New Testament Textual Criticism in the 21st Century~

Listen to/Download the episode Here

Christ the Center recently interviewed Dr. Daniel Wallace on the issue of Textual Criticism and some recent New Testament manuscript finds.

Posting Comments~

Please post comments. I really enjoy reading them. However I do ask a couple things:

1. Do not leave your name as anonymous.
2. No profanity or name calling
3. Read the blog post before commenting on a specific post
4. Do your best to make the comment intelligible (I do not mean this to be sarcastic)
   

If you speak Spanish feel free to type in Spanish, however if I respond to your comment it will be in English. I will delete comments that do not abide by these rules here on out. Thank you.

Ida: the Missing Link at Last?~

Darwinus Masillae: Ida

Mere hype or truly an evolutionary link?
See A.I.G.s article for a balanced look at the facts.

The Reliability of the New Testament~


You will often hear Christians claim to hold to the Doctrine of Inspiration also called Biblical Inerrancy. When they are pressured to define what they mean, normatively a very simplistic answer is parroted almost robotically as they quote their pastor. Something to the extent of, "The Bible is without error." Then their children go off to college and learn from their Religion Class such things as there are

• More variants in the N.T. then there are words in the N.T.
• Which is Approximately 400,000 variants
• The last 12 verses in the book of Mark do not exist in the oldest MSS.
• The account of the woman caught in adultery (the Pericope Adulterae) in John is nothing but fiction
• The most explicit text on the Trinity (the Comma Johanneum) is nothing but a mere fabrication in 1 John 5:7
• Theodore Beza, a contemporary to John Calvin, made a conjectural emendation in Rev. 4:8 and changed the word from the holy one to is to come

And we wonder what happened to our kid's faith or why they're now pagans. Then your kid's teachers will go on to talk about all the downright explicit contradictions within the Bible, such as:

• Paul giving the account of his travel on the Demascus Road in Acts 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man." and then he gives it again, in the same book, in Acts 22:9 "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me." Did they hear a voice or not, which is it? They both can't be true, which would make one false therefore making the Bible a lie.
• In Malachi God says, "I change not" and in Ezekiel 24 God says, "I the Lord have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent..." but in Exodus 32:14 the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto His people. It repented the Lord that He created man in Genesis 6. The Lord repented of what He thought in Jonah 3. Etc. If the God of the Bible is omniscient, all knowing, why would He have to repent or even regret something He did. If God is immutable, unchanging, how could He change His mind? The God of the Bible does not change His mind, the God of the Bible does change His mind.
• In Exodus 20:5 God punishes people for their parent's sins but in Deuteronomy 24:16 God doesn't punish the children for their parent's sin. Both cannot be true.
• Psalms 145:9 "The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works." Deuteronomy 32:4, "He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." However in Isaiah 45:7, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." Then in Lamentations 3:38 a rhetorical question is asked, "Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?" Jeremiah 18:11 continues, "Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good." and then Ezekiel 20:25, "Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;" God is good and God is evil even decietful. University teachers will affirm the only logical thing, this God cannot exist.
• James 1:13, "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man..." God does not tempt but then in Genesis 22:1, "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am." God does tempt. Your kids are then mockingly asked, How can they trust such an evil God?
• God commands not to kill in the Ten Commandments and then commands Israel on multiple occations to utterly wipe out various nations.
• Are God and Jesus peaceful? Romans 15:13,33, "Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost." but then its said of God in Exodus 15:3, "The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name. God is obviously not peaceful! What about Jesus? In John 14:27, "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid." and then in Luke 2:14, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." the coming of Jesus is to bring peace. But yet we read in Matthew 10:34, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." or how about Luke 12:51; 22:36, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division... Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." God is said to be peaceful and God is said to be a man of war. Jesus' coming was to bring peace but Jesus said he did not come to bring peace.
• John 8:14, "Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true." but then Jesus says earlier in John 5:31, " If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." Which is it? Can we really trust a man who was so fallacious?
• The book of Mark, which by modern scholarship is attested to be the earliest of the Synoptic Gospels, tells us explicitly which day Jesus died on. Jesus has the passover meal with his disciples. He's then arrested, put in prison, and spends the night in jail. At nine a.m. the following morning he's crucified. He's crucified the day after the Passover meal was eaten. However, in John, written roughly 30 years after Mark. John also tells us explicitly when Jesus died. But in John's Gospel we're told Jesus died in the afternoon on the day of preparation for the Passover, which is the day before the Passover meal was eaten. So did Jesus die on a Wednesday afternoon or on Friday morning. Is Mark wrong or is John wrong, or what's more likely after we've seen so many contradictions they're probably both just myth...

Your children come home and have completely lost faith and are probably even mad at you for deceiving them into such an evil religion. Or maybe you have even, in an innocent conversation, have run into a hostile individual to Christianity who just irately blurted out something to the extent of "the immorality of the Bible".

Unfortunately the average Christian is entirely unprepared for such a confrontation. We have been lulled into a deep seated anti-intellectualism in our churches today, too afraid to investigate, too lazy to do any amount of research, and too ignorant too know where to even look. Meanwhile the once bastions of the Christian faith are ruthlessly taken over by liberals, the church is being stupefied and feminized, and the Christian voice is being subdued and silenced.

The answers to the above issues have been dealt with for hundreds of years. Even atheists like Dan Barker, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, etc. have admitted that they're raising dead issues (not in such terms) and popularizing them. And the field of Textual Criticism is being utterly hijacked by Dr. Bart Ehrman along with German and French scholars. They're approaching the field with entirely new presuppositions, that of agnosticism, and the Christian community is going to be blind sided in the next couple years. After the destruction, during the aftermath, Christians (what's left of them) are going to just be playing "catch up" once again to an already devastated culture saying, "I didn't know, nobody told me, I'm not responsible."

God is in control, period! We are responsible before God for ourselves and the generations to come! Its time to stop being myopic, narcissistic, and start fighting the battle. So for that reason I am posting a video by Dr. James R. White on the Reliability of the New Testament. I hope it blesses you and encourages you in your studies. God bless.

~2 John 1:10 :: Does This Passage Prohibit Believers From Inviting “Cultists” Into Their House?

The use of 2 John 1:10 as a prohibition of inviting Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses in to one’s house commits an anachronistic fallacy.

First, I would like to present the historical context for this passage, to whom John is writing to, the text itself, and then practical application for us today.

2 John 2:10
“If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting…”

False teachers who were influenced by the beginnings of Gnostic thought were threatening the church (v.7; cf. 1 John 2:18, 19, 22, 23; 4:1-3). While 1 John has no specific individual or church specified to whom it was addressed, 2 John has a particular local group or house-church in mind (v.1).

The focus of 2 John is that the false teachers were conducting an itinerant ministry among John’s congregations, seeking to make converts from John’s congregations, and taking advantage of Christian Hospitality by residing in their houses to advance their cause (vv. 10, 11; cf. Rom. 12:13; Heb. 13:2; 1 Pet. 4:9). The individual addressed in the greeting inadvertently or unwisely may have shown these false prophets hospitality, or John may have feared that the false teachers would attempt to take advantage of her kindness (vv. 10, 11). The apostle warns his readers against showing hospitality (hospitality in the sense of helping them in their endeavors) to such deceivers (vv. 10,11).” (see- The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.1970)

This traveling teacher who comes is coming not to an individual home but to address the church as a whole, there was no central church building where believers could congregate. Rather, small house-churches were scattered throughout the city (Acts 2:46; 5:42; 12:12; Rom. 16:15; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col 4:15; Philem. 2). The use of specific church buildings did not appear before the end of the second century (see- How Should We Then Live by Francis Schaeffer VIDEO). And the ‘greeting’ is either an official church greeting, or a way that could be misconstrued and give an appearance of endorsement of this doctrine and would thus encourage the false teacher in their error. (see- Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem pp.880-881; The Epistle of John by John R.W. Stott pp. 212-215)

Therefore, 2 John 10 does not prohibit Christians from allowing cultists into their home in order to witness to them. Rather, it is a prohibition and warning to the leaders of these house-churches against giving false teachers a platform from which to teach false doctrine or supporting them in anyway in their endeavors. In this way, this prohibition guards the purity of the church. Christians are not to let false teachers use their homes as a base of operations from which to spread their poison or to allow them to remain in the church. (see- Correcting the Cults by Dr. Norman Geisler p.302)

In conclusion, to take 2 John 10 as merely saying that we should not let Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses into our house would be to take this verse Prima Facie which is not hermeneutically correct in this context and I contend that it would be to commit Reductio ad Absurdum. I say this because if we were to truly take “…If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching…” Prima Facie this would include: Hindus, Skeptics, Atheists, Roman Catholics, Hare-Krishna, Spiritists, Satanists, Christian Scientists, Wiccans, Secular Humanists, Baha’i, Scientologists, Seventh Day Adventists, Moonies, Anthroposophists, Astrologists, Christadelphians, Eckankarists, Kabbalists, Masons, Muslims, Buddhists, Occultists, Oneness Pentecostalists, Raelians, Religious Scientists, Rosicrucianists, Theosophists, etc etc. This would reduce down to anyone who is not a Christian, including any family member or friend, for only the true believer brings the true doctrine. This would contradict the practice of being a light in the world as were Jesus and the disciples (vv. Matt 9:10; Gal 2:12, 14). This would also contradict the plain teaching of Scripture in where we’re to evangelize the lost, love our enemies (Rom. 12:20 “but if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in doing so you will heap burning coals on his head.) The Bible clearly teaches that there is to be a separation of the believer to the world and to not partake in the things of this world or those things of the flesh (vv. Jn. 15:19; 17:11ff. Gal 5:19f.) but this in no way means that we’re not permitted to be a witness to those whom do not believe in our own homes be it in word or deed. When the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses come to our door, the occasion should be viewed as a mission on our doorstep and as a fulfillment of 1 Peter 3:15 “…always be ready to give a defense (‘apologia’ ‘an apologetic‘) to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you…” and Jude 3-4. That is why God calls and places individuals to defend the gospel (vv. Phil 1:7, 17) in the body of Christ who can prepare and equip (v. Eph. 4:11) the body for such encounters.

However, lets give the benefit of the doubt and say that this specific passage is prohibiting individual believers, a concept foreign to the Old and New Testaments, this does not prohibit Christians from evangelizing the cults. What do I mean? This verse, if taken prima facie only says not to invite them into your house. This doesn’t not mean, however that one couldn’t meet the Mormon Missionaries at another location in order to talk. Therefore, I end this with an exhortation to make disciples and contend earnestly for the faith…

~The Holiness of God Conference

Watch the Conference Webcast in Spanish or English