Roman Meme Theology, Data Mining the Bible and Qur’an, Wael Ibrahim, and Live Viewing of Kent Hovind

Roman Catholic Authority Claims and the Reformation View of Tradition

Well, greetings, welcome to the dividing line. If I look like I'm heading to the beach or something like that, I might as well be. Did you see the predicted highs for Friday, Saturday? 88. I mean, it's 14, 15 degrees.

That would be, that'd be 18 degrees above normal for this time of year. A big old high-pressure system has plopped itself down on top of us, and it's not going, it just ain't going anyplace, and it is like ridiculous.

So, I'm breaking out the summer clothes and, you know, getting the nice cool stuff on because I imagine I get in the car, you know, this afternoon. It's good. It's gonna be well, it'll be triple digits in there, I imagine.

I came back from lunch and cracked my window, so it's not hot when I get in the truck. I know, I know. It's amazing. And that regular Reformed guy's dude, did you see the tweet he just tweeted? Hey, DrUgly689, this guy wants on the DL, and I told him, you get me that Coogee, you can be on the DL, because that is a glorious Coogee.

No, no, no. That is just gorgeous. That is gorgeous. Look at that turquoise in that. That is just beautiful. I'm really trying not to. That is just, wow. I'm not even gonna describe what I'm thinking right now.

That's just heavenly. It really is. I think that's the kind of clothing we're gonna wear in heaven. Anyway, Anyway, let's Let's go ahead and start. I was gonna start with something else, but let's go ahead and start with the, with our meme theology for the day.

This one was sent last evening to me via Facebook. Yeah, there we go. Heresy, that special moment when you have greater spiritual insight than the Apostles, Disciples, Apostolic Fathers, the Church, and the Magisterium, because you have a Bible that they wrote, compiled, and gave to you.

Now, as with most falsehoods, there is truth and error intermixed, and it does seem that there's a major problem in our world today, especially with young folks. As long as there's a small amount of truth, then you have to respect the rest.

It's this false idea that all ideas are worthy of respect. No, all ideas are not worthy of respect. That may have been drummed into you by Caesar's schoolroom, but that is a falsehood. There are stupid ideas in the world, and it is stupid to honor stupid ideas.

How's that? Honoring foolishness is not how you prove that you're a nice person. It proves how you're a gullible person who does not actually respect the truth, and hence really doesn't have a lot of love and respect for other people, because if you love and respect other people, you'll want people to actually be operating on the basis of a true worldview rather than a false worldview.

So anyway, with that said, the truths here are found in the fact that if you do think that you alone have come up with an insight that no one else has ever thought of, that generation after generation after generation of readers of the Bible and the church as the whole, the body of Christ, the faithful body of Christ.

I'm not talking about Christendom. I'm not talking about big buildings and marble slabs and gold-encrusted furniture and stuff like that. That's not the church. It's never defined as the church. But there is such thing as church, and there is such thing as a recognition that God has been building his church through every generation.

And so there is a balanced recognition that God has been active in his church, and therefore, the idea that there are brand new things that have never been heard or thought of before, but it is arrogance.

And that, of course, is why at the time of the Reformation, if you've ever actually done any meaningful reading in the writings of the time of the Reformation, you know that nobody was saying, you know, it's been wrong all along.

All of the Reformers said, we are going back to the earliest days, and they made their arguments. You may disagree with their arguments, but they did not say, we're just throwing it all out. They said, actually, the early church believed this, the early church believed that, and you've heard one of my favorite quotes from one of my favorite theologians of the last couple hundred years, and that is Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield.

B .B. Warfield in describing the Reformation said, the Reformation inwardly considered is nothing more than the victory of Augustine's doctrine of grace over Augustine's doctrine of the church. And if you listen carefully to that, what you realize is, huh, Augustine was self-contradictory in his theology, and he was, and that's why both sides in the Reformation could quote from Augustine without too much difficulty, because the Reformers were quoting him on the gospel, and the early Catholics were quoting him on church structure and sacramentalism.

And that, of course, went back to the fact that he had those two great controversies in his life and ministry, and how he solved those was not overly consistent. Of course, there were decades between them, so give the guy a break.

But anyway, the reality is that the balanced view recognizes Christ has been building his church, and hence, when someone comes along and does that, I've discovered something, that is that special moment, heresy, no question about it.

The imbalanced view is on the one side, you've got the vast majority of non-Roman Catholics today, and let's be honest, the vast majority of Catholics, too, who are just nominal. I mean, they're just, they go to a Catholic Church, but they don't have a clue, and could care less one way or the other.

The number of actually believing Roman Catholics is a small number, who actually know the teachings of the church and believe the teachings of the church. That's a small number. I think a lot of them would actually are sitting there going, unfortunately, he's right.

Well, that could care less, absolutely, positively care less, about church history, the generations before us, our debt to them, how our, what we believe has been honed and examined and placed in such a way that we are the recipients of a tremendous amount of work and thought and reflection and battle from the generations before us.

It could care less, could care less. I mean, it takes a completely non-reflective person, and when I say non-reflective, I'm not talking about the light off of my head, okay? I'm always concerned that people think, oh, he thinks he's really reflective because he glows.

No, non-reflective, as in reflecting upon one's worldview, reflecting upon how one's worldview interacts with other people's worldview, and what the different worldviews and what the differences and foundations are.

And so when I say someone is non-reflective, that may be an observation. It may be an insult. It may be both. It may be only one of the two. But what I'm saying is they're not a deep thinker. They're not someone who is really, they may be talking a lot, but it doesn't necessarily mean much thought is behind what's being said, even if it sounds like there is.

And so there are a lot of non-reflective, non-Catholics who just take in what they believe and think that they just came up with it all in their own. Maybe they think they've just, you know, well, it's right there in the Bible, so I just believe it, and they don't realize all that has come before, all right?

On the other side, you have the Roman Catholics who exalt the tradition that has been defined for them by Rome. It's not the tradition of the early church. Very few of them have actually spent much time reading early church fathers.

Or if they do, they read things like the Jurgens three-volume set of specially selected quotes and stuff like that. That really doesn't give you a meaningful sense of what we have in the writings of the early church fathers.

But they exalt the early writers to the point where that becomes the matrix through which the Bible itself is interpreted. And that over-exaltation is never really an exaltation of those individuals.

It's an exaltation of the system that has developed and that tells them what it is they're supposed to believe. This thing's driving me absolutely crazy today. Take it off and try a different direction or something.

I'll just wait until I've got a video going and then I'll worry about them. Anyway, so there's the imbalance. We need to be balanced in the middle and I know being balanced is not how you sell books. It's not how you do anything.

Today, you get shot at if you do the balancing. So going back to the graphic then, here's a special moment when you have greater spiritual insight than the apostles. Disciples, stop there. Because if we think about what's actually being said and we're talking about the Bible, then we're talking about that which is given by God, not by men.

And when you go apostles, disciples, you stop there because that's the end of Revelation. That's the end of that which is Theanostos, which is God breathed. Apostolic fathers, I can point you to numerous errors in the statements of apostolic fathers.

I can point you to numerous errors from the Roman Catholic perspective in the apostolic fathers, but not in the apostles and disciples. So there is a, notice they just cram it all together, which destroys the unique significance and authority of that which is Theanostos and subsumes that, as is the Roman Catholic way, under the broader authority of the magisterium.

Because what have we said before? Sola Ecclesia. In the modern Roman system, the Roman magisterium determines what scripture is and what it says, what tradition is and what it says. And so that capital T tradition, scripture just becomes a subset of that.

And that, of course, functionally destroys the ultimate authority of and the unique significance of that which is Theanostos by paralleling it with that which is not Theanostos, that which is not God breathed.

So apostolic fathers, the church, how do you define that? I don't care what you say. What I saw inside the Vatican is not the Christian church. That's not the religion of the man from Galilee. These pretentious pontiffs who live the life of luxury engaged in utter sexual debauchery.

I don't care what you say. Your biblical arguments are a sham. They are ridiculous. That's not Christianity. It never will be, never was. Not even a possibility. The church and the magisterium, because you have a bible that they wrote, compiled and gave to you.

They wrote? They wrote that the church, the magisterium wrote the church, the bible? No, it didn't. Here's sola ecclesia. Well, we did because we just stick it all together and fail to make the proper distinctions between things.

They didn't write it. Ultimately, the Holy Spirit did by inspiration, but the apostles and disciples were the men who spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit and compiled and gave to you.

God's the one that compiled it and God's the one that preserved it and he did use his church, but it wasn't the Roman church. Because as anybody knows, the only significant canonical difference that exists between non-Roman Catholics, serious historical non-Roman Catholics, and Roman Catholicism in regards to the canon of scripture are the deuterocanonicals and it is painfully obvious.

Just go listen to the debates we've done on the subject of the Apocrypha, read William Webster's work on material, read the Old Testament canon, the New Testament church by Beckwith. Look at the materials for yourself and you will discover very, very quickly the fact that you can make a very, very strong argument against the deuterocanonicals and that there was a long and deep tradition within the tradition of the church all the way up to the modern period, all the way up to the time of Luther that rejected the deuterocanonicals as having a canonical status and it really was.

The fact that Luther rejected them that ended up leading to the canonization of those texts by the Council of Trent. And so there it is. It's pretty straightforward. So this idea they wrote, compiled, and gave to you is just it's a farce.

I mean, it's really hard to take seriously. The person who can make this kind of argument, but you got to feel sorry for them. I mean, it's got to be tough to be a believing Roman Catholic apologist these days.

I mean every morning you got to get up and you got to fear turn your computer on because what has Francis said now? And what am I going to have to go into full spin mode to try to turn into an orthodox statement on Francis's part now?

And you've got to know deep down in your heart that your church is being led by an allegedly infallible guy that you know in your heart, you know in your heart, he does not believe what the previous Pope believed, let alone Pope's 150 years ago.

You know that. But you just you just keep pushing that voice down and you know, you just keep trying to say no, no, no, no, no. So there you go. So there's our meme theology for today. What? I was going to say when I looked at that this morning for the first time, it struck me.

I read it like this. Heresy, that special moment when you have greater spiritual insight than the apostles, disciples, and apostolic fathers. Stop right there. Which group thinks like that they have greater insight than all those?

The Roman church. Well, you can sort of tell by the artwork where they were going with that, but. Well, I kind of struck that, saw that as an illustration of my point. Yeah. See these three guys, you know, their artwork.

There you go. You know, is that even period? No, that's. Yeah, well, what period are we talking about? Exactly. So anyway, well, there's your meme theology for today. We'll go ahead and take that down because I'm about to take that down one way or the other and there it goes.

There we go. All right. Now, I was sent a yesterday, the young man who debated Shabir Ali. I have not heard the debate yet. I'm getting behind on stuff because I'm doing something weird for nine days.

I'm doing what's called the tour of Sufferlandia. It's killing me. I mean, it is tough. I'm having to push myself literally and talk about a blessing. I'm having to push myself to eat enough to stay at weight because I'm burning 1500 to 2000 per day without a break.

There isn't going to be a break for nine days. And isn't it a blessing to be in a land where I don't have to worry about finding three thousand five hundred calories a day to eat? Sadly, a lot of people do that without trying to, but it is good that I can find that kind of sustenance to keep things going.

But anyways, because I'm doing that, I'm losing my on bike study time because what this involves would be the workouts just too intense to be listening to anything. You're just you're dying. I mean, you might I suppose I could listen to something, but I wouldn't remember any of it because when you're about to fall off the bike and throw up, you don't remember a whole lot of what you were just doing.

So anyway, I'm I have this in the list. The debate that took place with Shabir Ali, it's it's in the list. Anyways, he sent me a tweet last evening and. I looked at this article, the folks, listen up.

Every single person in this audience and I, I love getting the pictures. I really do. It's amazing where this little webcast goes. I love getting the pictures of families watching The Dividing Line, especially the kids.

And I love the, you know, the tweets about, you know, my two year old gets excited and here's the dividing line theme or, you know, whatever else and stuff like that. That's really cool. Even you young people, you need to cultivate the discipline of listening to an argument and recognizing what it's based on and analyzing that basis and then responding to it from a presuppositional foundational level.

I don't care who you are. I don't care what you're called to do. God gave you a mind. He's giving you the spirit of God. He's giving you the word of God. Don't tell me that's not sufficient to allow you to think with discipline, to be a disciplined thinker, which is not what is taught in Caesar's, um, Caesar's minion making machines called public schools in it.

So I'm going to read you an article, not a long article. And what I want you to do, um, is I want as, as I read it, be analyzing the foundational assumptions that either have been made or needed to have been made foundational factual issues that were ignored.

Sometimes it's both. It's just either an error in the assumptions that were made or an error in bringing certain data in that would fundamentally affect those assumptions. So listen to this article that was forwarded to me and tell me how you would respond to this text analytics program proves Quran less violent than the Bible to hear right-wing politicians and pundits tell it.

The Quran is the most violent religious book out there. If this were the case, though, it only makes sense that text analytics software programs that can almost instantaneously review entire books would find countless examples of this violence.

Instead, it found something even more compelling. Data mining is a strategy that fortune 500 companies use to discover patterns they can then use to improve their business. Text analytics is one of these mining processes and Tom HC Anderson's Odin text is on the cutting edge of the technology.

These research tools are mostly used in the marketing world, but Anderson decided to showcase some other uses of Odin text. To understand any religion, one must start with its literature. So we thought it would be an interesting exercise to compare the primary books of Islam and Judeo-Christianity using the advanced data mining technology that fortune 500 corporations, government agencies, and other institutions routinely use to comb through large sets of unstructured text to identify patterns.

In other words, like the NSA. To put it simply, Anderson entered the entire Quran along with the Bible into his text analytics program. He then set the tool to see how specific words and phrases that conveyed emotions and actions, such as anger, fear, joy, destruction, and killing.

We should point out Odin text initially scans all data with the exact same assumptions. This allows for completely fair and 100 consistent coding. Within two minutes, Anderson had his answers. When compared with the entire Bible, the Quran showed higher rates of emotions, joy, and trust.

Conversely, it also showed more mentions of fear and anxiety. It's when the Old and New Testaments were examined separately, though, the more enlightening data came forth. This was done in an effort to separate Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and the results were illuminating, to say the least.

Of the three texts, the content in the Old Testament appears to be the most violent. Killing and destruction are referenced slightly more often in the New Testament, 2 .8%, than in the Quran, 2 .1%, but the Old Testament clearly leads more than twice that of Quran in mentions of destruction and killing, 5 .3%.

You'll often hear right-wing Christians say that the violence in the Old Testament is no indication of Christianity because the birth of Jesus Christ gave us a clean slate. Sorry. Even if this is the case, though, this text analytics study shows that even the New Testament contains more violence, murder, and destruction than the entirety of the Quran.

Side note, recent studies have shown that Christianity may have been based on popular fairy tales. Considering the violence of some of those, none of these findings are at all surprising, though. Really?

Wow, that one really gave you an idea of how fair this is. You'll only find the most uninformed among us denying that violence exists in religious texts, and while it might be surprising to some that the Bible is more violent than the Quran, at least the New Testament is all about forgiveness, right?

Jesus Christ comes to Earth to save us from our own sins. The New Testament should definitely win in the forgiveness and grace categories, correct? Awkward. The concept of forgiveness and grace occurs significantly more often in the Quran, 6 .3%, than in the New Testament, 2 .9%, or the Old Testament, 0 .7%.

We've done stories before on things more likely to kill you than Islamic extremism, and the results of this new data seem to explain why. Forgiveness is a central aspect of the Islamic holy book and religious texts of the three Abrahamic faiths, undoubtedly the cornerstone of each worldview, show that Christian and Jewish texts share a larger propensity for violence than the Quran.

Sadly, the results of this text analysis will likely mean nothing to the most extreme right-wing religious fanatics. We've seen numerous studies that strengthen the dumb conservative stereotype, and they go a long way in explaining why these new facts won't alter any opinions.

Unfortunately, we can only present the science to the uninformed. We cannot make them accept it. This is from ReverbPress .com. I don't know much about ReverbPress .com. Here's the argument, all right?

I was told last evening that this is making the rounds amongst Muslim apologists, and I'm sure that it would. Sadly, many Muslim apologists will use any argument that they can. You know, when I said that, you see Twitter?

When I said that, the thought crossed my mind, someone's going to repeat what I just said. As I was uttering the final words, and Stephen Myers just posted a meme, there are stupid ideas in the world, and it is stupid to honor stupid ideas.

I had a feeling that that was coming when I said it, but you know what? I stand behind it, and that's not going to get me elected anywhere at any time, but I stand behind it. Anyway, back to the article.

Now, there are so many problems with this that I will have to be brief, simply because I want to get back to Yael Ibrahim today. So many problems. It is really, really bad. Really, really, really bad.

Let's think about them. First of all, we're talking about data mining. Well, that's an interesting concept, but what's the first thing that pops into your mind? You're comparing, because they break it up between Old Testament, New Testament, and the Qanon.

All right. How long is the Qanon again? 14 the length of the Bible. 14%. It's only 56 the length of the New Testament. It is a much smaller text that contains significantly less differentiated styles of writing or material.

Any first-year Bible student is taught to recognize the kinds of literature that are found in the text of the Bible. So you don't simply compare historical material, of which there is almost nothing in the Qanon at all, to didactic material, to apocalyptic.

I mean, most of the Qanon is in poetic form. So if you're even going to try to be serious with this, you'd at least try to compare genre with genre. You'd try to compare poetic with poetic, but they don't do any of that.

They're just doing blocks of text without the slightest concern for the fact that you're talking about a book, which from the Islamic perspective is written over two decades, versus a collection of books written, in the Bible's case, over 1 ,500 years.

Dumping that kind of stuff without looking at language, without looking at background, into a computer program is simply stupid. But in our day, as long as it's done by a computer, then it must be right.

This does help to explain Bernie Sanders anyways, but doesn't it? I mean, honestly, how did, you know, Moeller this morning was talking about, how did we get to the point where we have an avowed socialist making a serious run this fast?

I mean, the millennials seeming, well, you know, I'm tired of watching YouTube videos, holding up pictures of Abraham Lincoln or George Washington or Joe Biden, and they're all like, oh, no, show up. Well, hold up, Lady Gaga, Lady Gaga.

You know, I mean, wow. It's just eventually that's, that's, that's what happens. Anyway. So the first thing was the, just the abject ridiculousness of some analytics software program having just blocks of text thrown at it.

And then Moeller's going to look for certain words, ignores context, language, background, genre, everything. That is unfair to every one of those religious texts, every one of them. Secondly, you only looked at Quran.

How about throwing Sahih al-Bukhari in there for the fun of it? Because anybody, anybody who knows anything at all about the real ground of disagreement, debate, warfare, even amongst the Muslims on the issue of jihad, the nature of jihad, what is appropriate in a state of jihad, what constitutes jihad, all the rest of that stuff.

It's not the Quran. It's the Hadith. So throw Sahih al-Bukhari in there. It's available in English translation. You can get it in e-text and then add that in. That would actually put it much more in, in a one-to-one correspondence size-wise.

Well, actually that would become huge. It'd be a much, much more on the, on the Islamic side. Even if you, if you could somehow, I'm not sure how you do it, filter out all the doubles, triples, quadruples, because the same stories told over and over and over and over again in Sahih al-Bukhari.

Actually what you need to do, see that, yeah, right there, see those two volumes right there? Those are, that is the collection of the Hadith that appear in both Bukhari and Muslim. That gives them sort of a special authority.

And use that instead. That would actually, I think, probably get you, it'd be interesting to see. I wish I could get that electronically. If any of you experts out there happen to know that it, whether that set is available electronically, I would really, really, really like to get hold of it.

Because I, that'd be, that'd be the, the best way to review the Hadith would be to, to get that. Because that would give you the key, the ones that are, you're not going to have a mutawatir or universally held Hadith that's not found somewhere in that set.

But anyways, so the point is that, that the issue of violence in, in, in Islamic faith is primarily an issue that is based upon the interpretation of documents that weren't included in this, in this quote unquote analysis.

And so the whole concept, not taking into consideration, when you're putting words of violence or hatred or destruction, are you talking about God acting in judgment? Are you talking about men who are self-destructive?

Aren't those different things? I mean, I mean, it is, it is stupidity. Again, sorry to be using that term, but it is stupidity to think that there is, well, if my text talks about violence 6 .3 of the time, that's going to make me violent.

What if all those times it's warning you against it? I mean, isn't that obvious? Um, just the basic assumptions that went into this or that didn't go into this absolutely stunningly, um, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, very, very bad.

And then of course, recent studies have shown that Christianity may have been based upon popular fairy tales. Okay. That again, sorry, but as soon as an atheist or a Muslim, uh, does the start down the list, Dionysius, Horus, Attis, whatever.

Um, uh, that whole line of foolishness, all that proves to me and me is this person has zero intellectual integrity, none gone, negative numbers, negative numbers. Um, and since it's right there, then, then there you go.

Um, so then of course at the end, it, you know, obviously this is some kind of left-wing blog or something because talking about extreme right-wing religious fanatics. Well, that would be me evidently.

But the difference is that I actually think about my faith and have done some serious study of it along the way. So I'm getting all these requests, somebody in channel, and I already had this queued up, but I'm going to have to, um, uh, do something with my, uh, thing here.

All right. It's short. So it's worth doing it. We're going to, we're going to shift over here. Um, rich, uh, to safari, able to grab this. It's only a minute and 35 seconds. Uh, at least Dan Wallace is all over the right-hand side there.

That's good. Better than a lot of stuff you see on Facebook. I mean, man, sometimes I couldn't even show something on Facebook, uh, on the feed. Cause so bad. What? All right. All right. I can do that.

If you want me to do that. Okay. Let's, uh, it's a Kent Hovind correcting the Hebrew with the English demonstrating. He's actually a full-blown Rachmanite. Uh, I've told you before Kent Hovind promotes the cultic form of King James only.

And by the way, I'm tired of King James only us who carry a chip on their shoulders. They, you say I'm a cultist. Well, if you're a part of cultic King James only isn't you are, but simply being King James only doesn't make you cultic.

And you'd say, well, but you call some people. Look, I wrote this in 1994. It came out in 1995. All right. We're talking 21 years ago since it came out. And I think it's probably the best. It's the best known book on the subject.

I don't think it, I don't think I'm not bragging to say that. It's just a fact. If I spent an entire chapter defining the movement and showing the differentiation between the radical Ruckman, Ripplinger, Gip stuff and the less radical forms and then the non King James only forms that are TR only.

And so why don't you remember that part? Do you think I'm, I'm ignoring that? There are forms of King James only ism that are absolutely cultic. They, they will utilize any argument, no matter how inconsistent they are beyond correction.

They will not listen to others. Um, and Kent Hovind is a part of that. And if you want to see the cultic form of King James only ism, it's when they actually go the point of promoting the re-inspiration of the Bible between 1604 and 1611.

Well, that even doesn't work because Kent Hovind doesn't use a 1611 King James. I bet he used the 1769 Blaney revision, but whether he uses the Oxford to Cambridge edition, I don't know. But once you start saying you can correct the original languages based upon the English translation, first of all, you're clearly demonstrating you don't care a bit about what the King James translators themselves taught or believe.

They were just overridden by God and they had their wrong ideas and God still re-inspired the text. But I mean, that's where, you know, no, every single one of the King James translators would absolutely reject this movement as heretical, absolutely heretical, every single one of them, every single one of them.

So, and once you get to the point of saying, well, you can correct the Hebrew by the English, there is no reasoning with such person. The reasoning faculties have been turned off at this point. It becomes just one very, very tight little circle.

The King James Word of God, because the King James Word of God, because the King James Word of God, and there's, and of course, it's utterly destructive. These people cannot do any meaningful apologetics, none, that they cannot engage in a defense of the Word of God.

That's one of the primary reasons I oppose this movement, expose this movement, and thankfully have seen many, many, many, many, many people leave that movement, even though it will always exist as long as there is an internet, because the internet breeds this kind of stuff.

It just, it just breeds ignorance and that's what this is. All right, so here's, here's Ken Hovind with correcting the Hebrew with the English.

The Henry, Henry Morris Defenders Study Bible is excellent. I love that. He's got the Bible and then his footnotes at the bottom, which are generally really, really good, and I enjoy those. However, he also falls into the trap of saying, well, in the Hebrew, this word really means blah, blah, blah, and he's always correcting the English with the Hebrew or the Greek.

No, no, you can correct the Hebrew or the Greek with the English. God preserved it there and it was corrupted in many other places. So, Satan in the Garden of Eden corrupted the Word of God. God hath said, three words, he changes it, hath God said, first sentence out of his mouth, yea, hath God said, he's corrupting God's Word.

So, do not fall for that Hebrew and Greek stuff, okay, and say you can correct the King James with the Hebrew and Greek. No, you can't. It's the opposite, okay. That's the same thing with this King James issue, in fact, which we'll have something on next week, Lord willing.

Do we have to go to a person, can we just read the Bible ourself? I said clearly, and I'll say it again very clearly, you can correct the Hebrew with the English, because there's conflicts over which Hebrew, which Greek text, okay.

So, I think God preserved it, and yes, the English King James, I think, is where he preserved it, and if somebody says, well, it says in the Greek, whoa, whoa, whoa, which Greek are you talking about, the Alexandrian, the Antiochian, which one, the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, one from Vatican Library, that's, we'll get onto that in about a week, and we'll straighten all that out, but those people set themselves up as the guru, you have to come to me to get the answers, because nobody else can explain it like I can.

You can just read your Bible and get it.

Okay, so there you go. Let's see, I think, there we go. Again, it's indefensible. Here's why. Evidently, that means the Bible didn't exist before 1611, because there is no Greek or Hebrew manuscript in history that reads identical to the 1611 King James.

So, the Bible was lost for 1600 years? They'll always give you some vague, well, you know, the Byzantine manuscript, but again, that's not the same thing, and which King James are we talking about? Are we talking about the 1611?

Are we talking about a revision of the 1611? Are we talking about the 1769 Blaney revision? Even then, are we talking about the Oxford edition or the Cambridge edition? Because there are variants between them.

We need to know which one it is. When did this inspiration take place? Did it start between 1604 and 1611 and then continue? I mean, Ruckman eventually, when people pressed him on this issue, you know, Ruckman's answer was that it was a process of purification, and the final perfected version was the old Schofield version of the King James.

That was the end of the process of perfection. So, there you go. This kind of King James Gnosticism, again, unknown until only a few decades ago. King James translators, laughable, would have absolutely scorned anyone who made this argument.

Hovind and Ripplinger and Ruckman and all of their minions, as loud as they may be, would have been laughed to scorn by the King James translators, and appropriately so. Nobody in church history ever understood the Bible to exist in this way.

It is utterly destructive to the creation of translations of the Word of God into other languages. It's utterly destructive. It is truly, I mean, can I begin to understand how any person who is multilingual could even begin to countenance the foolishness of King James-only-ism, of this form of King James-only?

I really, I can't begin to understand it, because anyone who is functionally multilingual knows that there is not just one proper translation that you can translate from one language into another, and there can be two or three ways of doing it that will adequately and properly communicate the intention and meaning that was originally in the original text of the original words.

So it does, it certainly finds its audience primarily amongst people who are not multilingual, and hence who are not nearly as well educated, because they're not multilingual, which is sadly a lot of Americans.

But it exists overseas. That's what is amazing. The cultic form of it gets into churches as far away as Uganda, and creates division and strife there, because again, it breeds ignorance. It can only exist when people do not know the process whereby we receive the text of the Bible in the first place.

And once they discover that, then it becomes so obvious where its errors are. But as I said, a lot of people don't know those things. And so this whole idea is the most radical form. And again, if you want to see what happens when these people are actually put in a of having to answer direct questions, because it's almost always a monologue.

We've noted that Hovind, for example, I have documented beyond all question his dishonesty in accusing me of lying about the encounter I had with Gail Ripplinger in November of 1993 on KRDS radio. He will not accept correction.

He will not own up to his own and apologize for his activities. But those guys, you know, Hovind won't come on this program. I've invited him to. Very rarely will these people put themselves in a position of actually having to answer meaningful questions.

Go back and watch the 1995 King James Only series from the John Ankerberg show. It was eight episodes, as I recall. And that's where I first met Dan Wallace. And it was quite the experience. Listen for yourself.

I think it was plain and clear what happened when those people were forced to actually try to answer questions. They can't answer the questions. Why? Because they use double standards. They use one standard in defense of the King James, a different standard to attack every other translation.