Gender Care, Text and Canon Conference Reviewed

And greetings, welcome to The Dividing Line on a special Friday program today, mainly because We're gonna be off for a little while traveling next week the debate

Trinity and Tawheed versus Shabir Ali in Atlanta and then the following weekend ministry in the

London area. It'll be nice and cold And yes, I am bringing some my koojis just to try to help some of you poor

Brits Bring some some color into your dark and dreary world Rich says

I can leave them over there just just to help you all out He's just just trying to help you all it cuz it's gonna be it's gonna be dreary and cold and you know

How it's gonna be till like May of next year anyway So we

Mentioned yesterday that There was much to get to and so let me just dive into it before We get into the textual critical material and the biblical material

I've Said to you before if you have not taken the time to read 1984 you need to the book is prophetic not in a spiritual sense, but in a political sense and one of the key elements of the insights provided in 1984 is the issue of new speak the corruption of language the utilization of language to allow a governing authority to fundamentally control and dehumanize people through the abuse of language

Of course the editing of history the changing of history was part and parcel of this as well

This morning while listening to the briefing. I heard Yet a new another new word.

I I'm talking about new words new phraseology We have heard just over the past ten years

That has completely changed Everything I I had never heard of woke or Intersectionality ten years ago, but now we have euphemisms

That are specifically used to allow for you to say things in public that you couldn't say only a few years ago

Because they would be so obviously absurd, but now they've become commonplace

So you don't talk about abortion You talk about women's women's health care

Abortion is not women's health care and in fact half of the victims of abortion are future women or Our females let's put that there.

They're present females who would become future women if they were allowed to live that long To that level of development

To call abortion I once I did a meme once to call abortion

And I actually came up with this one on my own. I'm not really a big meme maker, but it just struck me that To call abortion health care is to call carpet -bombing home -improvement

It is an absurdity It is an abusive language It has nothing to do with women's health care it has to do with the destruction of human beings and The vast majority of the times it is being used merely as birth control

That's all it is But that's you will now let and you will now hear one particular political party in the

United States Well, that's all it's referred to women's health care, it's a it's a basic human right women's health care

So this morning I heard a new term and Thankfully, I was flat on my back.

I was doing crunches actually at the particular point in time. So I I Couldn't fall over even if I had wanted to you're already on the ground but the new term that I heard came out of the

Continued corruption of our society by a corrupt judiciary. I Thought about spending a little time in Psalm 82.

I would just direct you to Psalm 82 if you actually read it in its context it's about unrighteous judges and how when unrighteous judges do not do what judges are supposed to do and judges fundamentally are accountable to God for what they do

When they don't do what they do the the entire created order is corrupted Well a yet another unrighteous judge has reversed the

Trump administration's Granting granting as if this is something you need to grant granting of Protection to doctors and hospitals in regards to freedom of conscience you cannot force a

Doctor or a hospital to do those things that Fundamentally compromise their worldview and their beliefs according to Trump administration, but not according to this judge

Greatest judge you can't do that as we know religious liberty is

Hanging by a very precarious thread and will will not last long under the assault that is currently experiencing

And so what happened was a Roman Catholic Hospital a woman came to the hospital and Asked to have a hysterectomy

Not because there was anything wrong with her female parts or organs But she was under the delusion that she's a male and So she wants to mutilate her body and in Roman Catholic moral theology you are not to mutilate the human body and The judge says but you must and So the new term that I heard in this context

From the architects of Newspeak on this the 30th anniversary of The fall of the

Berlin Wall, which I'll expand upon a moment The architects of Newspeak who used to be on the other side of that Berlin Wall But they actually had invaded

Theirs was a pre -invasion movement Sort of like we dropped enemy soldiers behind the line we on D -Day, you know the

Gliders and the parachute drops and things like that. They had entered into our Space into our universities long ago as the leading invasion force and We didn't we didn't lose that we didn't win that war we lost that war

We lost that war. Yeah the wall fell But they had already abandoned the defense of it and already had such a good hook in over here

They knew that they would have it better over here. And that's what they're doing. I Would not want to walk around a university campus today with a microphone

Asking current university students if they even knew what the Berlin Wall was let alone what it represented because even once I found a few that would know what it was my deepest fear is that they would go and We need something like that again

Because they are just they Assume they've been so corrupted by the university system

So on the anniversary of that happening the people who are now pushing new speak

Have a new phrase and the new phrase that comes out of all that came before gender care

Gender care that's what was denied to this woman

Who wanted to have her perfectly Functioning healthy female parts removed so as to Fulfill her

Dementia that she wasn't a woman that she's a man and Now the government is actually taking the position.

Yes, you need to do that and Thank you very much for building all these hospitals, but we'll take them over now

And we'll do our thing that's that's basically what's happening and As soon as there is a

Democratic president Senate and House Katie bar the door

Religious liberty homeschooling All this what is what is barely being slowed down right now will accelerate like Saturn 5 rocket off the off the launch pad and You will see the language being used and abused constantly just as it is right now

That's that's what's going on. That's going on Keep your eyes open Remain faithful where you've been called to serve

Exactly what that's going to mean to each one of us is The question that we need to deal with in Ephesians chapter 3

Apostle Paul is speaking of his calling as an apostle and he says to me the very least of all Saints This grace was given to preach to the

Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ and to bring to light

To to cast light On What is

The administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things now remember if you go back to Ephesians chapter 1 you will

See the beginning of this This thought That God is summing everything up that that Christ is not

Jesus wasn't plan B There there are some systems of theology that that really have the incarnation and the cross as plan

B plan A was always just Israel and Everything was gonna be fine.

But when they messed up then you get plan B No, it was always the triune

God's intention for the incarnation for the cross for redemption in a particular people in Christ Yes, that has been

God's Intention all along and so what Paul is saying is he's to preach to the

Gentiles the unfathomable unfathomable riches of Christ and To enlighten what is the

Administration the oikonomia the oikonomia which we get economy the oikonomia the

Way and in fact that you know, the term is is used in in numerous places, but it's it's the management.

It's the plan it's the administration of The mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things and some manuscripts say through Christ Jesus it's perfectly orthodox, but This isn't a place that would be said so we're not gonna get into that particular textual variant this point

So What Paul is referring to here is the fact that God has a purpose

God has a plan and This mystery which was hidden in God who created all things for all ages is being revealed through the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ That God has had a purpose and all these things and it's all wrapped up in Christ I'm glad to know that there is an oikonomia

That there is a plan that there is management. There is purpose. There is administration

Unless you're reading the King James Version or the New King James Version which is based upon the

Texas Receptus and the Texas Receptus has here a

A Fundamental you really really really really can't argue this one error

It has an error Instead of having oikonomia Which is what you have in As far as I can determine

Every identifiable Greek New Testament. There are some sources that say there are some scattered

Late minuscules And when they say late,

I wonder what they mean by that Because you do have some minuscules.

Remember remember that incredible experience we had and we had Will Kinney and No matter how hard I tried

Yeah, yeah, no matter how hard I tried and Everybody else can see it. Every human being on the planet to watch that is just beating their heads against the wall because he simply

Could not understand the English language the manuscripts to which he was referring as I had pointed out in the

King James on the controversy Were written after the printed text They they are there afterwards so They could not have influenced the printed text because they're written afterwards

There are late minuscules the invention the printing press did not stop the handwriting of manuscripts and So I have to wonder to be honest with you

I've not been able to find any listing anywhere. And if someone has one, please let me know where I can access it

What these CNTTS doesn't have anything about it CNTTS only lists the

TR I'd love to know where these minuscules are and what their dates are because I've seen

I've seen some written in the 1600s and Textual critically speaking that's irrelevant But it seems to me that every relevant source of textual information for the word oikonomia

And Ephesians 3 9 says the same thing and we should rejoice in this We so often deal with skeptics who think there are multiple variants for every word in the

New Testament that we could You know that there's oikonomia and then there's probably one over here and there's one over there no

When we look at this word we have no translation of The Greek into any of the language in the ancient world that had anything other than something it represents oikonomia

Latin Syriac Coptic. They all say the same thing. We don't have a single church father Whoever quoted this text

They quoted as anything other than oikonomia So you have unanimity of the manuscripts versions and fathers with one exception the

Texas Receptus The TR does not have oikonomia the

TR has koinonia Now koinonia is a beautiful word and don't get me wrong koinonia

That's it. It's a great term We used it a lot. In fact, if I recall correctly

We did something when I was in in in the leadership of the youth department or the youth when

I was a youth At that big church as a member. I know we used koinonia in something we did there.

Oh Yeah, sure because it means fellowship. So I had koinonia groups it's beautiful word and The fellowship of the

Holy Spirit and it's wonderful, but it's not what Paul wrote.

Paul never wrote koinonia at Ephesians 3 .9 and Hey koinonia to musterius the fellowship of the mystery

What's that Well, what does that even mean Paul's not talking about fellowship of a mystery he's talking about the

Administration of what God has done in Christ Jesus. It's a different word. It has a different meaning So I'm not even sure where it came from it could have been something as simple as a as a misreading in Erasmus early on That Just simply didn't get get corrected but the fact is that any

Meaningful examination of the data would say that every person who preached from Ephesians chapter 3 in the second century in The third century in the fourth century anyone at the

Council of Nicaea anyone dealing with these issues in relationship to the

Christological controversies Anyone in the 6th century the 7th century

What Bible were they reading? What Bible were they reading?

They were not reading the TR. There is no evidence

That anyone in the first millennium Had ever thought of using koinonia here

Used it quoted it. Nobody zero nothing if you take the position that What was written by Paul?

was koinonia and Not oikonomia

Koinonia You have taken a position that says history is

Irrelevant to me. I have no connection

To what God has done in history instead my position is

The most important thing God did in history Was the

Reformation and I've bought the line that the text produced by the

Reformation Is the textus receptus and therefore koinonia is the providentially preserved

Reading if you will use that kind of argumentation if you will say

That koinonia has been providentially preserved by appearing in the printed editions of the textus receptus

Knowing that no church father ever quoted it knowing that no foreign language translation ever saw evidence of it

Knowing that we don't have a single Greek manuscript for at least the first thousand years and probably longer than that That would contain that reading

You are saying to the whole world The TR is the inspired

Word of God and it exists outside of any Historical actions that brought it into existence because I can assure you of this

If you have read any of Erasmus Erasmus would not have accepted that argumentation

Stephanos would not have accepted any of that argumentation Beza would not have accepted any of that argumentation.

They never put forward that kind of argumentation They would have found it to be the exact opposite which is why

Those who actually promote this and know about Ephesians 3 9 such as Edward F can actually go so far as to identify

Erasmus Beza and even Calvin as having been infected by Humanism, but only after them.

Do you get away from the infection of humanism? That was in them and therefore we can have the textus receptus

Providentially preserved you're saying people don't really believe that.

Yes, they do Yes, they do and we're gonna be listening to some of what they say, but I wanted to lay out a

Clear text lay out the fact the facts of that clear text Because in my experience beginning all the way back

When I did the written Exchange and debate with Doug Wilson Back in the 90s on this issue his position sounded fine

Until you got to specific texts and that is where every

Traditional perspective falls apart Can't answer specific texts

You can't deal with that data. And so Ephesians 3 9

You ask someone Why kind of Mia the universal testimony of all the translations early church fathers

It's the text of the first minimally 1 ,400 years manuscript wise so the

Greek texts agree Latin text agrees Syriac, but she All it is the

Byzantine reading. It's a majority reading. It's All of it. It has the strongest pedigree you could have

Is it an error if they say yes, you're talking to a person Who has adopted an incoherent and indefensible tradition and they're passing it off as something you should believe and They'll often do it in the context of saying it has historical grounding as well.

So With that I said that I would play some of the conference

So, let's do that and I'll just start with two personal things first the

Speakers were Robert true love and Jeffrey riddle. We have read

The words of these gentlemen we have linked to articles

We will now play their exact words We Desire to accurately represent them, but it must be said honestly and openly that there was a great deal of Mockery and Behavior that frequently happens when you get a group of people together who are very zealously committed to one particular perspective and And Misbehavior breaks out as a result as I've said and as we will hear there were a number of cheap shots and strawmen

Aimed at yours truly. I did hear last night that Jeffrey riddle

Messed up and used my name only in regards to the debate with Bart Ehrman. I don't think he realized he did it

It was very plain that they intended to not use my name while using my name regularly it is one thing to do that it is another thing to become mocking and dismissive and one of the things that we will hear today is they will frequently make mocking and dismissive references to the debate we had with Bart Ehrman and What's interesting is

I cannot imagine and one of the questions will address this but I cannot imagine

What it would sound like if Robert true love or Jeffrey riddle debated

Bart Ehrman They will answer that question.

They will say it's like a creationist debating an evolutionist. So they just want to they They really believe

That they can deal with this subject without ever touching the text It's textual criticism, but it's not textual criticism for them.

They'll talk about manuscripts, but the manuscripts don't matter if the manuscripts mattered

They would read oikonomia at Ephesians 3 9 and not koinonia if manuscripts mattered they would read properly at Revelation 16 5

Revelation 14 1 etc, etc Every time Dr.

Riddle says that the longer ending of Mark is a slam -dunk based on the evidence. He's grossly inconsistent and This is why again and I'll have to repeat this later on because they simply won't listen.

They simply won't hear I need to make sure that you hear it That is why The system must be rejected

By truth -loving individuals because truth -loving individuals want consistency They want canons

Lists of rules and procedures That are applied evenly and consistently across the

New Testament That cannot be done to defend the readings of the

TR because the TR arose from multiple sources and from limited manuscript evidence and It simply contains errors and hence once you elevate it to the providentially preserved text

Which means nobody at Nicaea had it Nobody at Chalcedon had it you can do you can do all your theology of God the

Trinity Hypostatic Union you you don't even have to have the Bible to do that evidently

Well, we know they had the Bible and they might actually say they had the TR That is a fantasy

I Mean, it's the only way you can put it. I mean if you really say if you want to put that way, so we know that all the early church fathers had koinonia at Ephesians 3 9 and Had a somnolence at Revelation 16 5

They just never quoted it that way Not once nobody they never translated into another language.

I Is fiction and It's inappropriate for reformed men to believe fiction and call it reformed anyways, so some examples

Some examples here Here's And I have not sped these up But as I was listening him at 2 .0

and I'm just tired of listening to stuff at 2 .0 In Germany the leading text critic was

Kurt Alon Okay, y 'all catch that if you haven't seen the ermine debate

By the time we got into the cross -section by the way, this was valuable Bart Bart did not even

Take the time to fix the typographical errors on his slides from the last time he had done a dialogue on the subject with Dan Wallace and so He did not care about what we had to say and you need to understand

That wasn't our point we wanted to be able to demonstrate that you can stand toe -to -toe with Bart Ehrman and Defend the veracity of The New Testament text now these guys say no you already agree with Bart Ehrman if you think that Bart Ehrman and I were agreeing

You really have a massively thick lens going on. You really do you're missing some pretty obvious stuff that everybody else is seeing

But By this point in the debate Bart was just sort of doing his thing but now he didn't have a script to follow and So during the

Q &A When I mentioned

Kurt Aland He said oh you mean Kurt and what he was saying is well, you know,

I I sit around have Have lattes with Kurt Well, it's interesting the people that are now in the leadership of that stuff

He does not necessarily sitting around having lattes with them. That doesn't mean he's become irrelevant. It's not the field he works in anymore But somehow this is supposed to be funny at my expense

That English -speaking people pronounce it Kurt Aland rather than Kurt and What they're missing and this is what's sort of sad in many ways

This was around the same time that because he was sort of getting a little loosey -goosey

That's when I asked him about the gap between the writings of the New Testament manuscripts and their first their earliest exemplars and Because he really wasn't didn't have a script to follow

He ended up giving me one of the most vitally important Well, it's vitally important quote for those of us that are actually dealing with this area

We're gonna find out that these folks don't think we even should be doing this stuff They don't they don't see any value in doing this kind of apologetics at all.

Well, we're gonna play their comments But those of us who are doing this type of stuff in University settings and in and things like that His response was incredibly valuable.

I've played it over and over again He said for the New Testament we have much earlier attestation than for any other work of antiquity and I don't think he would have said that in a in the prepared portion now he was off script and I thought that was one of the greatest coups that we had gotten

And I just simply point out for these gentlemen who can be very very dismissive

When Bart Ehrman posted Our debate which took him years to do

It was many years after actually taking place and he finally made it available to his own people.

He had it that whole time He made a comment in the posting of it and I can guarantee you

That if the debate had taken place with Robert Trulove Or with Jeffrey Riddle, he would not have made this comment, but his comment was this wasn't my best debate

Now for Bart Ehrman That was huge If you know anything about Bart Ehrman So that's what the

Kurt Alon thing is and the chuckling in the audience Alon became co -editor of the

I laugh we're laughing at that because there's a certain Apologist who had a debate with Bart Ehrman.

So I'm just a certain apologist We know Why this is happening

I had challenged them to debate they declined I have been the primary person to criticize their pronouncements and Instead of actually dealing with my arguments they are presenting straw man fabrications of those arguments and so the best way to defend against that is to Rev up the emotions of your followers

So they're not thinking carefully about what is being said and they'll accept your less -than -meaningful answers

And And he I don't know what he really thinks about how that thing went but anybody who knows much know that knows that Ehrman toyed with him like a cat with a mouse and When this apologist pronounced

Alon's name he said Kurt Alon and Ehrman say you mean Kurt Kurt Alon in other words

Listen, this is a debate with two people one's an amateur and one's an expert And I'm the expert and you're the amateur

So, there you go. I Really wonder what? Dr. Herman would do if he debated

Jeffrey Riddle, but then several of these began to promote these new views on a popular level to those in the pews

An example would be DA Carson's book the King James version of plea for realism that was published by Baker in 1979

Another was a work by an apologist in 1995 titled the King James only controversy.

Can you trust the modern translations? And then there was Dan Wallace of Dallas Seminary who had wanted to study with Metzger, but wasn't able to work it out but eventually adopted his

Critical views on the text and began teaching at Dallas Seminary and has promoted these views in various academic and popular articles

So you can name other names It's meant to be disrespectful

It does make it a little bit difficult to hear them saying now, you know, we don't think you should make this a you know an issue

Okay. Yeah There you go Um This morning

I heard this section and I wanted to I'm gonna pick up the speed a little bit because it is dreadfully slow

Let's let's pick up this and then we'll go to the Q &A which is what I had said. I would be dealing third The confessional text affirms the authority and reliability of the canon of Christian scriptures and we hit this hard I think we've said enough probably but I'll say a little bit more so here is where you have the

Errant indefensible conflation of the category of the canon the canonization of a book such as Romans over against whether the proper reading at Romans 5 1 has an

Omega or an Omicron in it at Ekerman those who are not already committed to a tradition

Recognize that there is a fundamental difference between the church looking at Romans as an apostolic epistle of the of the

Apostle Paul and Answering the question is it an

Omicron or an Omega at Romans 5 1 Most of us can make the category distinction between those two things

These individuals believe there is no category distinction that if you cannot say with absolute certainty

That it's the indicative at Romans 5 1 Rather than the subjunctive that's difference between the two letters

If you cannot say with absolute certainty that then you cannot know that Romans is scripture.

That's the position Now most of us recognize that that's that makes no sense but You can make it sound good as long as you don't get specific

It sounds good in the overarching. It's been providentially preserved brother. It's wonderful Well, what about what was it's been providentially preserved brother.

It's wonderful But that's how this works The issue of the canon of scriptures is not merely an issue related to which are the authoritative and inspired books of the

Bible It's also about the inspired texts of those books To embrace the modern critical approaches to abandon any notion of textual and therefore canonical stability

So the ultimate desire is stability this was of course the same motivation that lay behind the defense of the

Latin Vulgate at the time of Erasmus and Of course is the same motivating factor in King James only ism as well

Because the King James only is simply says I'm just taking it logically one more step And that is if you have to have the exact words in the original language

Then you have to have the exact words in translation as well But the idea is the stability of the text

There can be no questions There could be no black and white There can be no need to look at the history and to recognize

Oh Influences upon Erasmus how many times as we're gonna see

Dr. Riddle uses the analogy of Build -A -Bear where I guess online you can you can build a bear the way that you want it to be with the arms and legs and body that you want to have and clothes and accessories as it and his idea is that if you do not

Have an absolute fixed text Then you've got a

Build -A -Bear text where everybody just gets to choose whatever they want now.

Dr. Riddle has read So we're there. I'm not going to Disturb the book sitting on it beyond what is written by Kranz.

So he knows how many times How consistent

Erasmus was in commenting on variants and saying

To the reader You decide to the reader you decide

I'm not you know, I'm leaving the text as is but Could be this in fact, there are numerous times he argued for a reading that wasn't in the text

But he just didn't care enough because he knew he was not creating Some kind of inspired text

So he didn't care enough especially in the book of Revelation I Mean when you can put your second edition in for printing and tell the printer eight, you know these other guys this other editor has done a

Greek New Testament since I since my first edition go get his and use his

Revelation and and and make mine look like his You don't care much about that.

That's Build -A -Bear to the nth degree That's where their text came from But you see and by the way as I let me remind you the funny thing about Erasmus was

Those other guys had used Erasmus's revelation. That's why those errors were perpetuated in Revelation for hundreds of years but Didn't care enough to check

He did not think he was creating what had it has now been elevated to Erasmus would be so embarrassed

If he saw people elevating his readings to the status of providential preservation

Just so embarrassed I Mean if if Erasmus could come back and listen to Robert true love or Jeffrey riddle

Defending Ephesians 3 9 and koinonia He would slap them upside the head and say what are you thinking?

Because there is you can't show me a word in anything Erasmus ever wrote There was substantiate the idea that he would have agreed with that at all, which is why

Edward F Hill says Yeah, we had to get past the humanism of Erasmus and Beza and Calvin We got to get past that he recognized it he saw it.

Okay. There you go. There you go So this idea of you know, you get to you get to select your own

Your own readings and stuff like that Erasmus threw it out there all the time Do it out there all the time.

So this idea of a stable text, that's what they want. They want stability Now if they just get a little more deeply into the reality they would see and for example riddle spent time narrating some of the issues in regards to CB GM and I'm not sure why

He only seemed to know well, okay now I do know why never mind He only seemed to know about the general pistols

And the application of CB GM to them He obviously hasn't done any work with the axe stuff, which is what

I'm working on So he didn't know the numbers didn't even mention it anything like that But anyone who actually does do work in that in that area knows that the vast majority of quote -unquote changes that have been brought in to either the

Catholic epistles or to axe are barely translatable

Let alone have almost any impact upon meaning he did mention June 5. We're gonna look at that. We're gonna look at that That's this important one

But other than that, no, there wasn't there wasn't anything there. In fact, is that in this one here?

Hmm maybe it is in this section well,

I hope I marked that because I specific I know I did I Recall doing that but let's hope it's in here because I wanted to specifically address the

Jude 5 stuff. I Sometimes throw this out as an example. It's kind of it's it's it's a rather far -fetched example, but still

Logically, it fits with the methodology that they've embraced less. Hold on a second. Hold on a second.

Hold on just one second Let me see This is live folks There's a lot of text on the screen or a lot of audio on the screen here to try to find this stuff

Okay, here's This is an important one. I know some of you are going to sleep. I'm sorry, but then there are other it's funny in Australia South Africa.

I always had people come up to me and say hey James You keep saying

That you're sorry for boring us and that people are tuning out when you're doing the text critical stuff.

I live for it Don't stop doing it. There aren't too many people to discuss this stuff.

I get that But if it ain't your thing, I understand it, please forgive me

But I have used if you listened to the presentation

I made at g3 Two years ago, I think This was my example was that in Jude verse 5

The We have known for many many many many years

That some manuscript that the that most manuscripts say

I dot us who moss ha pox Panta Hathi I'm reading the let me go to the

Texas Receptus I dot us who moss ha pox tuta

Hathi ha courios La 'an actase I goop to Egypt.

So it's not safe. So knowing Though you know this once for all that the

Lord Saved a people out of Egypt the

Lord saved the people out of Egypt and that has been The standard reading even in the modern critical text

But with an essay on 28th edition courios has been replaced with Jesus Jesus Now, why did this happen?

Because of CBGM well Probably let's just say

CBGM substantiates. It supports it. It's behind why the na -28 Would would make this this change and The reason is

That we've known about the manuscripts But we did not have a means of examining the coherence of the manuscripts

What that means is when you look at the manuscripts that say

Jesus Their closest relative this is what's where CBGM comes in where you're looking at all the readings and you have was called pre genealogical clearance and and genealogical clearance

When you simply look at the numbers as far as agreements are concerned and Then you get once you once you get into what's called genealogical coherence

You're talking about text flow arguments. I don't have time to get into that today I'm hoping to have

Peter Gurion to we'll discuss this at that time But the point is that the manuscripts that say

Jesus Have a higher coherence To one another

Than the manuscripts that say Lord in other words what the computer sees is

That there's more probability that scribes Had Jesus in their exemplar

But wrote Lord because that's what you'd expect to be there Over against people

Who had Lord that wrote Jesus now there wouldn't be any reason to even think why somebody would do that in the first place but the computer sees

What we can't necessarily see because we can't keep this these this much data in our mind

The coherence between the manuscripts that say Jesus is higher Than that amongst the manuscripts that say

Lord Manuscripts say Lord will frequently have a close relative that says Jesus not the other way around So that is why and Now this has great significance this would be an important text in regards to who

Jesus is and it makes perfect sense I if you if you read the context

In talking about contending or issue of the Saints handed down the the the faith handed down to the

Saints once for all hand down the Saints certain pieces crept in unknown those were long before I marked out for this condemnation on Godly persons who turn the grace of our

God into licentiousness and deny our only Despotane Kai Kurion our only master and Lord now.

There's a variant here, too and The Texas Receptus has mon on despotane

Theon Kai Kurion So they have our only

Sovereign Lord and then separately from him and Our Lord Jesus Christ denying but in The critical text it's denying our only despotane

Kai Kurion Jason Kliston our only master and Lord Jesus Christ So One could make a very strong argument

That the critical text has a higher Christology at this point in its reading now

The other side would make that argument in reverse very strongly. I can assure you I'm simply saying that as the text stands here

It you can see Jesus Christ being described as our only master and Lord and so it would make sense in only one two

Three four five six seven eight nine nine words later To use the name of Jesus because you've just described as our only master and Lord Especially when you look at the term despotane

From which we get despot, but it's sovereign Lord owner and the point in Jude 5 is hey

Jesus Saved your people out of Egypt and then destroyed those who did not believe That's perfectly in line with the

New Testament's edification of Jesus as Yahweh Now there's the background.

I wasn't intending in getting into all this. In fact, I was intending to get done in seven minutes I haven't even gotten to the Q &A yet That's not good

But let's listen to what's said One of those is in Jude where in Jude verse 5 the traditional reading has been

Lord I will therefore put you in remembrance though You once knew this how that the Lord having saved the people out of the land of Egypt after were destroyed them that believe not and in the new

Text modern critical text the word Lord has been trained changed to Jesus and you may think well

That's good. Jesus is Lord and those are kind of interchangeable but the traditional text has always had

Lord there and there may be other implications for why that might not be a theologically pleasing

Insertion to make insertion to make There are there are manuscripts that read that so it's not that someone's making an insertion

There are manuscripts say Jesus Far stronger there's far stronger evidence for Jesus here than there is for koinonia at Ephesians 3 9

Or for the Kami Ohanian or for revelation 16 5 or for a fellowship for Jim and get that you get the idea, okay

But listen to this listen to this argument because see once you've got a text you can always find a way of defending the text

One is that you know, the incarnation of Lord Jesus Christ happens in time in his conception in the womb of the

Virgin his birth in Bethlehem And so the incarnation doesn't didn't take place in the time of the

Exodus And so it's more appropriate to say Lord rather Jesus also Jesus So it's more important to say

Lord It's more appropriate to say Lord than Jesus Now maybe that's what a scribe was thinking and that's where Lord came from.

You can always go that way I mean, this is easy to do But do you consistently argue for example that in John 12 41?

after quoting from Isaiah 6 John has these things Isaiah said because he saw his glory and he spoke about him and that him is

Jesus is Your argument about incarnation relevant at that point why not?

Because it's very obvious doesn't use the word just doesn't have to there's only one person being spoken of in the context

John says Isaiah saw Jesus's glory John didn't seem to have the compunctions you do

See how dangerous it is to do textual criticism based upon your preconceptions of theology. It's not even preconceptions of theology

It's your preconceptions of what the text has to say because you have decided that is your text. That's just it

That's that's all you're gonna go with That's all you're gonna go with. Okay, so I go back to Where I was before Let's listen to the far -fetched example and let's see if this is a

Meaningful argument at all. It fits with the methodology that they've embraced. Let's say That next year in the sands of Egypt they discover or a cave somewhere in the

Judean desert they discover a cave somewhere that has a Jar and in it are as a manuscript and it's

Romans and it's written on a papyrus Roll and it's written in unsealed script and it's the oldest copy we have of Romans But it's missing

Romans 9 10 and 11 It goes from chapter 8 to chapter 12 again, it's the extreme example

But their method means hypothetically such a thing could happen And let's say scholars find this manuscript

But they examine it and they come to a decision that it is the oldest and best manuscript we have of Romans Does this mean that future critical editions will put in a bracket or put a diamond by Romans 9 10 11?

Or will they just take it completely out and put it into a very large footnote? Again you think this is a strange example but think about what's happening in the pulpits of Okay, you think this is a very strange example.

The reason this is a really strange example is because it's a really strange example The Book of Romans exists in hundreds of manuscripts and Again with multiple lines of transmission

Therefore the whole idea of that a manuscript without 9 10 11 which flows naturally

Which appears in all other? Foreign language translations, which is quoted regularly by patristic sources

That this would be identified as the best Manuscript is of course absurd.

That's not what would happen And that's where the example completely falls apart obviously is that it would not it doesn't matter how early it is

The reality is there is nothing else in the manuscript tradition that would give any indication of a break in the transmission

What dr. Riddle seemingly doesn't understand or is not giving? appropriate weight to is that when there is an interruption in the transmission of the text

There is always evidence passed on of that interruption so for example

When you look at Some of the major text of variants, there's very often many text of variants within the text of variant if it's a block of text

You will see evidence of Some type of interruption that has taken place in the transmission of that immediate context

No such things exist for Romans 9 10 11 Therefore the reason that most people would consider dr.

Riddle's example to be extreme and Really without worth is because is extreme and really without worth

That's that's the point there's a whole lot more there. I wanted to get to I I want to get to at least One of these

Some of these Q &A questions because they were very very useful Let me try just jump into a few of them here and try to find

Okay, yeah, I may skip down to that one. I'm not sure It has the

Book of Mormon one. Yeah, I think This is the main one. I wanted to get to you. Let's at least try to tackle this one

When the biblical text was being constructed, I believe this is a TR by what authority were some manuscripts accepted and other manuscripts

Rejected so the question is being asked When the TR is being constructed

What's the standard in regards to what text are being used what or not well in this case

It was whatever Rasmus could get his hands on. I mean, that's There there are so few

But it's fascinating to listen to the response By the good providence of God By the good providence of God There is your standard

Good providence of God. Well You can answer anything that way

Why do we use the manuscripts we use it by the good providence of God? It's Doesn't really communicate much

Factual information Are we talking about It's a reference to what?

With Erasmus and others. What would like Beza? I think that Rasmus had they say the six manuscripts that he had which were all byzantine as far as I know there's one the

Yeah, manuscript one was not and he did not rely upon it. So basically you see with Erasmus he's favoring

Readings that reflect the traditional text as received from the Greeks and his oldest manuscript which differs more

He doesn't rely on it so much when you get to Beza, you know You got Codex Beza for instance, which is an old unseal and yet he rejects it as spurious and corrupt again, because it doesn't conform with the

Received traditional texts as it was in manuscript form at that time But I think one thing is

I mean there are limits to our historical knowledge to understand every process that went about intellectually for He another edit

Erasmus and other Protestant editor the Protestant editors who came after Stephanus and Beza We we we don't have immediate access to all their historical decisions, but we do have their in the end product

We have the end product We actually have all of Erasmus's annotations and These gentlemen are going to direct people

To the King James Bible defended the King James Version defended Edward F. Hill's work and He's the one that lays it out

We've got to get away from the humanism of Erasmus So from Hill's perspective

Erasmus used humanistic thinking to derive The vast majority of the unique readings of the

Texas Receptus, but now now That has become providential preservation.

How do you defend that in any context? How do you do that We also you know, you're talking about it's an interesting historical question

I can tell you having read some of this stuff there there are lots of different answers given to how many manuscripts did

Erasmus have Some will say six some will say seven some will say twelve

Truth is I don't think we really know how many manuscripts he had access to I say that with a caveat because maybe maybe there is a way historically to know but I at this point

I can't cite a source a Reliable source that tells me exactly how many manuscripts he had.

It's a question But anyways, and we so we're not privy to all the processes But again, we have the final product and we know that it was received and that it was used and it was used as a

Basis for translations and it was taken by the the Protestant scholars who came after you saying see No, you you need to understand that when they say it was received

They imbue that term with a spiritual nature it was received by the church

That the in a way the Latin Vulgate never was though there would have been people who argued that They don't point to a point in time, they don't point to a place in a point to a council, but it was received and Having been received it now becomes unquestionable it

It was received and koinonia became the correct reading at Ephesians 3 9 when it was received

When where how can't tell you? Just believe you can't we don't know their critical methods

So that if all the TRs disappeared in the world, we couldn't go back to the manuscripts and use their critical method

Okay, and here's this was this was I was looking for And we'll wrap up with this

From the beginning and I have been addressing this for a number of years now. I Have Presented an argument that I I've never had a single scholar in the field

Disagree with what I've said on this subject. It's it's sort of a well, duh It's a shame you have to deal with this kind of stuff

James, but you have fun reminds me of Norman Geisler Many years ago when I wrote when

I wrote the King James only controversy. He says you go get him James We're right behind you. We may be a long ways behind you, but we're right behind you

Because most people just don't want to deal with this They don't want to they don't want to have the the mocking done and stuff like that, which is what you're gonna get

For some reason, I don't know why King James only us mock

What do we find here mock? It just I guess once you you have the text and you know something other people don't know then that somehow impacts how you

Respond to that. I don't know but anyway The argument that I have repeated

Over and over again and that has not yet even been enunciated let alone answered is

That this position cannot present a methodology of textual criticism canons and rules for analyzing manuscript evidence

That if applied to the modern number of manuscripts that we have

Would produce the textus receptus They use one argument for Ephesians 3 9 and another argument for Revelation 16 5 and another argument for the

Percocet adultery and another argument for Romans of Revelation 14 1 and they use whatever argument leads the

TR and if it's a if it's the exact opposite art, so Look at all these manuscripts that read that have the longer ending of mark

Ephesians 3 9 there are none at all Look at the look at Irenaeus cites the longer ending

Irenaeus never cites koinonia Who cares? It doesn't matter.

It's in the TR so believe so They have no interest in Being able to say we are consistently trying to apply

Principles of textual critical study to the facts. They're not in fact, they're saying we have no interest in these things

It's been received. We can't tell you what that means. We can't tell you who did it We can't tell you when it happened but we can only tell you just if you'll believe it then you'll have a stable text and you'll never have to worry about these things again and That's why that's when

I hold up the Book of Mormon. That's when I grab the Quran whatever else it might be That's what I point you back to Adnan Rashid in London saying hey as long as we can get back to Uthman That's good enough for me

It's the same attitude. We want the stable text. We will trade truth

For certainty you can be certain of the stable text. It's not truthful, but we're certain there you go

Now that's an argument. I've been making for a long time. I Don't know It's possible because I met other people like this it's possible that for example, dr.

Riddle doesn't even listen to what I say It's possible Sometimes there are folks that just the way that they're built

They would rather hear what somebody they'll have somebody else listen and then summarize it for him and then write a response to the summary

But the argument has been Can you present a consistent methodology that would reproduce the text the

TR from the current manuscript tradition Or even from the manuscripts that Erasmus said you still wouldn't come up with it

That somehow gets turned into if all the TRs were burned.

Could you reproduce the TR what? Listen for yourself scholars who came out are you saying we can't we don't know their critical methods so that if all the

TRs Disappeared in the world. We couldn't go back to the manuscripts and use their critical method to reproduce the

TR. Is that what you're saying? Yes Interesting if y 'all heard that what's your critical method where you could reproduce the

TR if all the TRs disappeared Well turn that around if all the critical text disappeared So you lost all your critical text and I'll give you your full -blown

CGVM and you're you know You've got your you've got your system. We'll give you your system to take away all the critical text.

You're starting over again If you believe that they're going to come back with an identical copy of the na -28 it's exceedingly naive because No, it's not

The entire purpose is to be consistent in the application of the principles and You guys have readings where there are no principles that could ever give rise to your readings

There is no principle of textual criticism that will ever Defend the reading of koinonia at Ephesians 3 9 there aren't any

But you will defend it Therefore the point is established

Now why you won't respond to it. I'll let you answer for that Why you make up other arguments, so it sounds like you're responding to it when you're really not

I'll let you answer that too. These canons of criticism are just not that objective. They cannot deliver a text

We've already talked about all the places. We're not sure here's three different readings. Not sure. We're not sure. We're not sure Yeah, so I mean it's again that's right so would you rather have not sure or Sure of a lie

What you'd rather have the danger is and again,

I realize these guys don't do Apologetics But they evidently have not talked to a lot of people who are absolutely sure of a lie

They have absolute certainty They haven't looked into the eyes of all those more missionaries.

I'm absolutely certain Book of Mormon's a word of God So they don't see the danger.

They don't see the danger That's right. Could you reproduce the TRB? It's it's it's completely dismissing what the actual argument actually is and presenting this

Hypothetical that even your own physician couldn't live up to well, it's a nonsensical objection because What we're saying is that the reconstruction this method doesn't work

And so the challenge is well, if we took away all the printed TRS, how could you reconstruct the text?

We're that's what that's fundamental right point. You can't do that So we would say nope, we can't do that.

We couldn't do that. We don't we wouldn't be able to do that So thankfully, it's a hypothetical and the printed editions aren't going to disappear

But we couldn't use that method because we don't think it's a proper method so it's a nonsensical question anyway

Well, it was because it was a straw man, of course but the actual objection is not nonsensical it makes perfect sense and The fact is the text that you are telling people is providentially preserved came into existence by a mechanism that if you would simply

Admit What that mechanism was your system would collapse It would collapse

So there's there's more after that. There's I had a whole bunch more here. I was gonna get into Drat There there was

I think an important part here hold on a second Pouya is an excellent example here.

I did a interview with him It's on my youtube channel about can you use the received text of Muslims because of course

What would an argument against a modern liberal scholar like Bart Ehrman look like would be confessional advocate?

Have a apologetic against Bart Ehrman. I Would say it looked very much like a creationist debating an evolutionist, you know, because one we're talking about a faith -based presuppositional defense of scripture so we would be arguing for the authenticity of scripture based on a lot of the very things you've heard here in this conference and Bart Ehrman would be defending, you know, his view of reason eclecticism

At the end of the day it what is it we're debating epistemology Okay, so you need to understand

These gentlemen are absolutely convinced that their position is

Epistemological how you know what you know and they believe that the confessional statement of the role of the spirit in In the conviction of the reality of the

Word of God in the Westminster and the London Bapst Confession gives them the basis for Removing the text from history

Identifying the text of the early 17th century as providentially preserved and Therefore saying that's what has always existed and that's what we are to defend but not defend historically they are absolutely convinced that this is an issue of epistemology and I think they are treading on extremely dangerous ground in Totally destroying any meaningful

Christian epistemology at all Because of the fact they are conflating categories that should never be conflated

But a lot of people just haven't done enough thinking through to see where those category errors are specifically canon text

The whole name in their conference But that wasn't the main thing I wanted to get to there. This is agreeing with Bart Ehrman and somehow that's

You know winning a debate with Bart Ehrman, but actually agreeing with all of his critical principles Well, it actually would be a contrasting

Opinions, which it would actually be a debate because there would be people defending You know the text of scripture versus, you know, someone who wants to alter it change it

Yeah, there was there were no differences of opinion between myself and Bart Ehrman. That's that's what everybody said actually

Almost nobody said that but yeah, I'm skeptical of You know the whole

Discernment ministry apologetics industry. I think we need to preach the gospel to Bart Ehrman So this is

I want to get into it and we'll fit. I'm sorry. I said I was good I will finish up after this. I apologize This was the main thing this is the first one

I wanted to get to I'm getting to it right at the end. Okay I Was very glad when

I heard this yesterday Because if they're being

Truthful what they're saying here Then one of my concerns has been alleviated and that is they're not going to be taking this into the marketplace of ideas

They're not going to be taking this into debate. They're not going to be engaging On university campuses and doing debates and things like that They're they're just gonna keep this

You know, they're just gonna preach the gospel and Since the gospel of the TR and the gospel of the critical text are the same since the gospel of the

Tyndale House Creek New Testament or the UBS 5 or Nessie Ellen 28 or Nessie on 23rd or Majority text

Robinson Pierpont, whatever since the gospel is the same in all of those as I've said for decades same hermeneutics same exegesis applied to Tyndale House Westcott Hort 1881

Texas Receptus use the same sound methods of Interpretation take it all into consideration

Same gospel. So if that's all I could do is preach the gospel then you can preach the gospel from the

TR You can preach the gospel However, as long as you're not engaging other people so as you don't have to answer questions about your text as long as you won't

Answer questions about your text Then great They say they're not gonna do it sort of because in The section

I had just been playing later on what they're talking about about a Muslim The Muslim they're talking to who they've gotten into the

TR stuff Basically said that most of the time they have to deal with textual critical stuff is because of converts who encounter that dreaded text critical stuff and Here's here's the scary part

The converts want a certain word of God Like they had as a Muslim.

So they thought they had a Text that was monolithic and never changed as a

Muslim and now they want the same thing as a Christian and These guys are happy to come along and say here it is

The problem is both are lies Both are not true Both have a history both have textual variations.

That's the reality But there are still people they don't want that. I don't know.

I don't want that. I just want no just give me Just give me something without any footnotes. So here's the here's the

Here's the year 1924 Cairo text for the Quran. No footnotes. No questions.

Here's your Trinitarian Bible Society TR no footnote notes. No questions.

Have at it. There you go Neither one of them is connected to history but That's that's how they go

He's an apostate sir He made a profession in faith He was involved with campus evangelism at Moody Bible Institute He's he's he's heard all that before Sadly, he's an apostate a knowledgeable knowing apostate.

Maybe you don't know enough about him, but there you go I mean, I guess we could say there's a way to defend the faith so that people

Believers are encouraged and unbelievers are will hear a testimony to the faithfulness of God in his word But again,

I wonder what's the is that does that reflect apostolic ministry? Yes, we read about you know,

Paul scheduling debates now. I know among some of the early apologists I don't even know that.

Yes, Paul went into the marketplace and he Dialogued he debated.

Yes. He did. He did that with Jews. He did that with others. Yes. Yeah, he actually did do that Okay, so we're writing letters to the

Emperor saying here's why you shouldn't persecute us. I Guess we've got Justin Martyrs dialogue with Trifo.

Yep the Jew, but I'm not which got into textual critical issues, by the way and Would demonstrate that Justin didn't have the

TR just thought I'd mention that in passing. He doesn't quote from the TR This is just that's again. That's post apostolic ministry

Where do we find that in in apostolic ministry where there are debates with unbelievers? I've often said that what we're seeing in that whole debate world in the reformed world is so enamored with that it's a that is a

It's a function of the Academy not the church, you know Like you say where I've been called to even when you talk about giving it a fence for the hope that's within you turning that Into the formal debate.

It's like yeah, there's some exegetical problems big -time with turning giving it a fence for the faith in the biblical sense to a formal academic debate where you

I mean one of the problems with it is you're There's like an assumed equal ground between the positions really,

I Anyone who had just just all you have to do is go back two weeks ago to Melbourne where I Discussed I think on the first night dealing with the postmodern situation

The reality that there is no neutral ground there is no

Equality between positions I Have again for decades said the exact opposite do not function in that way

And so if I'm gonna have a formal academic bait with ermine or Muslim, let's say then, you know, it's

The hearer is supposed to listen with a blank slate to hear the ideas from both sides and we respectfully let a heretic present

Heresies, I just can't conceive of Paul opening up the church say let's put this in here Paul didn't have any churches

Paul went went out into the marketplace of ideas They used whatever buildings they could at the time.

That's a little bit of an anachronistic application Descriptions of Paul that acts going into the synagogue and and you know reasoning from the scriptures with people

So maybe I'll maybe I'll refine that a little bit Maybe there was a maybe there is a place in apostolic ministry for that to some certain degree but You know, you know with regard to say

Bart Ehrman Okay, I just wanted you to hear what they had to say Regarding the whole idea of debate

I'm very happy that basically what I hear them saying is we're not going to do that We're gonna stay out of that Good good.

Good good it still concerns me when I see people being drawn into this because that's just that fewer number of people that are going to be available to to engage our culture and to give a robust and Consistent coherent defense of the

New Testament as having been truly Preserved by God through history not through re -inspiration

But if that's what we have to face that's what we have to face Despite the obvious disrespect

And denigration of These men I pray that They will be used of the

Lord that If they truly believe

That the Textus Receptus is All that in a bag of chips that they will preach and teach it in its fullness

Which would include preaching and teaching it to Stephen Anderson who seems to have taken over their Facebook page

And defending the fact that the Textus Receptus teaches repentance from sin as an absolute necessity of salvation and teaches that God by his spirit grants the gifts of faith repentance the

Textus Receptus teaches these things I hope everyone will be teaching these things to Stephen Anderson who needs to hear these things because he denies them even though he claims to You know read these things.

He evidently can't read what it says there and teach and preach

Go ahead do it But please stay out of any encounters where you're actually gonna have to give a defense of the

New Testament Because you've abandoned the field That the

Lord has provided to us in which we can that's basically The issue there. All right.

Well That's it for well again, I don't know You Got you got nothing you got nothing you know rich might just get a wild hair going and and want to you know

Do stuff about pedo -baptists or something because he's been doing that on Twitter a lot recently who knows but Lord willing we will be back and I'm only back just before Thanksgiving Then gone the next week.

We will be in st. Charles as we have been every year. This will be year 19, I believe

After next year these people these poor people just need to be get rid of me but weekend at Bernie's Thanks a lot dude,

I appreciate that I'd like to remind you you are older than I am Um Yeah, but still got hair well not as main not not in where I have it but So I'm not sure what the schedule is gonna be like there for a while And I do have a

I'm gonna be on iron sharpens iron with Chris Irons in and and all sorts of stuff as soon as they get back, but we will

Lord willing be back in one piece and be back with you on the dividing line talking about stuff that matters.