okay, so if that doesn't mean that it's not I.

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

Manuscripts that have the Johannean comma in it. Show me one from the 9th century. There are like I I am not prepared to answer that question at this time. Well, there are. I don't claim 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.

I have a manuscript. Let's say copy. But you know, you're not. You can't give me. 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?

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 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 O Lord.

Which art and wust and shalt be. Because thou has judged us. All the English translations before them 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 changed ha ha see us which means the Holy One to Sominos, which is the future form.

So it would be more flow which art and wust and shalt 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. Okay. So the TR can be amended who would have the ability to do that or should be amended according to the the textual evidence in the Byzantine manuscript.

I don't believe that the Alexandrian manuscript, okay, I think.

Well before I ask you why. The earliest texts we have should not be given more weight than text 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.

Oh, honey. Um.

Well, we have talked. The Kami Oh honey I'm 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.

Oh honey, um. 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 Latins. 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.