More on the Slick/Sungenis Discussion

The Dividing Line Introduction and the Peter Text on Christian Apologetics

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 973 460 to or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James white.

And good afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line just a little bit of housekeeping. Announcement here. We're going to be moving the program on Next Tuesday's program will actually be on Monday at this time the afternoon time as one will be doing the program.

I have a conflict on Tuesday. I figured just better to move that particular time and For those of you interested keep your eyes open tomorrow or the next day for a new Installment in the look. What you can find when you dig into public documents.

Saga in regards to the arrogant canner scandal and the evangelical cover-up thereof. Further documentation. Specific documentation as to the exact day of The arrival of the canner family in the United States of America.

We now know exactly When it was official government documentation. No question whatsoever. That the material found on Ergon canner's bio page for many years Claimed to have come here in 1978 or 1979 whichever one whichever iteration it was Was a complete fabrication.

Not a misstatement a complete fabrication, but anyway, keep your eyes open for that as well. It won't be coming up on my blog at first. It's obviously the privilege of those who do the hard work To to do those things, but just let you know keep your eyes open information forthcoming.

The Slick-Sungenis Encounter and the Plan for James 2 and Romans 4

All right, we return to the subject of the Encounter between Matt slick and dr. Robertson Jenna's that took place a week ago Monday. I realized there was another Encounter on yesterday and I listened to was that yesterday?

No on Monday. I'm sorry and I did listen to that and I Unfortunately, it was not recorded properly and So it was a little frustrating because the Janet Mefford show would show up and a few other things like that while trying to listen to to the debate and So that was a little frustrating.

So I doubt that I will go through all of it. But there was some important material on James chapter 2 and the argumentation from Romans chapter 4. So when we finish this first encounter what I want to do is I want to go through James chapter 2 and Deal with Robertson Genesis assertion that the appropriate translation of the definite article found with the word faith in James 2 14 That faith he says is a completely wrong translation.

Well, he is completely wrong about that and I will demonstrate that from actual Greek scholarship that is far beyond anything that Robertson Janice could demuster in defense of his assertions and Then we will look at all of James chapter 2 in light of the material that I provided in the God who justifies and then we will also look at the attempt on the part of Robertson Janice and others to turn justification into a process based upon looking at Abraham and then Something he hit Matt with that Pretty much did not get responded to because it is a Interesting argument, but that's because he he actually sort of pulled one over on Matt at that point but the general statement drawn from David's experience in Matthew.

I'm sorry in Psalm 32 Psalm 31 the subject and the argumentation that St. Janice brought forth and that we'll be dealing with that as well. It did seem to me that There was an agreement to go for part three At the end of the program, I'm not sure if that's gonna happen or not, but As it may we are approaching very important issues here.

Issues that have wide applications. So hopefully this will be of assistance to you. So we continue on with where we left off last time which is if you are listening to the same file, I am about to 10 minutes and 24-seconds into the file as it was provided.

With Robertson Janice saying this homo usios and not homo. We will see us as the Aryans have held who's going to decide that. The Bible doesn't decide it for us because the Bible doesn't get into those issues the church has to decide it because God gave the keys of The kingdom to the church to decide these very issues for us.

So yes, we're quite proud of the fact that it's not the individual Joe on the street that determines these things for us. It's not Matt slick.

Rome, Apostolic Succession, and the Nature of the Church

Now, let me just stop right there here. You have the classic. It's either the ancient church. And of course, that's part of the entire. Question is is Rome the ancient church and I would argue that it is not in fact.

You would find no one in the first centuries of the Christian Era who believed as dogma what a modern Roman Catholic has to believe as dogma. Nobody believed those things. There is no evidence that the Apostles taught the things that Rome has dogmatized on the basis of alleged tradition and.

So, you know that that's that's part of the argumentation but here's here's this. You've either got the ancient church in all of its you know glory. Or you've got just Matt slick or you under a tree with your Bible.

The idea that there has been a people of God. The idea that The people of God are defined by their confession of faith in Christ by their their belief in divine revelation. The idea that there is a church and that the church has authority just not infallible authority based in a single bishop in a single city.

The idea that You have the body of Christ and that you have local churches and those there have been local churches that have remained Faithful to the message of the cross all all through church history all that's just back.

We don't even don't even don't even deal with that very very common and very rarely do people challenge it because why because very few Protestants have much of a biblical concept of ecclesiology to begin with the idea of We talked about last time first Timothy and its statement that the church is a pillar and foundation of truth.

You better believe it is but that's the local church. That's not the Church of Rome. There was no church at Rome at this point in time that could have fulfilled that particular thing and that Timothy was the was the bishop at Ephesus and I mean, it'd be pretty easy to try to make arguments as Rome does to turn a lot of people into Popes.

Using the argumentation they do that. Well, it's that's put the church in Ephesus and make that the center. No, it's the local church. That has bishops. Which are the elders that's the same office. The deacons where the the ministry of the word takes place and the people gather together for the worship of God through the proclamation of his word, that's.

That is an option that just it's almost never even mentioned By Rome's apologists. They always want to make it this either or either the big Ancient church in the mists of time or you under a tree with your Bible, that's it and.

Hence, it is a straw man. That's going to determine it for us. It's the church that gives us and the church was given that authority by Jesus Christ himself. What makes you think. The Roman Catholic Church is a true church.

Because we have the pedigree they can go back all the way to the beginning. We have Popes in every century. The the succession was passed on and There's no break in it.

Now that is just an incredible example of wishful thinking and I would I would simply recommend anyone Pick up. I believe it's Jamie Kelly's Oxford Dictionary of the Popes and just start reading I mean, this isn't a guy with a big chip on his shoulder and just start reading and see how many blank spots there are in the history of The papacy how many times there was no Pope at all for quite some time how many times there were anti Popes.

How many times there were Popes who were compromised? Doctrinally, even Robertson Jennis said in our debate on papal infallibility In Clearwater, Florida that heretics could be Popes. But you you then have such obvious things as for example the pornography in the 10th century and it's called that because the The entire office of the Bishop of Rome was bought and sold to two men who were murderers who had lots of illegitimate children lots of consorts and and women it fell to its lowest point at that time and To look at that and say well, yeah, which unbroken unbroken Doesn't matter if the guy is running around with multiple women and killing people and having kids everywhere.

It's unbroken. But then you have the real obvious fact of the Babylonian captivity of the church. The papacy left Rome folks. It went to Avignon France and Even after many decades in Avignon because it was under the control of the French prelates at that time.

When it when someone tried to bring it back to Rome you ended up with two popes two papacy's and Both had Cardinals and bishops in their service and both anathematized the other and Then you had the you know councils come along and try to fix this and End up creating three bishops of Rome three three popes That busily anathematized each other and it takes another council to come along and finally reunify all of that and This this took decades and You you just have to engage in the most wishful thinking not only not only going back to the very beginning I'm there was no single bishop of Rome until 140 AD for 100 years after the ascension of Christ nobody had in their mind there needed to be a single bishop in Rome.

Nobody had that in mind. Where was this apostolic tradition about even the papacy? It wasn't there. This is just wishful thinking. It's wish fulfillment. It's not reality and So, you know when you hear people say 2 ,000 years we've believed the same thing you immediately know you're dealing with someone who is significantly more concerned about the promotion of the Privileges of Rome than about the truth itself because it just isn't true.

You can't look at at the at the historical documents and come these conclusions. It's just it's just not there. Sounds real good, especially when it's said by someone who has you know. You know is very confident in their statements and a lot of a lot of Protestants just go.

Oh, I didn't know that. Because don't spend much time reading early church documents, but when you do You just look at this kind of assertion. Go you you are kidding, right?

But unfortunately, they're not your your church started. I don't know why maybe in the 1600 1700. So you have no pedigree. There's a pedigree necessary. Yes, it is. Why. Because you have an unbroken chain of authority.

Yeah, if you have somebody come along and say well We're going to start a new church because we don't believe your church is the true church and we're going to start this church 1700 years after the other church was started.

Well. Anybody with common sense knows that you you can't have a a church just starting out all by itself with its own authority. When I've been claiming to be the true church, why not. Because you have no succession.

You have no pedigree.

Apostolic Succession, the Apostles' Teaching, and Sola Scriptura

Well, what you're telling me is that now, of course, I just stop here the mother this whole concept of succession Develops a nearly church primarily for two reasons. There are heretical groups and each wants to trace their authority back to the Apostles and And Especially as the Canon is developing over time just as it did in the Old Testament it does in the New Testament and we can get into the issue of that if it comes up, but As the can is developing then there has to be some kind of foundation people looking for a foundation to try to refute heretics and so this idea of Succession well, we can trace our beliefs back through such-and-so who goes back to such-and-so who goes back to such-and-so.

This is the where the concept of succession comes from. I would simply suggest to you that the only meaningful succession that has any kind of historical or logical validity is To teach the same things the Apostles taught and we only have one place to go to find out what they taught every I Remind you of what of what Mitch Pacwa admitted and did so honestly in our debate in 1999 in sola scriptura I asked him and I would ask any Roman Catholic name me a single word a Single word or maybe a phrase or maybe a sentence that Roman Catholic Authority has defined that Jesus or any of the Apostles said that is not contained in Scripture Anything Tell tell me how Rome has infallibly defined anything Paul taught the Thessalonians or Anything Jesus said of the the disciples outside of what's found scripture it it hasn't and so When this issue comes up What you do is you say I believe in apostolic succession and I believe I'm standing in apostolic succession because I insist upon teaching only what the Apostles of Jesus Christ taught.

Nothing more nothing less. And what would that force you to believe sola scriptura because that's the only evidence the only God-breathed inspired record of apostolic teaching that we have. Period end of discussion.

It's right there. That's where the challenge needs to be made. You know, you're telling a Roman Catholicism.

It's like I talked to a Mormon. A Mormon will just make certain assumptions begging the question. Say well. This is true because Joseph Smith said is true. No, no Mormon has Joseph Smith. This is authority came along on the 1800.

Yes. I know that he has no pedigree either. Well, he they will I'm telling you what they will say. Okay. I know but we don't say what they say. Well, you're saying basically the same thing. You're saying you have a pedigree.

They claim a pedigree that goes back to John the Baptist. Well, Matt just use your common sense. If somebody came along after you know John Adams was the president came along 50 years later and says well, I'm going to be president now.

Let me just stop for a moment sometimes the conversation does wander off into some rather esoteric areas, but There is a commonality between LDS claims of ultimate authority and those of Rome. I mean, you know, they folks love to make the argument that well Sola Scriptura has resulted in all this division.

The reality is When you compare churches that believe in Scripture only with churches that believe in Scripture plus an infallible external authority the unanimous the the unanimity of opinion amongst the Sola Scriptura folks is considerably greater than that exists amongst people who say Bible plus an infallible authority and Both Rome and Salt Lake believe in Bible plus an infallible authority.

It's just their infallible authority in both instances completely trumps the actual meaning of Scripture but if you want to see the blind leading the blind watch a debate between a Mormon and a Roman Catholic because if the Roman Catholic is going to be consistent now if he's not if he does if he Isn't you know if he is willing to go ahead and be it sort of a Protestant then he can use good arguments against the the claims of Mormonism, but if he's gonna be consistent and.

And he's gonna follow basically what Bob's and Genesis has been saying so far in this encounter and that is well I believe it because Rome says it. Upon what basis would Bob's and Genesis really have much to say to a Mormon who says well I believe it because the Prophet says it.

Because we've already heard Bob's and Genesis say well, I don't need to give you Bible verses. I've got I've got the Magisterium. Well, the Mormon can say I don't need to give you Bible verses. I've got a prophet and The prophet in fact, which we do have a lineage.

We actually are really big into this laying on of hands things. That's gonna come up in a moment. Some Genesis is going to falsely teach that a pedigree requires laying on of hands in the Old Testament.

It did not. But the Mormons certainly believe that and in fact you can go up to Salt Lake City and you can go and you can look at the artwork they have there and the visitors center and Salt Lake City and I believe it's the South visitors center.

It might be the north but my recollection is in the south. They have in fact, I clearly have recollection of this picture hanging in the South visitors center. No. You need to deep north visitors. I had my directions mixed up there the North visitors center.

They had a painting of Moses passing or Aaron passing the priesthood on by laying on of hands to the next person. Won't find that anywhere in Scripture ain't there but they're real big on this succession thing.

They're big real big on this pedigree thing and they just simply say hey. The church was reestablished by angelic visitation with divine authority in 1829 and and then the church itself April 6 1830 and That's what my ultimate authority says and Bob's in Genesis ultimate authority says otherwise and you just get ultimate authorities fighting with ultimate authorities.

And you really can't examine either one.

At that point, what are we going to say to him? Well, I'm sorry, Joe. You can't be president because you don't pass succession. You were elected in a succession of presidents all the way from the beginning.

Well, it's very simple to figure out there. It's very simple to figure out but it's very simple to say that's not historically the case. There is not an unbroken succession of Popes. There were Popes and anti Popes and the Babylonian captivity and all sorts of problems with all of this.

But just to close your eyes that and say yeah, well, but it's what I believe.

Really leaves you in the same boat as As the Mormons at that point. Well, the president is elected by vote whether or not someone's assassinated or dies in her old history. Can you name any kind of hierarchy of authority that has ever existed in the history of the earth?

That doesn't go by the succession of the pedigree of the office that's passed down. That's that's transmitted through the centuries.

The Old Testament Priesthood, Prophets, and the Limits of Succession

Now that's a very confusing question, but that's easy. Because he's gonna make the argument that well, this is the Old Testament. This is how it was done in the Old Testament, which it wasn't in the priesthood it was.

But how often was the priesthood? The mechanism whereby God led his people very rarely the vast majority of the prophets. Some of them were priests, but they very frequently had to condemn their leaders.

The prophets themselves did not pass down the office of prophet to somebody else. So unless you're talking about Kings and we can talk about all sorts of problems with the royal lineage in the Old Testament.

The priesthood is based on lineage it's based upon who your daddy is. But the idea that you have to have this this pedigree. Just. You know that that's that's common Jewish thought it's it's it's not common Christian thought name.

Can you name me?

Well, it's a complicated kind of a question you're asking. And know what I'm asking you. Yeah, I do. I don't think your question is very well put. The issue of the United States presidency is not that it's a succession of presidents and that you had to have one laying hands Upon the other to have an authoritative system set up.

It's not how it works. The congregation. How did they do in the Old Testament the system of the? Constitution. It just simply says by vote and then they swear in and that's it. They how do they do in the Old Testament the president's know the the leadership in the Old Testament?

Well, depending in which era in which context people were appointed by God. Era that raised by for my profits. It's the same thing that they all lay has down their authority from generation to generation.

Did they do it right at the priesthood? Did they do it by laying on of hands?

Yes, they did. Okay. No, they didn't. That's just a bogus claim. The only laying on of hands in Reference to the Old Testament priesthood was the priest laying hands upon the head of a sacrificial animal.

That has nothing to do with anything else. So yeah, the priesthood is Genealogical it's the tribe of Levi the descendants of Aaron, etc, etc. But that did not mean That for example the prophets had to come through a similar kind of line.

And of course Jesus the king of Kings Doesn't come that way either. Now does he? Nobody laid hands on Jesus head and said you're king of Kings and Nobody laid hands on John the Baptist said you're the forerunner of the Messiah.

Blah blah blah. It's just bogus. Should have been challenged wasn't but but. There there there you hear it.

Straight from Robertson genesis, and so you have to have that authority. You're saying yes. Otherwise, you're not a true church, right? So if someone who receives Christ they have the authority to call the children of God really aren't in any authority at all.

If they don't have any membership in the Roman Catholic Church. Well, we're not talking about that. We're talking about whether you have authority or not. I have authority. Yeah, where'd you get it from Jesus?

The Authority of the Christian and the Church to Teach Doctrine

Yeah. Yeah, did he talk to you or something? Well. Actually, he let's just say he manifested himself to me while I was Receiving him and he actually came in his presence. Can you prove that to me? Why would I have to prove it to you?

At this point I was a little disappointed because If someone says what is your authority? I'm going to say the authority that any Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ has and that is the authority to stand as the ambassador of Christ administering the Word of God of the people of God and in obeying the command that is laid out in the office of an elder and what that elder is supposed to be able to do and rightly handling the Word of God and contradicting those.

Refuting those who contradict sound doctrine that my authority Comes from yes. We are given authority to be the children of God. But the authority we have is that which comes from Scripture. It's it's the nature of Scripture being Theanostas when I stand before the congregation of Believers Again this coming Lord's Day as I did last Lord's Day and open the Word of God.

That authority is not some personal possession of mine that authority comes from the fact that we are obeying Christ and having the biblical organization of the church and engaging in biblical worship opening the Word of God and God blesses that proclamation and the person who stands in that way does so as the ambassador of Christ and That's how God meets with his people.

That's that's where I would have gone. And and I would just simply point out once again that Robertson Genis is not even from the Roman Catholic perspective an authoritative source of information. He is not a priest.

He is not a bishop. He is not a part of the teaching magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church. To my knowledge. He has never been invited by the the papacy to sit upon a papal biblical commission or anything along those lines.

And so it seems odd to me Some of the approaches that he that he takes. But I think it needs to be kept in mind.

When evaluating the statements that are being made. Well, if I'm going to believe what you have to say that I need some proof. That Jesus gave you the authority. I didn't say he gave me the authority.

Okay, where'd you get it then? I had the authority by the virtue of being a Christian as many as received him to them. He gave the right or the authority to be called the children of God and we who are kings and priests Duloit slaves of Christ call to have that authority.

I think you can't be called a Christian. I am a Christian who has the authority to decide whether you function of Mary's a doctrine or not. Well, certainly not the Roman Catholic Church. Well, how do you know that.

Because it violates scripture?

Okay, but I Don't. I didn't understand how that was a response to progress with you. Because it violates scripture which violates scripture the Roman Catholic Church or the bodily sons of Mary. And I'm not sure if St. Janice understood that either because we're coming up on a particular claim that he makes here.

No, yes, there's no place in Scripture that says the assumption of Mary is the wrong doctrine.

There is no place in Scripture that says the assumption of Mary is a wrong doctrine. There is no place in Scripture that says that Joseph Smith's King fall at funeral discourse is the wrong doctrine. Therefore it must be true.

No, that's absurd. So the only thing I can understand at this point, I can't believe anyone would actually argue that way. So the only way I can understand what's Jenna said there was he understood select to be saying because the doctrine contradicts Scripture.

And so he'd need to make some type of an argument as to why the bodily assumption of Mary contradicts Scripture which isn't difficult to do in The sense that it is the exaltation of Mary far beyond What any creature should should ever experience at the at the cost of the soul Lordship and worship of Jesus Christ?

But they really haven't gotten to that point yet. So, you know and never really do get to that point.

First Corinthians 4:6 and the Meaning of Sola Scriptura

That's one of the problems. Well, there's no place in Scripture That says it's your right one and the Bible says we're not to exceed what's written where first Corinthians 4 6.

This is gonna begin a long Discussion of first Corinthians 4 6 the only reason you go through it I don't use first Corinthians 4 6 as a proof text in regards to soul scripture. I just don't. I think there are much more profitable directions to go you to demonstrate solo scripture you do so from the nature of Scripture and Challenging the Roman Catholic to come up with anything that has the same nature as Scripture that would allow it to stand on the same foundation.

As scripture as an infallible rule of faith of the church you demonstrate the scripture is Infallible rule of faith of the church and then demonstrate they cannot show you any other Infallible rule of faith of the church.

That's what solo scriptura is all about. This is not a text I use the main reason I am going to go through this is because of some of the claims that Robertson genus makes as I mentioned last time in Not by scripture alone Where you have a number of people submitting papers There is a lengthy portion where once again Like I said if if Bob's and genesis had a good editor his materials would be much shorter than they are.

They they tend to be somewhat repetitive and sometimes in the same footnote Which takes up half a page is repeated multiple times in the same book which exact same material I mean just the same footnote repeated.

It's it's weird but it does give the the impression of a very large size book and In his section he spends a lot of time first Corinthians 4 6 and It's worthwhile going through it because it gives you an idea of the basic approach the basic approach of the Roman Catholic apologists is this cast doubt and aspersions upon the clarity and perspicuity of scripture and Having done so hope that the other person will by default accept Rome's authority even though Rome itself has not infallibly interpreted that text of scripture and You can use a lot of different ways of doing this.

But one of the main ways I want to get into was his assertions in regards to the textual data the textual information Concerning first Corinthians chapter 4 verse 6 because he makes some amazing statements there.

So that's why we're gonna go through.

This section. No. Yes. Yes, it does. No, yes, it does want to read it to you. Yeah, you read it. I you know these things on this Matt good and you should know it's 4 6. We were at 20 30 pages in our book not by scripture alone.

It doesn't say what you say. It says now these things brother. Do you that I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes that in us? You might learn not to exceed what is written in order that no no one of you might become arrogant and be half One against the other.

Have you ever studied that verse Matt? Yes. Do you know there's like eight possible interpretations of that verse and eight possible? Translations of it. Has a Roman Catholic Church officially interpreted that verse.

No, then you don't have any authority to tell me what it is or isn't now.

Textual Variants in 1 Corinthians 4 and the Challenge to Rome's Certainty

I'm just telling you that now that was an excellent point. We need to stop there and go ding-ding-ding. It it is very true and in fact, it's it's fascinating. I was directed to a PDF on Bobson Genesis website just today James Swan pointed out to me.

In fact, I think he put an article up on His blog as well. You might want to take a look at it where Robert St. Genes takes on the current Bishop of Rome Benedict the 16th and his interpretation of Galatians chapter 2 and the encounter between Paul and Peter.

Now I would probably agree With what St. Genes has say here. The irony is however that St. Genes ends up concluding That this encounter between Paul and Peter Peter was actually flirting with Perverting the gospel itself.

Which was exactly my point in the debate that Rob Zins and I had against Robert St. Genes and Scott Butler at Boston College in 1994, I believe it was. So it's interesting to see him Saying that but the point is here is a guy who does not blush.

But to disagree with the Pope on the exegesis of a particular text. Now I know what the response is. That's perfectly within the right of any Roman Catholic to do so. Because the Pope was not speaking Ex-cathedra.

He was not speaking infallibly. It's just his own personal opinion. The whole issue of infallibility is a fascinating thing and again, I would just recommend that you Get the debate that I did with Tim Staples on infallibility.

And then the one with Robert St. Genes on infallibility, which took place in the same year. I think it was 1999 if I recall correctly and listen to both of them and Allow the Roman Catholics to refute each other because they defended the issue from different perspectives.

And they are not harmonious perspectives. I just just listen to them listen to the debates and Let them let them go from from there.

But again, I find that you can't tell me that you have a dogmatic interpretation of that verse because you have no authority to tell me. Well.

So We just heard Robertson Jenna say you can't tell me that you can give us an interpretation of this verse because you don't have a dogmatic authority. Nobody Robertson Jenna's included can give us an infallible list of Interpretations of the Bible provided by the Roman Catholic Church, so evidently we shouldn't touch scripture.

Because if you need to have a dogmatic authority for your interpretation st Jenna's doesn't provided a dogmatic authority for his interpretations of scripture because he doesn't have one. And even what the current Bishop of Rome says isn't good enough so.

What why demand of someone else what you yourself cannot provide that that doesn't make a lot of sense.

But what I did was I just quoted so we're not to exceed what's written, and you said yes. We are. No. I didn't even do anything except quote it to you from. I quote it to you. And you did. You denied it.

What. No. What version are you reading from new American Standard? Which one do you want? Well you read another. Go read the King James Bible. It has a completely different translation completely different completely different, okay?

Who both will bring a version that has completely different translation therefore judge? Nothing before the time until the Lord come. Who both doth bring to light to hit the hidden things of darkness and will make.

Oh. It's wrong versus verse 5. Sorry for six. Make sure I'm in the right chapter because this computer program sometimes wigs hold on and these things brethren. I have a figure I have in a figure transferred to myself into Apollos for your sakes that you might learn in us not to.

Think of men above that which is written. Yeah. What does it mean to to not think above what is written.

The Greek Text of 1 Corinthians 4:6 and the Limits of Textual Criticism

Now I I personally don't think that there is a whole lot of difference in in the translations Syngenis belabors the attempt To say that there this text is just just absolutely Non-understandable. But I did want to spend just a few moments before he makes his claim he's about to make the claim based on his Deep study of the text that this is an extremely corrupt section of Scripture and That there are I think the term he uses plethora we'll find out here in a moment, but a plethora of textual variants and so You know me and and textual critical stuff I I don't believe that I've ever seen Any any books written by Robertson genus being used in textual critical studies, but?

It's it's an area that I've done a little work in and so I decided to take a look at it and You will discover in verses five and six there is one variant listed in verse Five primarily a Western reading and I'm looking at the Nessie Allen 27th edition.

I also looked at the CN TTT s material the Center for the study of New Testament textual manuscripts or something along those lines it's very very exhaustive listing that I have in accordance Bible software and in verse six it has a long section because what that particular source does is it lists every manuscript variant there is Even when it has absolutely no possibility of being original so if you have one 14th century manuscript that spells a word differently it will be listed and so it's easy to look at something like that and and Overestimate the level of corruption, but that didn't come out when St. Genes wrote his book that hadn't that wasn't even out yet.

I don't think so. He'd primarily be using the Nessie Allen text as well, and so when you get to verse six the there are are two Primary there are two variants listed in verse six of first Corinthians chapter four and they have to do with the key phrase however and the the key phrase is has to do with Ta may who pair ha gag rep tie Hina may I super to hen oz and it goes on from there, so ha gag rep tie using a feminine there.

There is a variant between that and a masculine and You have the masculine in Western and in the majority text then you have the feminine and this is just a single letter by the way. Remember in the unseal text of the original New Testament This would have been a single letter the difference between an Omicron and an alpha which looked very much like in many ways this you know especially.

This is really easy to understand because alphas and Omicrons would frequently end words Yodas things like that vowel substitutions in an unseal line remember. There's no space between words Alphas Very frequently beginning words because it's it's a Prefix in Greek language etc. Etc.

A lot of variants that have to do with those kind of things anyway so you have that and then you have the textual variant where the Nestle Allen does not contain a word whereas the majority text and Some Vulgate manuscripts the Syriac the second hand of Sinaiticus possibly C and the second hand of D and a few other manuscripts earlier manuscripts contain the word phrenine to think.