Vaccines, Lindsay, KJV Onlyism, Roman Catholic Apologetics Arguments

Greetings, welcome to The Dividing Line, last program before Christmas. I hope you have a wonderful time. I hope you will even have the opportunity of being around your family. Who knows? Many are not in that situation.

Rich is just telling me that someone down in Australia was telling us, writing to us, that I would assume this is a proposal. I would hope that it's not yet something that's absolutely written in stone.

But it wouldn't surprise me, given how Australia has responded to all of this, that vaccinations will be mandatory in Australia. And so, you know, I spent a fair amount of time this morning, in fact, I tweeted a link to an article from a Christian creationist ministry.

I think it was Creation Ministry International, something like that. Anyways, defending the RNA technology. And certainly, if it works the way it's supposed to work, the way it's advertised to work, which unfortunately we don't yet know and can't know, technology like this could literally give us a mechanism of addressing any number of permutations of coronavirus or viruses like it.

It would be wonderful. And that comes from the regularity of nature, it comes from the complexity of biological life that could not have arisen on its own, all those things. It would be wonderful. But if we were doing this within a Christian worldview, we wouldn't be doing it in six months, not based upon the data as we have it today in regards to the danger of the COVID -19 virus, we would not be doing it this quickly, we would not be, we are literally endangering hundreds of millions, if not billions of people out of a politically induced panic, politically and media produced panic.

And so Rich tells me there's some people out there saying I'm anti-vaxxer. If you can listen to what I've said, how many times I've said I hope this stuff works, I love the tech, it's amazing, it's awesome, but it has to be done carefully.

It has to be done slowly, not at warp speed. I was watching, someone suggested I watch the THX, I think it was THX 1138 or something like that, it was the, it's another one of those dystopian things. And there's this one scene where, it's actually a hologram, tries to get this car going, he finally gets it going, it's a jet-powered car, and he hits it and he might have gone 15 feet and plowed directly into a massive concrete pillar.

And that's sort of what we've got, warp speed, wham! We got warp speed, but didn't really get us very far. If you've been listening to what I've been saying and you think I'm an anti-vaxxer, you are a horrific listener.

You probably can't get along with anybody because all you hear is what you want to hear. It's horrific. I haven't said anything even close to that. What I have said is that we are playing with fire, and that it takes much more care and concern than is being demonstrated by anybody, including President Trump.

I hold him accountable for the speed at which it's been done. And it's all politically motivated. And that's the real, it should never, ever, ever be politically motivated. This tech should never, and that's the problem, is right now, this is all politics, it's all money, it's the elite.

I'm doing some reading, haven't gotten all those sources that I want yet, doing some reading about what happened in 2014 with the vaccines that Fauci was associated with. I think it was in the Philippines, 800 dead, a coronavirus situation.

Yeah, if that pans out, that makes you go, hmm. So, look, I've linked to the positive side, I've linked to the negative side, people talking about how what probably happened in the Philippines was, and what happened in animal studies, because we haven't done animal studies.

We skipped that part. Oh, well, okay, great, wonderful. We used to do that. But anyway, what happens is you actually develop antibodies to the vaccine, in accordance with the vaccine, but it doesn't actually work against the wild virus, the virus that would actually come into you from outside.

And it actually, but your body thinks that it does. And so it makes you completely defenseless against it. And so you go from a 0 .05 fatality to a 30 fatality rate, because you're defenseless against it.

Yeah, well, great. Are we certain that that will happen? Of course not. But are we certain that it will not happen? Well, certainty, you're never certain. I mean, life is a weird thing, and life can throw you curves.

So you never have 100 certainty. But the normal time parameters that would have been utilized were not. They just weren't. And they weren't because this was forced upon us by the lockdowns that don't work.

So there you go. There's a situation with that. So those of you lying about me, stop lying about me. I mean, I'm used to it. It happens every day. But it's not, you will be judged for that someday. So you just might want to stop lying about that.

It's sort of silly. So yeah, you got that stuff going on. Check out the tweets that I put up. I thought it was, I loved reading the pro side. It did a really good job explaining a lot of the tech, the delivery systems, why the AstraZeneca vaccine sort of got oopsed, didn't hear a lot about that.

But they were using an actual virus as the delivery method, which is interesting, over against Moderna and Pfizer. Man, it's hard for us to even imagine the amount of money. I mean, we've got this absurd, funny money spending bill, you know, $600.

Now they're going to say, we're going to up it to $2 ,000 per person, $4 ,000 per couple. Well, you know, that's actually a chunk of change that might keep you going for a month and a half. But it would be a whole lot better if you could just like go to work, you know, long term thing, you know, get all those businesses back in business, you know, back to where we were in 2019, maybe, you know, but that's not going to happen because that's not what people want.

Well, that's not what the people in charge want anyways. So I don't care if it's $4 ,000 for a couple, you're still talking chicken change. You're talking nothing. And you know, it's here's have a few bags of peanuts.

Aren't we? Aren't we beneficent? Socialism is here on our doorstep. It's right in front of us. Sad thing. Anyway. So there you go. I wasn't going to be going there. I just that was this what was going on this morning.

A couple things before I get to I forgot two things yesterday. I forgot two things. That would have been a very, very long program if we had done all of that. But I forgot two things. I say I've got to get to them.

I've apologized to those that I was going to responding to. They may not think that's a bad idea, but bad thing that I didn't. But one thing just really quickly is before it just completely passes off the radar screen of anybody.

But last weekend, late last week, last weekend, evidently, James Lindsay, who is an atheist, was writing on critical theories with Helen Pluckrose, he wrote critical, cynical theories, not critical, cynical theories.

I've met the gentleman. We had dinner one night at the G3 conference last year. And I would love to see an opportunity someday. It may have to be electronically. Most things will be in the future. To, you know, maybe Jeff and I take on he and another on the subject of atheism, epistemology, evidences for the existence of God in creation around us, etc., etc.

But I was really surprised because Jacob Denhollander was going after James Lindsay, and he was going after James Lindsay, because Lindsay had posted a tweet where he had assumed that the Moores are married.

Beth Moore and the head of the ERLC both have the same last name. And I'm sure he's not the first person who has wondered if there is a connection there. But most people know that Russell Moore and Beth Moore are not married.

Within the Christian church. Those outside the Christian church. Okay, so he made a mistake. He made an assumption. And Denhollander just went after him in the most, it was, it was, I just never seen him like what he called him a paltrune.

He might want to look that one up. It's not really common in our vocabulary, but it's out there. And just dismissed everything that he's got to say about everything because he didn't Google it. And I was just like, there's something else going on here.

And so I asked, and if he answered, as is the case with so many things, I didn't see it. I looked, but I did not see, because I asked a simple question of Dr. Denhollander. Well, he's at least an attorney, so he's at least got a Juris Doctor.

But anyway, I asked a question of Jacob Denhollander. I said, have you read, I can't get through all the names here, James Lindsay's book, to be able to interact with it, to be able to, I mean, when you call somebody a paltrune, when you're saying that you're so shallow in their thinking, and James Lindsay is not shallow in his thinking.

That much I know if you've listened to the interviews that he did with Michael Fallon, Sovereign Nations, this is not a shallow thinking person. So obviously, even in-depth thinking doesn't do you much good without the spirit, does it, if you're an atheist.

But the point is, he's just such an overreaction. It made me wonder, what is prompting all of this? And so I challenged that. I didn't see any responses. I could be muted or blocked. I don't know. I didn't take the time to look.

But if you don't like what James Lindsay is saying, try responding factually in a reasoned fashion rather than just with this flood of invective. It would help a lot. It would help a lot. And anyway, so I wanted to mention that real quickly.

Now, two things that I wanted to make sure that we got to today. Lots of other things that we could be doing. But the two things I just, I had half of it queued up, and I was just relying on memory for the other half of it yesterday.

And I didn't get to it. It's easy to get into the program. You start rolling with the topic, and everything else sort of goes away, and you don't look at all the tabs on your browser or whatever else it might be to remind people.

And I would remind you that some people who are well known for doing, well, now webcasts, but used to be radio broadcasts and things like that, often had a producer or someone sitting right over here with piles of books and notes and outlines and everything else.

And that way you can make sure that you actually get things done. And oh, okay. Well, I thought it was. I've just been told that Jacob Denhollander is not an attorney. I thought that they both were. But anyway.

Yeah. Okay. Oh, you've been looking? Yeah, I don't know. No, I don't. But I asked the question. You know, I asked the question, have you read the book? And can you respond to it? And can you interact with it?

And if I got a response, I didn't see it. Anyway. But I thought he was an attorney. Anyway, so I'm sorry. Oh, well, okay. Congratulations. He's gotten a promotion today. A little early Christmas gift.

Didn't know that was coming. Two items that I had queued up, and I'll start with this one because I invited the guy, even invited the guy to listen, and then I spaced out. So I apologize for that. There is, I don't know how I got tagged on this, basically.

But if someone I'm following gets into a conversation, if they tag me, then stuff happens. And I believe it was Ken1689 that got into a conversation with a fellow that calls himself, I think it was Paleo Baptist.

I'd click on the thing, but then I'd lose the main thing I wanted to respond to. I've already got three Twitter tabs open on my browser already. I'm going to lose something. And there was going back and forth, back and forth with Face ID.

I hate Face ID. The worst thing Apple ever did is they started Face ID two months before COVID broke out. So he's a PhD student at Southern, huh? Okay, well, I'm not sure what he's doing otherwise, but PhD student at Southern, okay.

But I got tagged with this fellow, I guess he's a Paleo Baptist or something like that. I've gone to his Twitter feed, and we seem to agree a great deal on a lot of stuff, especially in regards to what's going on in the US today.

But he evidently is a King James only advocate. And so there was this long back and forth, back and forth. And he kept asking, where can I buy the infallible Word of God? I want to have the infallible, inerrant Word of God.

So I thought, you know, we've covered this so many times. And I was told that he says that he's actually read my book, which means this is going to be of no good to him, because I've already answered this question, though, none of his asking of the question actually shows any understanding of the categories that I laid out in my answer.

But I thought, you know, there's always new listeners. This is a basic catch that is used to try to grab people into this movement. It is not a coherent argument, as we'll demonstrate now. But it is an argument that is made with sufficient frequency on the internet that it is appropriate to be prepared to give a meaningful response and to help others to avoid falling into this trap.

So at one point, he posted a little graphic that had six questions in it. And here's the six questions. Number one, the idea that well, this is actually isn't a question, is it? The idea that older manuscripts are better is an inherently unprovable presupposition.

Number two, is the inspired infallible Word of God in our possession today? That's the common one, question mark. Number three, where can someone purchase the inspired infallible Word of God today? That's just a, it says ISBN.

Number four, if the Bible we have today is not without error, then why refer to it as infallible? Five, doesn't calling any Bible today infallible require a similar leap of faith as required to embrace some forms of KJVO?

And six, can Bible preservation be miraculous? I don't know why throughout all of this, Bible is never capitalized. I'm not sure why that is, but there you go. So I think every Christian should be prepared to give an answer to this set of questions.

If you are prepared to do so, it means that you have a fairly in-depth and historically situated understanding of the transmission of the text of Scripture over time. And I can guarantee you that none of the King James translators would have answered these questions the way the King James onlyists do today, which in and of itself is, I think, something fairly important.

Number one, the idea that older manuscripts are better is an inherently unprovable presupposition. Well, if that is an admission that the King James is based upon manuscripts that, all of which were written over a thousand years after the original, and hence did not have access or utilize the few that were available to the manuscripts that were written much closer to the originals, we'll take that as a given because that's true.

The King James did not, King James translators did not do new textual critical study. They did have to compare various of the printed editions that they utilized, including the 1550 Stefanus back there.

Let's see, right there. They did have to compare printed editions because there were differences between the printed editions and in the 1550. There are marginal notes with variant readings, and so at some level, no matter what, almost what you're translating, if you are translating from multiple sources, you're going to have to doing some level of textual criticism.

But they were not going to manuscripts, collating manuscripts, comparing manuscripts with one another. They were using only printed texts as their source, primarily because, especially in the New Testament, they were just copying Tyndale anyways.

And Tyndale, of course, had access to much less than the King James translators had. In his work, all he had was Erasmus. I don't think he had any of the other minor Greek texts that were printed. No, he wouldn't have had anything other than Erasmus, I think.

Well, no, they could have had. No, okay. There was one or two between 1516 and his death. I'm not sure how widely distributed they would have been. And I don't think he had access to the Completentian in his writings.

I think it was primarily using Erasmus. And then probably the 1525 Blomberg would have been the biggest Hebrew edition that would have been available to him. Anyway, so the King James translators primarily utilizing printed texts, all of which were based upon much later manuscripts.

However, it still remains generally true that a manuscript that is 200 years removed from the original is, all other things being equal, going to be more accurate in general than one that is 1400 years removed.

Why? Generations of copying. Generations of copying. Now, you can come up with exceptions to the rule. You can come up with Codex Vesey Canterburgiensis, which is from the 5th century, which plainly the scribe of that diglot text was editing.

He was making improvements as he went along. He was making up readings. He wasn't trying to just simply copy a manuscript. And maybe he never thought anybody would ever see what he was doing. It just survived.

I don't know. But you would have, there are texts copied a thousand years later that are more accurate than Codex Vesey Canterburgiensis. So you can come up with examples like that. But in general, in general, non-intentional scribal errors multiply over generations.

Generations being how many times the text is copied. And a text such as P75 or P66 or P46 or P45, for that matter, such as P45, right there, from John chapter 2. These are written less than 200 years after the originals, which means there can only be so many steps of copying between the originals and these.

And if you have the same number of generations of copying between the original and something in the year 1400, then the number of opportunities for errors of sight or hearing, if it's in a scriptorium, multiply greatly.

And so it is logical. It is obvious that we want the earliest manuscripts that we can obtain. You want manuscripts from a wide dispersion or wide variety of places, and you want the earliest manuscripts.

And so that does not mean that a papyri manuscript that is from the year 300 is automatically better than an unsealed manuscript from 1000. Because we have a couple from around 1000 that clearly didn't have a bunch of generations between them and the earliest ones.

1881, 1739, specifically, are examples of manuscripts like that. But the very reason that I can just give you those numbers is because they're so rare. So the rare instances, we can point to them, but the general reality is that the text that we can obtain from the year 200 from the papyri has a better chance of being traceable directly to the apostolic period than if all you had was the text of Byzantine manuscripts from the year 1200.

So the first assertion isn't really an assertion about King James-onlyism. It's really the idea that older manuscripts are better is an inherently unprovable presupposition. Well, I'm not sure what this individual or whoever wrote this would take as proof one way or the other, but you can make a logical, very obvious argument that would be relevant to every single other work of antiquity.

So unless you're going to make the New Testament different than every other work of antiquity, and many King James-onlyists do, then the earlier is better is a generally true statement with exceptions that we know about, exceptions that we can document, exceptions that we go, oh, hey, look at this.

And the reason that we know those other exceptions is because we have earlier manuscripts to compare them with. So number two, is the inspired and fallible word of God in our possession today? Yes, it is.

What do you define as inspired and infallible? Because if you're a King James-onlyist, there are numerous questions that, since this is coming from the King James-only perspective, this is where I insist that the fatal flaw of King James-onlyism is so plainly seen.

King James-onlyism cannot survive an examination based upon the standards that it places on everybody else. So when you turn the arguments that King James-onlyists use against other translations around in the King James, it fails.

Therefore, it's a self-refuting argument and should not therefore be used. So did the inspired and fallible word of God exist in 1610? If you say no, then stop arguing because you're being foolish. Did it exist in 1610?

The King James translators would say that it did. I would say that it did. Tyndale said that it did. Wycliffe said that it did. But none of their translations, none of the manuscripts they had access to, would read identical to the King James version today.

Therefore, if you make the King James a standard, then the answer to number two you would have to give is, yes, it is in our possession today, but only has been since 1611. Because there's nothing identical to it before then.

And of course, you should be using the 1611 King James version, not the 1769 Blaney revision, or you should be able to differentiate. You should know automatically the difference between the Cambridge and the Oxford editions because there are differences in the readings.

They don't say the same thing. I document this in the book, and this gentleman says he's read the book, so he must know about this and must have an answer to that. And I'll be looking forward to what that is.

But there is a assumed meaning of inspired and infallible that the King James onlyist will use against everybody else, but they won't turn around and use it against themselves. And we're at least consistent here.

We have said for a very, very long time, if you're going to use an argument against the Mormons or against Roman Catholicism or against Islam, or if you're going to use an argument outwardly, then you can't, if you can turn that argument around and refuse your position, you shouldn't be using that argument.

We are consistent about that. We have for decades decried when people violate that rather truthful standard of consistency. And so I call upon King James onlyists to be consistent with this as well. Therefore, obviously, since there are differences between all the English translations that existed before the King James, differences amongst the various editions of the King James, and then differences between the King James and other translations since then, we have to define what you mean by inspired and infallible Word of God.

And obviously, when, for example, the Council on Biblical Inerrancy, the Chicago Statement was released back in the 1970s, there was a fair amount in that particular statement that dealt with the reality that God did not photocopy the original and start distributing photocopies.

Photocopying didn't exist until 1949. So that's not the mechanism that God chose to preserve His Word. That's not the mechanism that God chose to preserve its inspiration or its inerrancy or its infallibility or anything along those lines.

There is a conceptual difference between inerrancy and infallibility. And so the King James translators themselves in their introduction to the King James version of the Bible said that any mean translation of scripture, as long as its true intention is to convey the meaning of the original, is liable to the name, the Word of God.

And so they recognized that, you know, you had the Geneva Bible, you had Wycliffe, you had Tyndale, you had the Bishop's Bible, you had all these others that had been printed before the King James version, and they were not saying that these were wrong.

They were not saying that they were inferior. They were certainly not saying that their own work would not have to undergo revision and editing over time. They didn't say any of those things. They didn't say any of the things that they should have said if they were King James onlyists, which of course they were not.

So when you say, is the inspired and fouled Word of God in our possession today? Yes, the manuscripts tradition of both the Old and New Testaments in their multiple languages, not just Hebrew and Greek, but in the Greek Septuagint, in Aramaic, etc., etc., contain the inspired and fouled Word of God.

The presupposition of the question, however, is far too simplistic to actually address the history of the transmission of the text. God's way of transmitting the Bible to us so that we can have confidence in it is so much better than the simplistic presuppositions of King James onlyism.

That's one of the reasons I've spent so much time opposing King James onlyism. From as early as my Bible college days, I saw the King James onlyism is a fundamental attack upon the validity of the Word of God and the proper mechanism of defense of the Word of God.

And that's why we have been focused upon this type of thing ever since then. So when I hold, what do I do with my, yeah, this will do. This is, whoa, careful there now. This is one, this is the first text I had bound.

I've been having Bibles bound for a long time. This is done, I don't even know how old Jeffrey Rice would have been when this was made, but it was probably about seven, you know, something like that. This is, I wonder if I have a date.

I mean, check this out. See, do you see what's taped inside there? Those are the verbal, that's the verbal form chart for Hebrew. So that shows you how long ago I was studying this one. And then, oh yeah.

And then what's taped up front? Syntax categories, New Testament Greek. There's my little card there. Probably review that. That's good stuff. Modes, tenses, participles, adjectival, attributive, predicate, substantive, circumstantial, telek, temporal, causative.

Yeah, there you go. But this is the old, and what's weird about this one, by the way, is it's hard to see, but to make the UBS, this was United Bibles. This is probably UBS third edition, I think. That would give me an idea of the date on that.

Yeah, this is third edition correctness. This is 19, probably mid eighties, I would say, is when I had this done by this fellow who was a Jehovah's Witness. One of the reasons we were doing this was an opportunity of having contact with this guy and things like that.

So here's the beginning of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. And so it goes that way. And then the Greek New Testament goes this way. So the two beginnings of each book meet right in the middle. Well, not right in the middle, but right about right there, which means you can see a little bit of discoloration there.

He had to trim some of the Hebrew, not the Hebrew text, but notes off to get them to fit. That was the only way you could get them to fit together in one size and bind them together that way. Anyway, so there's Biblia Hebraica, New Testament of Greek.

Here's the Bible in its original languages, primarily. And so is this a word of God? Yes. Are there textual variants listed in here? There are. Does that mean it's not inspired and fallible? Well, if it means that, then there is no such thing as an inspired and fallible word of God anywhere.

And if you go, aha, then stop in your tracks and listen. If you can't answer this question, then you need to stop using bad arguments to call yourself a Christian, okay? You look me in the eye and you explain to me why when the inspired writer of Hebrews quotes from Jeremiah chapter 31, he quotes a variant that's not in the Hebrew text.

Well, it's not the reading of the Masoretic Hebrew. So you go to your King James Bible and you will read in Jeremiah chapter 31, though I was a husband to them. You go the same quotation in Hebrews chapter eight, quoting the very same section of Jeremiah chapter 31, and the writer will quote, though I did not care for them.

Now in the Hebrew, it's the difference between ba 'al and ga 'al. The ba sound and the ga sound look a lot alike. The gimel and the bet, they look a lot alike. There's a textual variant there. It exists in the inspired text.

And if you don't have an answer for that, then you have no basis for arguing the point that you're making at all, because you're contradicting yourself. So I believe I have all the original readings right here.

Are there some where I have to go, it might be this, it might be that? Yes, just like the inspired writers did in the New Testament. And if you want to have a standard higher than the inspired apostolic writers did, more power to you, but that's absurd.

And you're making claims you should never make. How's that? Okay. So the issue is, when you ask the question, is the Inspired and Fouled Word of God in our possession today? Number two. And number three, where can someone purchase the Inspired and Fouled Word of God?

By the way, this is not up for purchase. It's not available. It's the only one of its kind. It truly is. But you can buy a Greek Hebrew, the whole thing, Diaglot is available. I think Hendrickson makes a reader's edition that's nice and big and easy to carry around if you want to do that.

I don't have the ISBN, but you can look it up on Amazon quite easily if you want to do that. Or if you just want to get the Nessalon 28th edition, the Bibliobreak, the Stuttgartentia, you can get the two ISBN numbers there and voila, you will have, I believe, all the original readings that are found there.

What? Right. You could send it to Jeffrey Rice and he could give you that and then you'll feel much better. Who? How do you know that? Well, okay, but I'm afraid to click on that or this will disappear.

Oh, okay. All right. So someone named Joshua, huh? Joshua Winslet, huh? Okay. All right. So number four, if the Bible we have today is not without error, then why refer to it as infallible? And again, we have to define what error means.

Do you mean a textual variant or do you mean an error in the original writing? Because I do not believe there are errors in the original writing. Of course, the term error would also have to be defined because what do you mean?

I mean, atheists have gone so far as accusing the Bible of error when a biblical writer will use a synonym in one place or will paraphrase in another. The King James is accused of error. For example, in Matthew, it says, you shall not kill.

In Romans, it says, you shall not murder. It's the same commandment, so it's contradicting itself because murder and killing are not the same thing. The underlying Greek text is identical, oof, on you size.

So it was just an inconsistency in the King James translation. Does that make the King James errant? There are errors in the King James version. In Acts chapter 5, when it talks about whom you killed by hanging upon the tree is the proper translation.

They said whom you killed, whom you slew and hung upon a tree. They didn't kill Jesus and then nail him to the cross. It's a bad translation. It's an error at that point. And there are errors in the TR.

We've already documented that, Ephesians 3 .9, that ends up in the King James version of the Bible. So once you hang your hat on that kind of literalism, then it's pretty easy to knock both your hat and your head right off your shoulders.

So you have to, when you talk about error, you have to define what do you mean by error. Is the fact that the size of the circular laver in the temple only comes out to about 3 .14 instead of 3 .141592654 on and on and on value of pi.

Is that an error? I've had atheists make that argument. So what's the standard by which that kind of error is being addressed? And then if error means error as in textual transmissional error, then the more information you have, the better the position you're in to address that alleged allegation.

And we have been blessed with a plethora of information. As Bart Ehrman said in our debate in 2009, the New Testament has far earlier attestation than any other work of antiquity. Far greater attestation than any other.

He didn't say this part. He said the first part. Now, moving on from there, it has far greater numerically attestation than any other work of antiquity in that same early time period. And I would say as far as quality of manuscripts, far better quality of copying in the manuscripts that are that are accent to us today.

So all this comes back to certain presuppositions that underlie this way of thought that assume that the Bible, that it was God's intention to transmit the Bible to us in photocopied form. It wasn't. It was God's intention that the last word of inspired would be written in the first century after the birth of Christ.

And that means God knew that there was going to be another 1850 years before the photocopier was printed. God knew that there was going to be approximately 1450, 1350 years before the first printing press would be invented.

And especially back then, the setting of type and things like that was liable to errors as well. Remember the King James, there is a version of the King James called the adulterous Bible that in the giving of the Ten Commandments, the word not was left out in the commandment against adultery.

So it says, you shall commit adultery. That's what it says. So yeah, and the printer got chucked in the who scout for that one. Things were different back then. Well, and we're getting, I think we're getting back to that, to be honest with you.

That's sort of what's going to be happening today. So anyway, so the question then really is who's being consistent in defining what error is, differentiating between text and transmission, original, the original language intention, the original author's intention, all these things in answering these questions.

Number five, doesn't calling any Bible today infallible require a similar leap of faith as is required to embrace some forms of KJV-onlyism? No, not by any stretch of the imagination. When you, King James-onlyism requires you to believe of a translation what its authors would have found laughable.

So no. Besides that, calling any Bible today, what do you mean any Bible? There's only one Bible. You mean Bible translation? In what language? There's just so much, there's so much lack of precision and careful critical thought underlying and presupposing these particular types of arguments that it's sad.

And number six, can Bible preservation be miraculous? Bible preservation would have to be miraculous. But the question is, how did God do it? I think it's miraculous that the Bible survived the persecution of the Roman Empire.

I believe it's miraculous that the Old Testament manuscripts survived. I think it's miraculous that the Qumran caves held those manuscripts for all those centuries with all those people walking by, going back and forth to the Dead Sea and everything else.

That's miraculous. So generally what's probably behind that is, well, couldn't God have just re-inspired the Bible in 1611? Oh, that means that he didn't care as much about the people before 1611 as he did the people after, isn't it?

The Bible's for all the church. Church existed back then. The church had to have the Bible, the Council of Nicaea. And the church did, but the church didn't have the King James and didn't have the King James readings either at that particular point in time.

So let's keep all that in mind. So hopefully all that will be of consideration and usefulness to you. And that's interesting because I just clicked on that too, and I don't see any name associated with it.

Did you go to a website? Yeah. Yeah. Not on my end. Yeah. Not on Twitter anyways. Yeah. There's no names here. There's theearstohear .com, a lone Palaeo-Baptist perspective on pop culture and theology.

Teth, that's it. There's no names. And the website doesn't come up either. Oh, I have been deceived. I have been misled. That was a rumor. Sorry about that. You want to make that a public apology or just...

You were responding to somebody. He was responding to someone. He was responding to Joshua Winslet. So that's my bad. I misread the... I clicked onto the reply to name instead of Teth. So I don't know who this fellow is.

I don't either. And so yeah, I was just trying to be helpful here. And you blew it. You just blew it. Just right, left, and center. Okay. All right. Shifting gears a little bit, though, in some ways, the mindset, all due respect, Jeremy, the mindset of followers of the papacy can be very much like King James-only-ism.

Everything you see just automatically is to be interpreted in a certain way. There's a Roman Catholic on... And by the way, he said Roman Catholic is an anti-Catholic phrase. There are all sorts of Roman Catholic documents from the Magisterium that use the term Roman Catholic.

So I guess the Vatican is anti-Catholic if you use that reasoning. It's so weird. But Roman Catholic is a perfectly appropriate descriptor, even though it is in and of itself an oxymoron, katahalos meaning according to the whole universal Roman particular, therefore.