Some Covid Madness at the Start, then Hyper Skepticism of the TR Only Movement in Light of Mark 1:1

Greetings welcome to the dividing line. It is a Tuesday probably I can't see how this wouldn't happen

Last program of the week. It's possible. I mean, I suppose I could get where I'm going and they're gonna just have like awesome Super Internet or something

So, you know, I could sit up I could you know It'd be great if I had like a neat backdrop of the

Red Rocks or something like that I'll take a look around. It's it's possibility. I mean things could happen

It is 2020 But it's also October 6th and It's a sad sad day.

It's a very sad day because Eddie Van Halen has died and What makes this particularly sad is that he was only five years older than rich who?

Gets really old today. It's his birthday. So now forever Rich's birthday will be associated

With with Eddie Van Halen and I've never ever heard rich use the name

Eddie Van Halen personally so I'm not really sure that the association is relevant, but it is it is it is

Rich's birthday and Rich may have killed Van Halen. It's it's possible but now you see now

I Could remember Rich's birthday though.

I'd often forget it because we were so busy because it was always it would always be right around the time of the

October trip to general conference, which we did for years years and years and years and years

Which isn't even happening other than Virtually now I saw a clip on Twitter.

I'm wondering if it's from the virtual I want they do that last weekend. Are they doing it this weekend? Was they did it last weekend really?

It was a it was a woman talking about this wonderful Mormon lady who had all these kids and but she drank coffee and so she was she ruined her testimony and Everything else and and had to be restored to the

Lord at the end of her life, but caused all these problems because she drank coffee We're to wisdom those good old staunch wear those temple garments 24 -7

Mormons Up there in Utah there they're becoming a minority

In in Utah these days I can assure you that but anyway That's how I'd always remember Rich's birthday was it was sometime around sometimes when we were up there

I think maybe once or twice we may have told somebody at a restaurant that it was Rich's birthday

And so he got embarrassed or something. I don't I don't really remember but yep, so it's that time of year and But this is a big one because Everybody admits from from this point on down.

It's it the acceleration of The rock toward the surface of the earth is is pretty impressive

It really is You have reached terminal velocity, that's right doesn't get any faster than now

The question is just how much altitude were you able to get before? The straight down part starts, so they're yep, that's

Yeah, there you go there you go There you go, so yes Happy birthday to to to Rich I Tweeted this out and in light of something.

It was just tweeted to me. I'm very happy to see that someone has Filed suit on the basis of the inherent unhealthiness of wearing masks

Saying that the the known dangers of bacteriological infection and things like that outweigh any minor positive benefit

That is that is being forced upon us by the virus By wearing these face diapers, and so I was glad to see that and Yesterday I saw something that I had not seen before Called the

Great Barrington Declaration. I am assuming Great Barrington is a city Otherwise, that's a little bit over -the -top

Describing it as the great it could be the good the perfectly sufficient Barrington Declaration, but I think it's a city

But You can sign this I did Because it's saying what

I've said and what everybody with common sense has been saying for a very very long time

But these are from infectious disease experts as a from around the world They're not the ones that Facebook and Twitter like so they'll eventually be taken down and censored and stuff like that But here's what the

Great Barrington Declaration says as infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists We have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts the prevailing

COVID -19 policies and recommend an approach we called focused protection Coming from both the left and the right and around the world

We have devoted our careers to protecting people current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long -term public health

The results name a few include lower childhood vaccination rates worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes

You mean people are getting fat? Fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health leading to greater excess mortality in years to come

With the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden keeping students out of school is a grave injustice

Well, unless they're getting homeschooled and then it's gonna be a lot better for them Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage with the underprivileged

Disproportionately harmed Fortunately our understanding the virus is growing We know that vulnerability to death from COVID -19 is more than a thousandfold higher in the old and infirm than the young indeed for children

COVID -19 is less dangerous than many other harms including influenza and probably playing tag on the playground as Immunity builds in the population the risk of infection to all including the vulnerable falls.

We know that all populations will eventually read reach Herd immunity ie the point at which the rate of new infection is stable and that this can be assisted by but is not

Dependent upon a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd

Immunity remember that poor British guy that that poor. I think he's probably working in a in an infirmary on a far -flung

British outpost in in the Antarctic now

But when COVID first hit he was like in charge of stuff and he said well No, we shouldn't shut down because we need to get herd immunity.

Whoa. Like four days later. He disappeared. He's He's gone.

He's history But he happened to have been right as Immunity builds in the population the risk of infection to all including the vulnerable.

Okay Yeah, I already said that the most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through Natural infection that you know why this can't ever happen

Because too many of you have already been brainwashed to think that a and we saw this last weekend

If you get COVID you're dead It's it's Ebola. It's an alien plague.

It's the Invasion of the body snatchers. It's whatever you're gonna die and you believe it.

You believe it. I Over and over again now I Went out and did a run this morning

Passed by a guy on a bike. We were the only two people on the canal. We were going to people anywhere near each other Fully masked up and we're not even talking a small mass

We're talking the big you can barely see his eyes. Everything's covered sucking air through that thing on a bike mask and The only reason you do that is if you are absolutely panicked out of your mind

Because you've watched the CNN and MSNBC and you now have burned into your retina All these people who have died allegedly

Only of COVID -19 no one dies of anything else anymore that that okay Actually, you know like millions of people die of other things every day

But nobody ever talks about them or it's blamed on COVID -19 Okay Through natural infection while better protecting those who are at highest risk

We call this focused protection just what we've all been saying for a long time, but ignored We were called the tin hat brigade if you dare say this

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID -19 by way of example nursing homes

Should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent PCR testing of other staff and all visitors

Staff rotation should be minimized retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home when possible

They should have meet family members outside rather than inside a comprehensive and detailed list of measures including approaches to multi -generational

Households can be implemented as is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal simple hygiene message

Measures such as hand -washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold

Schools and universities should be open for in -person teaching extracurricular activities such as sports should be resumed

Young low -risk adults should work normally rather than from home Restaurants and other businesses should open arts music sport and other cultural activities should resume

People who are more at risk may participate if they wish while society as a whole enjoys the protection confirmed

Upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity October 4th 2020 this declaration was authored and signed in Great Barrington United States by You can look up the

Great Barrington Declaration sign it yourself if you'd like to sign something of simple common sense It will go nowhere and I'll tell you why we go nowhere because the left is using this for political gain and As long as it provides political power and as long as you already have a sufficient number of people scared right out of their ever -living minds

Why are you gonna give it up and I can give it up That's the logical thing to do. That's what all sorts of doctors know you should do, but they're not the primary people

They're not the people that are gonna be on CNN and MSNBC and and things like that. So Great Barrington Declaration, just demonstrating that what has been said by a lot of us for a very very long time

Is is actually the logical thing to do and it's the scientific thing to do it's a medical thing to do But there you go, there you go.

So we've got a lawsuit. I'm gonna follow that lawsuit very carefully of people who recognize

That masks are bad for you Remember I've mentioned to you before the pre COVID study that not only demonstrated 97 % penetration of cotton masks by viruses but a 40 % increase in infection

When you compare three groups N95 respirator medical grade very difficult to breathe you cotton masks and No masks at all

Which group had the highest infection rate? The people wearing the masks That's the

CDC website May of 2020 Biggest study done to that point.

I've never seen a refutation of it. Not once I've seen people stand on their heads and and spin in circles going well

But you know there might be two days of which we're not really symptomatic in the day Just trying to come up with anything to get around the fact that we're making ourselves sicker

We're killing people with this idiocy of face diapers but it's all political it's all politics, so There you go.

There you go We just just tell you tell you the way it is now Would like to jump into a text and totally changing topic now just No, no connection whatsoever between face masks

Anything like that at all. I want to completely change direction here last program of the week probably but who knows like I said it could change and I want to look at mark one one now some of you

Will remember that in May of 2006 I Debated Shabir Ali at Biola University in Southern, California That is the last time

I have darkened the doors of Biola University and So anyway, we had a great time that night it was it was it was a very good debate that started all the

Muslim debates that have happened since then and If you recall that debate if you've watched that debate maybe like algo have watched it you know 14 times or more you'll recall that one of the sexual variants that Shabir Ali made reference to is

Mark chapter 1 verse 1 and So you'll notice in my accordance setup here

That I have the NASB the English translation And then I have the

Nessie Allen 28th on the right hand side So the numeric standard says the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ the

Son of God But the Greek says are

K2u on Galileo Jesu Christu and then there is a single bracket around who you say you

So the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ who you say you the Son of God It's Anarthurus, so there is no article before between Christu and who you

Now this is a well -known textual variant and it has been discussed many times

I have read I Think it was

Wasserman and Gurry. I'm thinking that they at least a report on I'm not sure if they did the work on it where a

Preliminary level of CBGM coherence -based genealogical methodology analysis was done based upon published sources rather than the full

Database that is available to the folks at Munster we should have

The ECM of mark even now. I mean, it's I was told in January of 2019 that it was done

So, I'm not sure what's holding it up. I'm sure kovat has not helped in getting it done

I am in limbo until it comes out and once it does come out. I'm afraid

Half the programs are gonna have to be on sexual critical subjects because I will have some work to be doing that. Anyway The The point is that some sort of preliminary type of a

CBGM analysis Has been done a mark one one and from what I have read it weighs toward the longer ending or the length of the the way the new

American standard has translated and Without the brackets in the na -28 that is that is on your screen now

Is there any question? In the gospel of mark that Jesus is the

Son of God. No, there really isn't Don't you have the centurion confessing in Jesus you do but you have some liberals saying that that That a centurion would have understand that sort of that is a son of God or a godly person or stuff like that So someone could always come up with something so it is not like this determines the view of the gospel of mark

But it clearly is important It is clearly important And when people

Talk about the textual transmission of the New Testament, especially on the

Internet these days you end up with a Large portion of people basically saying look, you know what?

I don't know anything about it. I I Read the notes, but I'm not sure who to believe It does seem like all the notes say the same thing as far as they they note the same variants and stuff like that But there's different ways of understanding them and you've got the

King James only us you get the TR only us and you've got you've got leftist liberals on the other side and and you've got people who

Translate the NASB or ESV and they are conservative Bible believing scholars that love the

Word of God believe it's consistent with itself believe in inspiration and they talk about these textual variants and a lot of people go my pastor doesn't talk much about it and most pastors don't and the reason for that is

Most pastors are uncomfortable with the subject You can graduate from the large portion of theological seminaries today without a truly firm comfortable grasp of The textual history the

New Testament. I'm not saying that nobody teaches it anymore. Obviously, I'm not saying that but You know,

I can just tell you I taught for a seminary once we're right the end of my time there You could fulfill your

Greek New Testament requirements in a Jan term class now

That's that means you're taking a Greek tools class. That means you're learning how to use logos Well, you're not learning how to actually read the language, which means

It's pretty tough for you to be taking any of the classes on textual criticism, which Classically have required you to already know the language to begin with sort of important So keeping all of that in mind,

I understand the level of confusion But here's what

I want to address today I totally completely spaced just Had too many things on my mind

Got into the into the zone and I completely spaced to address one of the most important aspects of the debates over the course of the past weekend and I want to apologize for that because that lessened the value

Greatly of what it was that I that I shared with you at that particular point in time

But we will hopefully change it here The thing

I did not address was something that truly concerned and bothered me during the course of the debate and Yes, it's connected mark one one.

We're gonna look at more closely here in a moment and That was the repeated statement by dr.

Jeffrey riddle that the manuscript tradition For the first 500 years of Of The New Testament is insufficient for the recreation of the text in New Testament It's what he said.

He said it over and over again. He had a particular Focus partly because of the emphasis that I have

Upon these things he had a particular focus upon the papyri, which he is frequently called the vaunted papyri he has a very low view of The papyrological

Testimony and the papyri in general are the earliest manuscripts There are some papyri that are there later than some of the unseals we unseals.

We have p74 for example is like 7th century, but When we're talking about the major papyri, we're talking about p66 p75 p72 p45 these are

And of course p46 the the earliest collection of Paul's epistles that date to the 2nd and 3rd centuries and Give us an insight into the state of the text

From a hundred years prior to the great unseal text the the the parchment the vellum

Manuscripts that we have in Sinaiticus Vaticanus Alexandrinus later on Washingtonianus and things like that but what was said repeatedly by the representative the

TR only position is the In essence we cannot recreate the text of New Testament hmm, so as I pointed out

I said, well that would mean we cannot recreate the text of anything from antiquity because of any work from antiquity the testimony that we have to the

New Testament is Earlier wider and greater than any other work of antiquity. So you can't trust

What you have for any of the Latin historians Greek historians Pliny's Suetonius doesn't matter

Plato Who knows we have no way of knowing utter and complete skepticism a skepticism far beyond that of Someone like Bart Ehrman as I've pointed out

Bart Ehrman has said we know what the New Testament said We're just tinkering with a few little things here there and ever but we you know, we will never know with perfection is what he would say

But I Remind people of the the Program that he was on an atheist program.

He was on Being interviewed about his book Misquoting Jesus and After he went through a couple of the standard variants, you know, the percocet percocet adultery a long writing remark, whatever

The atheist is like so dr. Dr. Herman Well in light of all this, what do you think the

New Testament was originally about what was what was its original storyline and Herman's like It was about Jesus as a son of God coming to die and rise again

And he he doesn't get it He you know, this atheist is thinking maybe this was about space gods from Kolob.

Oh, that's different group Maybe it was about you know, some sci -fi type thing to make a great movie and Herman's like no, it's it's the story that we're we all know is the story of the

New Testament. I mean there there There might be some textual variants and in Mark chapter 2 where the

Jesus was angry or or whether Jesus died By the grace of God or apart from God in Hebrews chapter 2 is a couple little things like that But it doesn't really change them

The storyline it's not like some new story you can be built out of it and so even though Erman has his own kind of radical skepticism

Remember that answer he gave to in the audience question. We're well If I want real certainty about the gospel mark that I'd need to have ten notarized copies that dated from within two months after Mark wrote it and so on and so forth type of Absurdity which of course can't his point was can't do that so he has that level of skepticism which goes beyond the

Academy but he doesn't have a Skepticism that says we we can't even we can't even get close.

We got no idea. Who knows and As I said, he admitted We have much earlier attestation for the

New Testament than we have for any other work of antiquity quote -unquote Excuse me. That's what he said in our debate.

You can go listen to it So when the TR only guys Start saying well, we can't we can't recreate the text

Why does someone say that See when I hear that I Go, uh -huh

Someone has an authority that they're about to introduce us to Someone is is promoting something and So they have to denigrate the quality depth breadth early attestation of the

New Testament manuscript tradition To make room for whatever it is. They're trying to sell us and in this case

It's this Strange phrase Providential eclecticism

Which as I pointed out is just another way of saying re -inspiration How else are you supposed to define it?

How is he supposed to define it? If you call it providential then God is actively involved in doing what?

He's guiding the choices that Erasmus Stefanus and Beza made now that means that when

Every one of those times were Erasmus looked at a text and went.

Oh Hmm. Yeah. Well, you know, it could be this and it could be that and you know, maybe the shorter endings better in other words, he used the same methodologies that we use today and examine the text and then he goes

I've said this but I leave it to the reader. It could be that it's up to you That what he just happened to put in the text was exactly

What the Apostles had originally written Not not just what

God was quote -unquote re -inspiring but what the Apostles had originally written because the only way for this providential eclecticism to work is if the result is

Identical to what the Apostles wrote even if there's no evidence of it down through history.

So Providential eclecticism is a re -inspiration. It's it's okay

Um The Reformation is happening. It's the biggest thing in church history. It's bigger than Nicaea.

It's bigger than Chalcedon It's bigger than all that stuff and so I'm gonna produce a

Finally finally I got around to providentially leading mankind to develop the printing press and So now's the time to provide

The absolute inspired text and I'm gonna do it and so I'm going to providentially guide every single one of the choices

Even the thing about this even down to what happened with the book of Revelation and as you know

Erasmus only had one manuscript. It was not a free -running manuscript. It was a commentary in Latin Was missing some pages.

He didn't do a good job Pulling the text out He made a bunch of mistakes and he knew it and he didn't care

He didn't care so evidently Erasmus was providentially made to not care about the canonical status of Revelation I Forgot a little something

Sorry about that and so he

Doesn't want to do the work to track down Solid sound

Greek handwritten manuscripts for the book of Revelation for the next edition of his of his

Greek New Testament and So he writes a note to his printer The second edition says go get the

Aldine Version and Thank you and Whatever they have in theirs for Revelation Correct mine to fit theirs

That's how little he cared well that was providential He was caused

Providentially to not care about was Revelation. Here's the problem The other guys were also caused to providentially not care about Revelation.

So he just used his version So there weren't any differences because they had already borrowed from Erasmus.

They hadn't done their own work either One of the reasons of that is they were providentially so few manuscripts of Revelation especially in Greek it's the book we have the fewest manuscripts of and so errors that that he knew about never fixed over five editions because he thought they had been and Nobody was arguing about it

Nobody had access to enough information to even question it and so those errors

Were promulgated continued and they're in the TR to this day, which means they were the original reading

Providentially, that's the answer to everything from the TR providentially Which Calvinist can do that for everything?

Because there is there is a broad Massive sense in which yep.

It's all part of God's decree But that's not an argument and there is not a

Calvinist school on the planet that has ever accepted as The consistent response to every question on every test

God did it God did it and yet that's what people are telling us.

God did it That's that's where it came from and so Whatever ends up in the

TR Which includes the longer ending here? that is the

Inspired reading. In fact, let me just look at something really really quickly here There it is textus receptus, well, that's interesting

They have Who you to say you So there is a expansion so you have we you to say you in mark 1 1 and I'm wondering personally

Yeah, so you've got who you to say you

Koryu in 1241, so I'm not sure if that's added or just what that's an that's an odd one

So that's your your majority reading With the with the article is is what you've got there.

So that's what you have in the in the TR is The Son of God with an article included

Now let's let's take a look at something here I Brought up.

Oops. Well, that's not gonna work for me.

Is it? That's funny. You can only go to a certain Certain one there.

All right, then we'll go this way window There we go. Thank you all right, so here is

Codex Vaticanus now interestingly enough someone and I won't bother to dig back through my stuff to Find out who it was

But someone this morning was basically saying that anyone who would utilize or promote a

Bible translation that includes Codex Vaticanus is a heretic that is heresy so What you're looking at according to certain people on the internet is is heresy

When it's actually simply one of the manuscripts in all probability that were copied

After the Council of Nicaea with funds that were provided by Constantine to help replace many of the manuscripts that have been destroyed by the

Roman Empire only 15 -20 years earlier And what you want to note here is you've got the big fancy Alpha over here, and then you've got our

K to Uangliu and Then notice right here.

It would be much better if this was on the full screen, but rich ran away I'm sorry

Amazon man, okay then notice so here's here's you on Galileo gospel and Then you have what are called

Nomina Sacra so this is Yesu and notice the line up above so that's the two letter abbreviation of Jesus Christu There is the line and then here

We have who you Spelled out and then say you there's the line for the

Nomina Sacra right there. So So notice what What you have here in Magiscule text sometimes called unsealed text that's a technical term

You have these oops Alons, and you have a number of Omicron oops on so the end.

This is a long genitive train okay, and So you have

Omicron oops Alon. Here's another oops Alon after Neota then Hi, oops

Alon and then who you of course begins and ends with an oops Alon and has two vowels in between it and then say you so that's a lot of oops

Alon's in a row and So most of the discussion concerning this variant

Has not been focused upon the theology the vast majority of textual discussion especially up until Bart Ehrman and 93

Assumed and interestingly enough, even though Bart Ehrman wrote Orthodox corruption of scripture He also has admitted that The vast majority of variations are not theologically motivated.

He tries to say certain ones are I think he fails at that in a number of different places, but The the point is that even he admits in general scribes really tried to do a good job

Bezos off by itself and and you've got this hour there But in general they did an amazingly good job.

And so that most of the discussion has been what would be What about this line?

would cause the variations that we see amongst the manuscripts because Let me

Don't go don't go back to Full screen I gotta go back to okay, because if we look at the textual interlinear here

For I guess I'll have to go back to full screen. There we go If we go back to the textual interlinear here for this reading

Over here is where you've got Who you say you son of God Alright, and so then we come down to here.

Here's Sinaiticus And Sinaiticus does not have who you say you you have

Yesu Christu So are K2. You're on Galileo Who you

Christu? But Vaticanus are K2. You're on Galileo Who you

Christu who you say you son of God who you spelled out fully?

Washingtonianus also has we you say you and interestingly enough Alexandrinus has who you

Christu to say you Not to who you say you now

That would make perfect sense to be honest with you because We English -speaking people might go the of God that doesn't make any sense

But in Greek it would make perfect sense because in genealogies and things like that That would be a

Fully acceptable and understandable form that that would mean the Son of God you wouldn't have to repeat it, but it is interesting

That you have amongst these Important manuscripts early early early manuscripts first 500 years manuscripts

You have a lack of the word then you have two who use and then you have

An article instead of who you but you'll notice how much the if I hadn't pointed out would your eyes immediately have recognized

That Codex Alexandrinus actually has a different reading because it's still two and It looks a lot especially in that line of genitives like who you but it's two all right

Now one of the points I've been trying to make over the course of years

How you are listening to me right now says a lot about your level of confidence in How God has transmitted the text of his scriptures over time there are people and I understand there are people

But in this instance, there is nothing I can do about trying to help these people feel better about themselves

There are people who do not believe we should be looking at things like this There are some people who say it's

It's nitpicking straining out gnats I had that used on Facebook today Strain straining it gnats doesn't matter who cares

Then there are others who are like you should not Talk about stuff like this as if if I don't talk about it, then nobody else will either

No I assure you other people will and they will in a context of unbelief and That leaves

Christians sitting in the context of silence and ignorance, that's not a good thing But there are people who really really do not think

That we should even be talking about this stuff. They don't want notes in their Bible They don't want to know that Sinaiticus and these are our earliest sources again.

We don't have the beginning of Mark wish we did Maybe someday we will But we don't have the beginning of Mark in a papyri in any of the papyrus papyri in a singular papyrus so These are our earliest sources

Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Washingtonianus, Alexandrinus so we're looking at the at the earliest sources here and there's a variant and there's a difference and There are people who are afraid of history.

They are afraid of how God transmitted the text of Scripture That's why they want something better in their thinking

They're they don't they've never thought this through But they're literally saying

I want something better than what God provided in history and They live in a day where they can pretend to offer something like that because they live in a day that's half a millennium after the invention of printing in the

West and Printing certainly helps to solidify a text, but now they live in a day of Of digital imagery and so you can reproduce a text exactly we mankind could not do that until 1949 and Certainly not in the digital way we do now until only a matter of decades ago

And so there are people living in this age. They want to go. I want something better Than What was?

Provided to the church For the first thousand years or more

Where they had to regularly discuss? differences in manuscripts where Everyone who wrote on this subject origin and Jerome especially as two of the most

Focused individuals Recognized Well as Jerome said in his day the best manuscripts didn't have the long writing of Mark, that's what he said

You CBSA to said the same thing by the time of Victor that's starting to change But that's what they said and they they didn't have access to anything like this.

They couldn't compare manuscripts. They didn't have Identification of manuscripts. They didn't have a catalog

There was no central location that kept track of these things Would have made things a lot easier, but they didn't have it we do now and so now we have to Take advantage of all the information we have or you saw it all out as someone said after the date

Well, it seems like what one side is saying is you should just burn all the manuscripts have been discovered since the

TR was published Because as far as it having an impact on the reading the

New Testament, that's true That that would be the logical result, I mean what good are the vaunted papyri to dr.

Riddle The only the only time he's gonna make reference to the vaunted papyri is when he can try to twist

P -46 into a support for the reading of koinonia at Ephesians 3 9 which it cannot be

So if the papyri disagreed to TR and they do then how are they even useful

Why should they not just simply not be destroyed good question,

I mean dr. Riddle will say oh I'm not against the study of these things, but I just want to go but why?

Why study these things What what good does it do? What what positive thing does it add is what

I want to know outside of I guess they could argue well, it's an example a Warning of the corruption that can happen to the scriptures

I bet you that would probably be one of the type of things that would be argued. I don't know The point is we're looking at the earliest sources for Mark and If we are people of truth, we're going to speak the truth about what's there.

We cannot avoid that We cannot avoid that. So when we go back Yeah, it just won't do that I Wish it would okay, get rid of that and This is the old -fashioned way of doing it.

I mean there might be a way to them Here is Vaticanus and yes, it has we you

They you it has the long ending without the article. So it has son of God and This has not been inserted a later point.

I mean the whole You can tell by where the letters are in the line and so on so forth that this is

Where it's always been you'll notice the next line has been written in Isaiah The prophet that becomes another important textual variant that look at another point

I suppose let's look over at Codex Sinaiticus Man, I had trouble with this this when this this website first came up was so exciting

So exciting. The problem is that was a long time ago, and they haven't been keeping up with the coding at all

So it is a stick on a rock now But Anyway, here's

Codex Sinaiticus here you have kata mark on according to mark RK to you one galley.

Ooh now notice again in Maguscule text all all capital form letters is what we would call them

Basically, no punctuation No space in between words and so you can break words at places.

We would never break words so you one galley, ooh, and the problem is that Actually adds to the issue because now you have the genitive ending starting a

Line of what would have been genitive endings But you notice you on galley you who you

Christu and Then it moves on Just as it is

Written in the Prophets But I blew it up and I'm not sure if I can No, I can't

I guess I can't blow it up anymore Right here if you look real carefully

Someone has written in who you say you four letters So they're using the nomena sacra with the line over top.

So a correction has been made To the manuscript and and included

Who you say you? now What that means is that when you utilize something like?

Come on how do you get this thing out of Okay, only only way only way out of this one is

Massive destruction just close them it's just when you use something like the

Nessie Allen text or something along those lines And you look at the variants

Here is where it'll have the variant. Let me blow it up so you can see it Notice what you have here.

You have Sinaiticus Asterix that's the olive

Sinaiticus one. So what they're saying is that the the

Omission Is found the original hand of Sinaiticus and that's what we saw

But then the first corrector has added the text we

We would say in and So on the part of the editors, the assumption is that that was first corrector, which may have been

Concurrent with at the same time first reader of the manuscript when it was produced in a scriptorium

Because the the handwriting is similar though. It's much much smaller Some of the corrections we see elsewhere completely different ink completely different handwriting

Happened at much later time. There's entire books about the various correctors of Sinaiticus and things like that But that's what the one and the asterix or a two or or things like that Indicate when you see something along those lines so There's the evidence and It doesn't

Change a whole lot Now it is interesting to me. There is one thing that I'm I'm confused about here

If you don't mind my you don't mind following along with me here and That is

That This that the Nessie Allen 28th is telling us that the reading of Alexandrinus That's codex a is who you tooth a you

But when I go to the transcription, it's tooth a you and when

I go to the Image there is no who you there.

Nope. There it is. No that no it is there Who you tooth a you that's what the picture shows, but the that's interesting the transcription does that does not have it there?

Now that's interesting. I will have to submit a note to accordance to Fix the transcription because the transcription is off at that point

So there you go. It is there who you tooth a you so there is the addition of the article before they you in codex

Alexandrinus now There are people

Who will look at this and say see nobody can know

Because They are not accustomed to dealing with anything from antiquity in Fact a lot of these people are not even accustomed to dealing with the stories

I've told about some of the papers I wrote in college and How you had to copy stuff out of books and you had to You had to buy stuff like this

This was a really cool. I think they still exist but a place called Levenger and it's a it's a book weight and it's for holding books open and You had to do that so you could hold a book open so that you could copy the book and And that meant going back and forth your eyes and you would learn very quickly the kinds of errors you can make if all you've ever done is

Cut and paste then you need to realize that the world is a whole lot different in the past and they're not too distant past But a lot of people are very very uncomfortable with the recognition of these things and so what they're willing to say is a we can't

Reconstruct the text They've never really tried but they come to the conclusion because there are differences we can't and therefore we need a

New inspiration we need Since since my mind can't wrap itself around how for 1 ,500 years

Christians dealt with this and it didn't cause them to lose their faith. It's gonna cause me to lose mine.

Therefore What I'm gonna do is I'm going to ignore all of this stuff. I'm gonna push all the history off to the side

And I'm gonna grab hold of one thing Now for the King James only us it's

King James version of the Bible for the TR only us it's the

TR Which it's interesting to me the vast majority of them still end up being King James only to as far as the translation

He is that if I was TR only I'd at least use the new King James But not normally it ends up being

King James So this is the mindset. I Cannot allow the historical reality of what you're showing me on the screen and so I'm going to grab hold of an objective

Unchanging standard I'm going to ignore how it came into existence. I'm going to ignore its own history

And I make it the standard and if you keep pointing out what its history was

I'm gonna say you're arguing like an atheist May I suggest something to you the skepticism

That Jeffrey Riddle expressed was much more like the skepticism of atheism than anything.

I would ever express I believe that the

New Testament manuscript tradition is fully capable of Telling us what the

Apostles wrote Jeffrey Riddle doesn't believe that In fact this entire one of the things

I like about the Tyndale house, even though I I disagree with it for example the John 118 But one of the things

I like about this is that If a reading is going to appear in the main text of this it has to be witnessed within the first 500 years

Well, that means that the manuscript tradition has to be sufficient in the first 500 years

To tell us that well, thanks be to God it is oh But we have thousands of manuscripts later.

Yeah as you would expect I Mean shouldn't you have more manuscripts from 500 years ago than from 1500 years ago?

I Mean that it's isn't that sort of logical it is it is but the skepticism of the tier only position that was enunciated it says we

Those those early manuscripts the papyri and the unseals and and even the even the early

Byzantine manuscripts It's just it's just not enough Why isn't it enough? We weren't told

We weren't told but my guess would be Because of the standard that's being used the standard is and this is what you hear all the time both from King James only us and See our only us

Well, you have to have absolute certainty about the reading of every single text there can be no questions and Don't remind me that Christians had lived with that for 1500 years before Erasmus and don't remind me that Erasmus would have laughed

Heartily If he had ever known What his own

Greek New Testament would be turned into by the TR only movement I mean, it's sort of like how

Dean Bergan could never be a member of the Dean Bergan Society Because he didn't believe the things that Dean Bergan Society believes

And it's the same thing here Erasmus would would have scoffed at this position

He would have said did you read anything I wrote? Did you read my annotations?

Did you see how many times I said might be this might be that I don't know. It's up to you and You've now turned what

I did into an autograph What? He wouldn't have even had a category to put such a such an action in But again, once you get the yeah, but the

Reformation was so important Remember Rasmus didn't join the Reformation, but the Reformation is so important And and so the text that came out of it, they must have done all this work.

Well, they didn't It was the default text it's what they had they there was no ability

The Academy had spoken As much as he disliked the Academy Erasmus and Stephanos and Beza were the

Academy And the Academy spoke not the church there weren't any councils There wasn't anybody sitting around going.

Oh, no, it must be Koinonia not Oikonomia. They didn't even know there was a difference Weren't even aware of it.

They didn't even argue about it It was the default text But That's what was providentially given and once you buy that All this looking at son of God and CBGM and all the rest that stuff doesn't matter

Doesn't matter you've got you've got already got your answers. You've already got your answers But that kind of skepticism is

Horrifically destructive because you send a young person into University setting and you you mix this deadly cocktail in their thinking of The New Testament manuscript tradition is insufficient

In of itself to recreate the text so therefore God did it

Using Erasmus and Beza primarily Without their knowing it and that's how you're supposed to defend your text of Scripture Against the attacks of all of the children of Bart Ehrman.

Yeah, there you go That kind of skepticism is

Not only unwarranted. It's extremely dangerous Extremely dangerous now.

I have been informed. I have been told that at least in those

You know, for example that I've invited people to call in well, they'll comment in their private

Facebook groups, but they won't say anything to me and they won't call in and I've challenged people who have said things publicly and Then discovered well, they responded and mocked me in their private groups, but they wouldn't stand up and do that to me

Just a waste of time Gets a little dangerous when people who claim an

Orthodox faith then begin to behave in this fashion the Nastiness, of course being sent my direction is

Astonishing, but I understand why I'm challenging

When when you literally have the leaders of this group

Confusing the foundational Presuppositional validity of the necessity of the triune

God for human knowledge with the textual readings that the textus receptus

Which is what Jeffrey Riddle does so in their mind the two things are the same That they're of equal value equal weight.

They are not They are not No rational person can think they are

But once you buy that idea Where else can you go and?

What must you think of me? I mean if you I've heard some of these young men especially saying

I am so glad that I don't have to look at those notes anymore And I don't have to worry about this that and the other thing is if everybody's always worrying about that type of thing

But I'm so glad that I don't have to do that anymore. And if I'm basically saying to you

You've traded truth for certainty You've you've done

What non -christians do you've taken the lazy path?

You really have well You can either sit back and go well, well have

I how how would I know one way or the other what questions could I? ask You know, what if I you know?

How how can this be presented outside the Christian faith to others? I mean shouldn't our faith be defensible in that way

If you're not willing to do that, then the only thing you can do is to respond emotionally to the person bringing you the message that's challenging you and He's terrible

So I I've seen out in some of the public comments Yeah, I just can't stand white.

So this is one guy says I I don't like white So I just I just wrote back to him. Have we ever met? You're back.

No, okay There you go. I mean the thought crossed my mind and what exactly do you know about me?

Why why would you make this kind of comment in? In a public set, but what did that do for you?

But I thought well we'll pass because it's just there's just so many people that I would be doing that with right now because that's the emotional thing and This isn't new.

I cannot see outside of the extra layer of koine

Greek I Cannot see any functional difference between King James only ism and tiara only as long as you have the only ism part.

I Don't see it. There's any difference Functionally, they end up coming to the same place. They argue in the same way they both promote rampant skepticism about the

New Testament manuscripts and They're all the same problems And their their advocates end up arguing in the same ways

Which you know initially and you first run to tiara only ism or at least you know, tiara preferred that's different Tiara only gets weird

Yeah, yeah, yeah really gets gets gets strange and so there you go so I want to bring up that issue because it was extremely important on the

In regards to skepticism that is something that we you know, I if you saw the debates, you know,

I jumped on that and I did so with Vim vigor and vitality shall we say

Because that needed to be challenged that needed to be challenged big -time and Hopefully I was able to do so even in the the brief amount of time.

That's that we had So hopefully that's helpful to you I know there are some of you weirdos out there that just love looking at Greek manuscripts and nomena sacra and And stuff like that and but you're in the minority.

I hate to tell you You are in the minority But it is I think important to look at these things be aware of their existence and to recognize the textual variation comes about as an artifact of The mechanism that God used to preserve the scriptures

I do believe that God has preserved the scriptures But he didn't do so with a photocopier if God had wanted to preserve the scriptures the way the tiara only people say that he

He would have invented the photocopier about 1900 years before he did

You want to talk about Providence It's God's Providence that we didn't have photocopiers until 1949.

So if you want photographic reproduction Then take it up with God instead

God had the text of the New Testament distributed freely and Widely so that it was never under the control of any one group and could not be controlled in its transmission and Hence could not be redacted and edited in its transmission free transmission versus controlled transmission

I Realize the vast majority of Christians are never going to have an argument or a debate with a

Muslim on the methodology of the transmission of the text in the

New Testament versus that of the Quran that doesn't make it any less important and to be consistent in how we respond to atheists and skeptics and Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus and Obviously our

Muslim friends and all the cults and isms Within the broad pale of what is called

Christianity Including the Mormons who have all sorts of weird ideas about how the

Bible is transmitted over time We have to be consistent and not only how we respond to each one of those groups

But then when you begin to exchange with those groups and learning about those groups

Then we need to be consistent and how we deal with their scriptures as well And I see

TR only ism and King James only ism as a complete capitulation I had somebody saying but I've I think it was

Nick Sayers is saying I've witnessed to Muslims has nothing to do with what I'm saying Nick Sayers could not hear me say the sky is blue Without saying yeah, but aren't there some clouds?

He couldn't the man cannot hear a word. I have to say accurately cannot do so.

I Never said that TR only people don't witness to Muslims. What I said is they could not

Consistently debate Muslims and engage in a criticism of the Quran and defend the

TR the way they do Isn't that a clear statement? Why misrepresent it? Why not be able to hear what

I'm saying? It's a view. Well, I know people like that believe the TR and they witness to Muslims So that's not what

I was talking about. Is it? It's not what I was talking about. It's different thing different category, huh

Fascinating stuff fascinating stuff. Hope that's useful to you like I said We'll see about later in the week and like if something really big and huge Massive happens.

I'll try to find some way of doing something and you're gonna be around this week. Anyways, aren't you? You're what you're working on you.

Oh And now what was it? What was it that that came today? Well, what's why is there no rich cam on riches birthday?

Why is there no rich rich cam on riches birthday? It's called the Samsung flip board.

I don't I don't see I don't see a rich cabinet. Okay, you gotta have a There I am. All right. Happy birthday dadada.

Okay, it's called the Samsung. What flip board flip board. Yes and It's it's sort of like what the like it's supposed to be really really cool

All I know is it's really really big and it's really really heavy. Oh, okay So, all right, take three of us to put it up on the stand but the idea is that I'm gonna be able to like Put codex sinaiticus up there and yes, sir.

All over it. You'll have your own textual variants I'll blow it up and do all sorts of stuff like that and We could take pictures of the

Quran and put that up there. I don't know Okay There you go, that'll be fun so rich is gonna be

Playing with stuff and we're gonna try to get You know, it may develop over time, you know the the first time we use the new studio may not be as Fully fancy as it's going to end up eventually being

What yeah, given the fact that you know, we just added more construction things on to the room

You know, all right, yeah, we're trying to get it done as soon as we can but right no, right

Yeah, I also want it to be really nice. Yeah, but I could see us doing some dividing lines in there

Especially when I was gonna be doing a teaching thing, you know this would this one would have been a cool one to do along those lines, you know to use that board and Yeah, I said to rich for the program why don't you just go you're good at this we got seven minutes

Just put it up on here and plug it in and okay, so since we're talking about this, yes

Okay, so think about this you take the corner you wheel it in over there, right? all right, and then you put the new cameras there which can they have servo motors and So I could follow you over there.

You could do your thing and sit down and stand up. These things are stationary They don't move. So when you turn your back or when you go in different places, they don't go anywhere

And but those we can control right? So yeah, there's we we've got some versatility things we could do

Yeah, we do it in here or in there. Yeah, we could do it out of the street. We'll see we will see I Might have to start paying more attention to what

I wear on certain days Not sure not sure that's all that good

I used to be able to wear whatever I wanted to wear and I came to do the dividing line because there wasn't a

Stinkin cameras around We had ceiling tiles on the wall We had a we had a bookshelf over there that could have fallen over and killed me at any point in time

Wouldn't have passed any safety inspection anywhere on the planet. You could just you blew on that thing and it wobbled

It was the prototype and it was not a good prototype, but we used it and I don't know how many years it was over There but that's sort of how it worked.

But anyway, all right enough of us just yammering at each other Happy birthday again, Rich. We'll see you all