Texe Marrs: Part IV

so we've seen that's the entire conspiracy laden john ankerberg is a mean terrible nasty person god struck down wilkins mute uh...

even though just a little drink of water to care about uh... story is typical text mars but why would people want to believe this one calcium boy want to believe this why do king james only folks why do they behave the way they do why do they want to believe things are just so utterly fantastic there's a lot of reasons but i can give you one in regards to john ankerberg debate series that was an eight part series and i believe they still make it available i think you can order and i rarely say this about something that i was involved with but this just has to be said that wasn't even a contest uh...

the king james only side was thoroughly embarrassed it was exposed for the circular reasoning that is inherent to the entirety of the system it's it's is plain as day and so they had to come up with something to try to in essence save face and that's a text mars does as an illustration i just want to play one clip is from the same fourth program that we saw a clip from in the last video and it has just a small amount of interaction between myself and doctor strauss who i thought was by far uh...

the best of the three as far as being at least fair and not being into all the conspiratorial stuff that is so common with uh...

doctor given specially dot chambers but even with that i think this clip speaks for itself doctor strauss is not able to answer the questions that i ask him you just have to just have to rely on faith biblical faith is not faith in falsehoods biblical faith is not faith in that which is indefensible and so i really think that's why people who adopt this position that they they're willing to believe almost anything because their position really is indefensible you cannot come up with a meaningful defense of this kind of a system and so not gonna comment on it just gonna play this clip from that fourth program i really think it speaks for itself is extremely circular and i think i think we need to for in fairness point out the fact that what you're saying is not what doctor strauss has said in regards to preservation of the text doctor strauss has said earlier on that christians in mass have always believed this traditional text and that's where the basis of it lies but the problem is there are a number of places in the king james text luke two twenty two to give you an example you just said that those men who gathered in that room and were involved in the translation of the king james version that god somehow was doing something there they didn't say that their contemporaries didn't say that this is something that's come along a lot later and i think it's very circular to just get into that argument but to doctor strauss what about places where those king james translators followed conjectural emanations theodor beza for example in revelation sixteen five looked at the greek text and all the greek text said the same thing but he didn't like the way it went and so he changed the word holy to the future form of the of the verb to be sort of make it nice and poetic and rhythmic and your king james this day reads that way even though there's not a question i think about any from on anyone's part as to what that passage actually reads why should i take theodor beza's conjectural emanation where he decides a reading on the basis of what he likes and say that the mass of christians believe this when nobody before theodor beza ever had the idea that revelation sixteen five read that way why should i believe that well i believe it gets back to faith in the doctrine of preservation actually in the scripture verses that speak to this issue john four or matthew four four as i said before where are the every words believers have felt that the uh...

the every words i have been preserved to them in every generation and uh... that god has used god has used various means to give that preserved word uh...

take for instance johannine comma doesn't have much uh... textual support let me just say what you know i actually have the preface here to the sixteen eleven and i've got the sixteen eleven sitting next to me here and let me just read what they said here about uh...

this was a note to the reader right in the front they said first of all neither do we think much to consult the translators or commentators the chaldean the hebrew syrian greek or latin nor the spanish french italian or dutch neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered in other words when they consulted these things the thing that they had written if they said in consulting all these others if that wasn't right they went back and they changed it uh...

then they went on and they said something about this thing of certainty there may be many words in the scripture which be never found there but once so that we cannot be helping by conference of places in other words the context doesn't help us out and we still don't know what the word means so what are we supposed to do he says there can be rare names of certain birds, beasts, precious stones there can be all kinds of things that they list here he says now in such a case doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily for as it is a fault of incredulity to doubt of those things that are evident so to determine of such things as the spirit of god hath left questionable can be no less than presumption so these guys said their stuff even after we've checked all these sources we don't know what do they do?

they put it in the margin okay now that's what Art's done over here and you guys have said he's wrong for doing what the guys who wrote the 1611 did there's 8 ,422 marginal notes in the

King James and that indicates that they realize exactly what they've said there I agree with you

Tom and the fact is is that if they did it why isn't it okay for these guys to do it?

I'm not complaining about that I'm complaining about their translation excuse me

Dr. Strauss if you represent the same type of position as taken by D .A. Waite he said in regards to the

New King James he said the diabolical nature of the New King James version diabolical is a strong term shows itself in their printing all the various readings of the

Greek text in the footnotes they print all sides and take their stand in favor of none of them by so doing they confuse the readers the editors have made no decisions as to what

God's words really are if that isn't confusing you think about it is that not the position that is expressed by a number of King James only advocates?

that's Dr. Waite that's Dr. Waite's position but I believe some of the footnotes there represent the