Month: May 2023

Are Boycotts Finally Working?

Are we finally seeing boycotts start to work? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I don’t drink alcohol, but I remember seeing about the Dylan Mulvaney can of Bud Light and how some people thought it was a joke because it was April 1st.

Nope. It was real.

However, I was extremely surprised with what happened after and I have been watching the news. The stock keeps dropping more and more and the company wants to do everything but apologize. However, because they didn’t just jump up and defend Mulvaney immediately, now the LGBTQ+GBJAHVHAKJOTVAH group has gone against them as well.

That was interesting enough.

Yet now another company has joined the fray, that one being Target. Now because they had pride material upfront in their stores and some it for children, a lot of parents have decided that that’s too far. We are waiting to see if Adidas and The North Face will go the same way.

What’s going on that caused these to be different?

Bud Light I think is because frankly, Mulvaney is annoying to a lot of people. They want nothing to do with him and the last thing your average male beer drinker wants is to be seen as a woman or as gay. This has led to Bud Light being seen as a joke and now, people are learning that if you make fun of Bud Light in a meme or a video, you get noticed on the internet.

In this, conservatives start to see the impact they can have when they speak out. Around this time also, we see a push by women against the transgenderism movement, especially with someone like Riley Gaines. Women are tired of men entering their events and dominating them and getting all the rewards for it.

Then Target comes along and not only do they have Pride material, but it seems to go toward children. There are a lot of parents that don’t want that pushed on their children. Now that Bud Light has done their thing, conservatives are starting to realize that they do have power now. Thus far, Target at the time of my writing this has lost $9 billion in sales.

Add in to all of this that the Super Mario Brothers movie is a smash hit. Meanwhile, Disney movies that are going woke are indeed, going broke. Mario’s great advantage was avoiding anything political.

All of this has honestly brought me a lot of hope. I want to see the tide turn in our country. Too many times now, we’ve just bent over and let the LGBTQGUAGHIAGUV group have their way with us. We have been following the idea of live and let live, but our opponents didn’t want that. Every step forward was then a stepping stone to the next one and the last grounds that parents would not tolerate was their children.

For those of us who are Christians, I really hope we keep this coming. This is prime ground for sharing the gospel. Christianity has a view on everything, including on sex and marriage, and now is a time for us to learn how to make it definitely.

In the meantime, I wasn’t shopping at Target anyway, but now I’m definitely not going to. For those of us who want to reclaim our country, we could be on the verge of starting to do that. If we want to save our country, repentance is needed. It’s not just the world. We Christians need to repent as well for not stepping up and maintaining our Christian focus.

May the gospel shine in this time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 21.2

What about a unitarian? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So before I wrote this one, I wanted to speak to someone who knew more about this than I do since my searches hadn’t found anything. I spoke to Dr. Warren on campus here who runs our center for New Testament manuscripts. His thoughts were mine. The new translation committee did have a Unitarian, but God uses flawed instruments. I was also told the KJV scholars weren’t all the salt of the Earth either. So as always, the source material can be found here.

“When the company of New Testament revisers (for the Revised Version) were ready to begin their work, a communion service was held in Westminster Abbey. A Unitarian member of the committee partook along with the others. There was serious criticism of this … The upper house of the Convocation of Canterbury passed a resolution that NO person who denied the deity of Christ should take part in the work” [S2P156].

“Westcott expressed his loyalty to apostasy when he threatened to quit if the Convocation were successful in ejecting Smith [the Unitarian] from the Committee. ‘I never felt more clear as to my duty. If the Company accepts the dictation of the Convocation, my work must end. I see no escape from the conclusion'” [S1P165].

Westcott and Hort found an ally for their plan to abolish the Traditional Majority Text, when Dr. Vance Smith, a Christ denying, Unitarian preacher, was seated on the committee.

The language of the last paragraph is problematic as one gets the impression of Westcott and Hort as wicked schemers making a devilish plan to destroy the KJV. Hardly. There is no sense here that Westcott endorsed the beliefs of Smith, but he could have endorsed the credentials and ability.

As to the Unitarian, Dr. Hort said: “It is, I think, difficult to measure the weight of the acceptance won before the hand for the Revision by the single fact of our welcoming a Unitarian” [S1P165].

What were some of Dr. Smith’s beliefs? Dr. Smith called the belief in Christ’s 2nd coming ‘erroneous’. He said:

“This idea of the Second Coming ought now to be passed by as a merely TEMPORARY incident of early Christian belief. Like many another ERROR, it has answered its TRANSITORY PURPOSE in the providential plan, and may well, at length, be left to rest in peace” [S1P165].

Which is all really poisoning the well. It’s interesting that Johnson didn’t spend any time telling us anything about the members of the KJV team. What problems did they have?

Dr. Vance Smith was NOT the only problem within the translation committee. The following quote summarizes the members in general:

“The reputations of the committee members were so tainted that Queen Elizabeth and her chaplain … refused to give it official sanction … Half the Church of England declined involvement, as did the American branch …” [S3P435]. Also: “Others … left after seeing the SINISTER character of the ‘New’ Greek text” [S3P435].

There are so many ellipses and I question a primary source using the idea of sinister and putting it in caps. I remain skeptical of the context of the quote until Johnson can go to primary sources and give it.

When comparing the scholars of his day to those of the King James committee: Bishop Ellicott, the CHAIRMAN of the Revised Version Committee, said:

“We have certainly NOT YET ACQUIRED sufficient critical judgment for any Body of Revisors to undertake such a work as this” [S3P435].

(Please note: “Advocates of modern versions assume that they are the product of scholarship far superior to that of the translators of the King James Version of 1611, but this assumption is not supported by the facts” [S2P13]).

Which is shown by looking at just one translation and not considering all we have learned about text since then and the Greek and Hebrew language.

It was said that Bishop Ellicott was the committee chairman. Actually, the FIRST chairman was Bishop Wilberforce. One meeting, was enough for him. He wrote to a friend: “What can be done in this most miserable business?” [S2P291] “Unable to bear the situation, he absented himself and never took part in the proceedings … One factor had disturbed him considerably – the presence of Dr. G. Vance Smith, the Unitarian …” [S2P291].

I understand some people having concerns, but I don’t. God used Judas to fulfill His plan. Ultimately, aside from Jesus, God has to use flawed instruments in this way. That’s all that there is.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Rembrandt is in the Wind

What do I think of Russ Ramsey’s book? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I’m not much of an art guy. I just don’t see it in a lot of art. There have been exceptions. I use to go see a pastoral counselor at a Baptist church and I would sometimes get there early since I came from somewhere else and would go to a room to pray and there was a beautiful stained-glass picture of Jesus gently knocking on a door, no doubt based on Revelation 3. I really loved looking at this one and would love to find it again.

Ramsey is getting me to consider giving more paintings a second chance. He does this by introducing us to the artists and telling us about their positions. No. Not all of them are Christians. Still, all of them did produce art and that art is remembered today. Some I had heard of. Some I had not.

However, this book is about art and artists secondarily. It is primarily about beauty. As the author tells us, that means it is about brokenness as well.

Recently, I went to a beach with some friends and as I looked at the ocean, I thought about beauty. The ocean is a place of beauty, but it is also a place of destruction as well. How many lives have been claimed by the ocean? How many lives have been claimed by creatures in the ocean?

Beauty draws us in, but beauty is also extremely destructive. I am highly considering that everything in the world that has beauty also destroys as well. Some of you might think “Seriously? What about a newborn baby?! What does a baby destroy!”

Oh, nothing much but the couple’s regular lives together as they normally spend at least the next eighteen years caring for the child and perhaps more. Note this is not always a bad destruction, but it is a destruction. What I know about people who have babies is the constant message that life is never the same after.

And of course, God is the most beautiful of all, and if you do not think God is destructive, you have not met God. When God comes into your life, He does destroy it. He does break you, but only to put you back together better than you were before.

In all these artists, there is going to be some brokenness. Some of these artists lead tragic lives. Consider Vincent Van Gogh who is said to have shot himself in the abdomen. Ramsey does say some scholarship considers that he might have been shot by hooligans, but Van Gogh was in many ways a broken man.

The first artist considered is Michaelangelo. In him, you see a figure who took a slab of stone that everyone considered useless, and from that, produced the David. It is one of the natures of art to take what has no semblance and put it together to give it beauty. The first person in Scripture said to have the Holy Spirit was an artist.

If Michaelangelo lived a devout life, the same cannot be said of Caravaggio who was on the run from the law constantly and was wanted for murder and other crimes. Still, he had to paint biblical scenes because the church was in charge. The key to being a great artist is to go through the church, yet even in paintings of the profane, which would refer to the common, beauty shines through.

I found the chapter on Rembrandt disappointing. It’s not because of Rembrandt, but because so much of it was devoted to the stealing of paintings by Rembrandt. I found this a shame since Rembrandt was known as the master even in his time and was thoroughly devout, and yet I don’t remember learning a lot about his life.

Vermeer was the next artist and here you see how Vermeer had to work with the people of his day. No artist painted in an island. It’s quite likely Vermeer had a friend who developed lenses who he worked with.

The fascinating thing about Bazille was about how there was a group likely dismissed by the rest of the artists of the time working together called impressionists. Monet and Manet and others all worked together. It’s interesting that I suspect we know few of the names that rejected them, but we sure know their names today.

While Tanner was interesting, the disappointment was that Ramsey said he wanted more than just white men. I really don’t want to have an artist picked as say a token black artist. Give an artist a spot because the artist is good. The race of the artist doesn’t matter.

Van Gogh is one of the most well-known today and is indeed a tragic figure. It could be that he was painting perhaps three canvases a week somehow. He longed for recognition in his life. It could be tempting to look down on that, but do not many of us want the same? Don’t we want to be known and loved for who we are?

Edward Hopper was someone I hadn’t heard of either, but it was interesting how he painted his wife in so many pictures, and yet their marriage seemed to be chaos. I saw nothing that said he cheated on her, but he was willing to cast her to the side for his own career and she was often willing to be cast aside. However, it looks like as he got further and further long in life, he came to realize how much he needed her.

Lilias Trotter at the end was a strange choice. I wondered if Ramsey was wanting to get a woman in and yet if that was the case, why not someone like Mary Cassatt? Trotter apparently had a lot of artistic skill and was a prodigy of sorts, but chose to focus on ministry and go to Algeria and serve. I am not knocking that, but it seems odd to have a book about artists and yet end with a lady who set aside the dream of being a great artist.

At any rate, the author’s goal was to get us to learn to appreciate beauty more, and he succeeded with me at least. I think I will try to take a deeper look the next time I see some paintings. Also worthwhile is Ramsey gives tips on how to go to an art museum and appreciate the art more.

Check it out and see if you do the same.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

A Call To Boycott Some Women’s Sports

What is happening in women’s sports? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I’m not a sports fan, but I do pay attention to what is happening in the world and one of the great issues we are dealing with today is transgenderism. A man can today just claim that he is a woman and he is allowed to compete in women’s sports. Fortunately, there are women like Riley Gaines speaking out against this, but we need more.

There was a story of a man winning a women’s event and the women refused to even show up on the podium with him. That’s a good start, but more needs to be done. Women need to really just refuse to compete in these verses if they’re going to allow people who are not women to engage in them.

This is about more than just sports. Many of these women are trying to get scholarships so that they can go on to college, but they are not getting them because someone who is seen as a part of a “marginalized” group is taking them. Click a victim box and you get extra points. These are women who work hard to get where they are and then have to compete against an opponent with an unfair advantage.

Consider this from healthline with running speeds. You can find more of the same at Duke Law. In baseball, a woman is said to have thrown a fastball at 83 MPH. However, compare that to the average speed of a man in college throwing a fastball.

As soon as a pitcher finishes high school, they have most likely attained their highest fastball velocity, even though a few small gains are certainly achievable. The average fastball for these senior-level pitchers is 90 mph, but there will always be a few guys who can light up the radar gun close to 100 mph. At the lower levels of college baseball, there will still be guys in the low to mid-80s. Changeups for this group have to be at around a 15 mph drop, causing the velocity to be close to the higher 70s.

And even if we just went to high school

A high school pitcher can be anywhere from 14 to 18 years of age. This plays a part in figuring out an average fastball velocity, but, keep in mind that the majority of high schools have a Freshmen, Sophomore, and Varsity program to split up the big age gap. Fo the most part, an average varsity high school fastball is between 75-85 mph, even though a lot of good Varsity pitchers will be finding out that they can pitch in the higher 80s and low 90 range. The Freshmen pitchers will generally be throwing at a similar speed to the 13 and 14-year-olds, and the Sophomores will be situated somewhere in the middle. A good changeup for a high school pitcher is a -10 to -15 mph drop, so anywhere from 60-75 mph is usual.

Which means that the fastest woman in the world at pitching can STILL not compete with the AVERAGE man in the sport.

As if this isn’t enough, there is even the story of a man who identifies as a woman who slammed a female opponent in the face with a volleyball at a tournament resulting in serious injuries. The girl has severe head and neck injuries. Unfortunately, even this isn’t enough to stop the insanity.

And of course, let’s not forget women being forced to change in dressing rooms and shower with people who are males. All a man needs to say in some cases is that he identifies as a woman and he can march right into the women’s locker rooms. I can’t imagine any reason why a guy would just want to suddenly claim he’s a woman….

None of this is meant to belittle women at all and it’s sad that that even needs to be stated. This is just the way reality is. Men by nature due to their chemistry and genetic make-up are more athletically inclined than women are. Women have their own strengths as well.

Peter Kreeft has said that men are superior at being men and women are superior at being women. Unfortunately, now it’s getting to the point where men are superior at being women as well. (And this in an age where we constantly hear about the patriarchy.) It’s a mistake to assume that because two things are different one is superior and the other inferior.

So what can women do? First off, if men show up at your events, don’t even compete. Walk away. Boycott the event. The more you give in, the more it will keep going.

Parents who are concerned about your daughters’ futures? Go and join a school board. State your claim immediately. There are more of us than there are on the other side I am certain. This is something we should learn from the Bud Light controversy.

Does this matter for Christianity? Yes. We are a religion of reality. We believe that being a man and being a woman means something. We believe that men and women are unique categories of humanity and there is no other. We also hold that the family is the basic building block of society.

I anticipate in a few years, there are going to be a lot of lawsuits suing people over being manipulated into sex-change surgeries. Until then, we must uphold reality. Is this a strong stance? Yes, but just giving in consistently has shown to be a failure.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 21.1

So what about Westcott and Hort? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Okay, folks. I put this one off for a bit because I had tried to find the Westcott and Hort quotations, but I had no luck. Unfortunately, Johnson never gives primary sources and I don’t trust the sources he has, particularly Riplinger. If there is a reader out there who can provide more context, I welcome that. For now, the main source material can be found here.

In the last chapter, we learned ‘Codex Vaticanus’ and ‘Codex Sinaiticus’ are two manuscripts from the corrupted minority of Greek texts.

No. We saw that asserted.

‘Vaticanus’ was found in the Vatican library. ‘Sinaiticus’ was found in a Mt. Sinai trash can.

And the scroll of the law was found while cleaning the temple. Apparently, it had been abandoned. I suppose Johnson would have scrapped it then. Right?

We also know these 2 manuscripts form the basis for the Westcott and Hort Greek text. And, the corrupt Westcott and Hort Greek text forms the basis for ‘modern’ versions of the Bible.

In this chapter Westcott and Hort use the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts to make their ‘own’ Greek text. This they submit to a Bible translation committee. The result will be the “English Revised Version of 1881”. Later on, other ‘modern versions’ will follow the W&H text.

We pick up the history of the Bible, in England, in 1870.

Okay. Let’s go.

“In 1870, the Convention of the Church of England commissioned a revision of the Authorized Version” [S1P162].

A revision committee was assembled.

It’s too bad Johnson never stops to ask why. Did the Church of England abandon a belief in the perfection of the KJV, or did they just never have it to begin with?

The Revision Committee was instructed: “… NOT to deal with the underlying Greek text of the Authorized Version. They were instructed to do as follows: (1) to introduce AS FEW alterations as possible into the text of the King James Bible, and (2) to limit … the expression of any alterations TO THE LANGUAGE of the Authorized Version” [S1P163].

“Westcott and Hort had other plans. They had edited the corrupt Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts … and produced their own Greek text. Wisely they had never published it” [S1P163].

Why wisely? Was it found to be better or worse? Johnson has never made a convincing case for worse.

“Westcott and Hort had been working together on their text since 1853; in 1870 they printed a tentative edition for private distribution only. This they circulated under pledge of secrecy within the company of New Testament revisers, of which they were members (of which came the Revised Version of 1881). It soon became evident that the New Testament committee was NOT going to be content merely to revise the Authorized Version, but was determined to revise the UNDERLYING Greek text radically” [S2P153-154].

All of this would need to be shown. We have the text that was used. We can see how well they did.

In November of 1870, Westcott said: “In a few minutes I go with Lightfoot to Westminster. More will come of these meetings, I think, than simply a revised version” [S1P162-163].

Gotta love the assumption that there’s some devious plan by Westcott in this.

Hort to Westcott: “This may sound like cowardice-I have a craving that our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion” [S3P407-408]

Westcott to Hort: “… strike blindly … much evil would result from a public discussion” [S3P408].

Unfortunately, we are not told the context. Is there evil intent here? Johnson wants us to believe so, but he does not give us the context and what this is about. He never once considers going to the writings of Westcott and Hort and showing where they are in them, which is just not good research.

But considering his record so far, color me skeptical.

We’ll continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge for Fun: Armada

What do I think of Ernest Cline’s novel? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I have been trying to read more fiction lately. I have going through two of the three books in the New Arcadia series, but I’m waiting for the third and final one to come out before I write about that series. I do know it’s going to be the last since I emailed the author.

I saw this book by Ernest Cline and decided to get it. Cline is the one behind books like Ready Player One which was turned into a movie. So far, all of his books seem to be related to the world of gaming. I will try to avoid giving any major spoilers.

Anyway, in this book, Zack Lightman is in class when he thinks he sees out the window an alien spacecraft. Not only that, but it looks like one from one of his favorite video games. At this, he thinks he must be going crazy. After all, didn’t that happen to his Dad? His father, who died long ago, believed that the gaming industry and the movie industry worked together on games and movies involving aliens in order to prepare us for an alien invasion.

The reader can tell that Zack is not going crazy though knowing the nature of a book. There really is an alien invasion that is coming and it really is connected with Zack’s favorite game. What happens after all of this? At this point, I choose to remain silent, but I do have some observations to share.

Technology seems to be a strange beast. On the one hand, we talk about all the great goods that it gives us. On the other hand, we talk about how it can lead us to an early grave. In this one it’s kind of mixed in that we have technology and we depend on it to some extent, but at the same time, can it be a sufficient savior? If our technology is what we are dependent on, what would happen if a race ever showed up that had better technology?

Along those lines, there are times that Christianity is shown in the novel. There is a character who is a skeptic of it and one who is a firm believer and another who it is not known their position, but they sure can quote Scripture. I do not know the beliefs of Cline, but I thought this was a good way to treat the topic in his novel. After all, if an alien invasion took place, there will be people who will be turning to God.

I saw some reviewers say they thought the novel was predictable. There were some parts I was guessing, but overall, no. I tended to read a chapter a day but there were many times I was tempted to skip ahead, not because I wanted to get it done with, but because I really wanted to know what happened. I never did, but that temptation was there.

If you enjoy gaming or movies like Star Wars or the Star Trek series or anything of that sort in the realm of science-fiction, this is a good one to give a try.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

No. Jesus did not come from Isis

Is Jesus derived from Isis? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So I’m browsing Facebook and see yet another ignorant meme. This one looks like internet atheist garbage, but it comes from one of those sacred namers. You know the types. Jesus’s real name is Yeshoshua or some variant thereof. Anyway, here’s a look at the ignorance in all of its infamy.

Oh, good grief. 

Now I grew up reading a lot of Greek mythology. My sister had given me an old book of hers about Greek mythology and I ate that stuff up. It was one of my favorite books to go through so I do remember a lot still to this day about it. I could not really ever seeing the name Iaso before. A web search for Iesos did come up with something.

https://www.theoi.com/Ouranios/AsklepiasIaso.html

So when I go here, I do see that she was a goddess of healing. However, she was not the daughter of Apollo. She was the daughter of Askelpios. To be fair, Asklepios is the son of Apollo, but that would mean that Iaso was the granddaughter of Apollo. That might seem to some like a basic mistake, but it is still a mistake. The information on Apollo I got here.

Of course, we do know Apollo was the god of the sun and…..

Wait.

Sun god?

No, no, no. That’s not listed here. The god of the sun was Helios. At times, he was identified with Apollo, but the two were different. They had different families and different origins. 

The claim now is that Iaso was linked to Isis. Unfortunately, we are not told how this link took place. We are just told to assume it. Now some could say to look at the names used and aren’t they similar?

Iaso, Isis, Iesous?

In English, yes, but these people did not speak English. They spoke Greek and Egyptian. We have to see if the names were the same in those languages and that would still be a stretch. Similarities in language even would not be sufficient to make the case. These are the same kinds of people who think the spelling of the name of Jesus was meant to say “Hey, Zeus.”

However, when we look at Isis, no. She did not have a son listed named Isu. Her most famous one named is Horus and if he had the name of Isu somewhere, I do not find it listed. So again, we have numerous problems.

The last part we are told is that there were numerous worshippers of Isis during the time of the Roman Emperors. This is true. What of it? Thus, everyone copied from everyone else? The creator of this expects us to make some sort of inference, but there are no grounds for it.

So in the end, who makes this kind of rubbish? Someone who doesn’t bother to do their research. Who believes it? Someone who also doesn’t bother to do their research and will pass it on. Even just a cursory look on the internet of basic claims here is enough to show there are a slew of problems here.

Unfortunately, these kinds of ideas are shared on the internet constantly and by people claiming to be rational. This is definitely why Christians need to know more of what they’re talking about. How many people at your church do you think would be unsure of what to say to this meme or go about even finding out what to say?

It’s something I don’t want to think about, but we must.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 20.2

What about Sinaiticus? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We’re returning to this one today. The second great codex to discuss is Sinaiticus. As always, the source material can be found here.

“The Sinaiticus is a manuscript that was found in 1844 in a trash pile in St. Catherine’s Monastery near Mt. Sinai, by a man named Mr. Tichendorf” [S5P61].

“Mr. Tischendorf.” No mention from Johnson that Tischendorf was a great scholar in his day. From this writing, you’d think someone just wandering through found it. Tischendorf was on a search for manuscripts.

“The date of its writing is placed at around 340 A.D. …” [S4P20].

“The Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable, proven by examining the manuscript itself. John Burgon spent years examining every available manuscript of the New Testament” [S5P61]. He writes about Sinaiticus:

“On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters, words or even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled; while … a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause proceeding, [this] occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament” [S5P61].

Even if this is granted, it does not prove it is unreliable. This happens with many copies we have of various parts of the New Testament. This was in an age when copyists could be done by non-professionals as well and there were no erasers to erase mistakes.

“On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions done by TEN different people” [S5P61].

Dr. Scrivener agrees with John Burgon. Dr. Scrivener says (of Codex Sinaiticus):

“… it is clear that this document was corrected by ten different scribes at different periods”. He tells of “the occurrence of so many different styles of handwriting, apparently due to penmen removed from each other by centuries, which deform by their corrections every page of this venerable looking document” [S2P307-308].

Yet somehow the rest of the scholarly world still considers it valuable. Of course, Johnson never gives us their side of the case. Johnson is the less informed counterpart to Bart Ehrman sadly.

And Dr. M. Reynolds tells us:

“Tischendorf, the discoverer of the Sinaiticus manuscript noted at least 12,000 changes which had been made … by OTHERS than the original copyist” [S17P3].

It would be good to know where Tischendorf said on this himself, but under no circumstances will Johnson cite primary sources.

G.A. Riplinger cites some ‘advanced’ analysis of Sinaiticus:

“[With] more recent detailed scrutiny of the manuscript … by the use of [the] ultra-violet lamp, Milne and Skeat discovered that the original reading in the manuscript was erased … [in places]” [S3P552].

In Sinaiticus: “There are about 9,000 changes from … the Majority … Text, amounting to one difference in every verse. It omits some 4,000 words from the Gospels, adds 1,000, repositions 2,000 and alters another 1,000. It has approximately 1,500 readings that DO NOT APPEAR IN ANY OTHER MANUSCRIPT …” [S3P552-553].

I still have no reason to take Riplinger seriously in anything she says and it is a shame that Johnson does.

“Philip Mauro was a brilliant lawyer who was admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court in April 1892. He wrote a book called ‘Which Version’ in the early 1900’s” [S5P61]. He writes concerning Sinaiticus …

“From these facts, therefore, we deduce: … the impurity of the Codex Sinaiticus, in every part of it, was fully recognized by those who were best acquainted with it, and … it was finally cast aside as WORTHLESS for any practical purpose” [S5P61].

Except it wasn’t. It was used by scholars then. It is used by them now. All of this still assumes that there is a perfect manuscript also. Thus, any differences from the KJV manuscripts show the other manuscripts are in error.

We’ll continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

Book Plunge: Why The Gospel?

What do I think of Matthew Bates’s newest book? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Matthew Bates is a friend of mine and when he got in touch with me about his newest book, I was happy to help out. Something I really like about Bates is that I see him as a scholar for the people. He is writing books that many people see as directly relevant to their own lives. He takes the work that is done in the academy and breaks it down for the average person in the pew.

In this one, he’s talking about why people should come to the gospel. It’s a question many of us don’t think about and if we do, we give the usual answer. The forgiveness of sins. That is the good news. Right?

When I hear people doing evangelism, I hear this kind of thing often. What’s the goal of Christianity? To get to Heaven. I remember a pastor who used to say the same prayer at the conclusion of every sermon so much that I had it memorized.

“Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner, and without you, I cannot get to Heaven, so come into my heart and be Lord of my life from this day forward. Thank you for my salvation. Amen.”

Nothing about repentance. Nothing about the resurrection. If anything, this is just saying Jesus is my ticket to Heaven so God, do this for me.

Definitely, nothing about Jesus being a king.

As I read that again I thought, imagine asking someone out and using something similar. Approach them and tell them you want them to be with you for all the things they can do for you. Imagine going to a job interview and telling them they should hire you for all the things you want them to do for you. Wouldn’t really work would it?

Bates’s contention is that we have to have Jesus as a king. On location 164 (All future references with a number will assume location from now on) of the Kindle form, he says we should never think of Christ as a name. It is not. This is something Islam and Mormonism miss as well seeing as they regularly say Jesus is the Messiah, but they don’t grasp His being a king. When we say Jesus is the Christ, we mean Jesus is the king.

He says on 385 that faith is not just mental acceptance, but it has an outward focus as well. It is to be lived out in allegiance to the one. Thus, when we say Paul says we are saved by faith and James says faith without works is dead, who is right? Answer: Both of them. Faith is that which saves us and works are those which show where our allegiance lies.

This also means that the idea that internet atheists have of blind faith would make sense whatsoever to the biblical writers. Faith wasn’t just something in the head. It was lived. Commitments like that were serious. Christians knew they were signing up to something serious when they became Christians.

At 1264, he warns us that the gospel is not just all about the cross. This might sound scandalous to some, but it shouldn’t. Jesus tells us early on in Mark to repent and believe the good news. (gospel.) There was no cross yet. People were still expected to believe.

If we just say the cross is all that matters, then the resurrection can be an add-on. If all of it was to show the deity of Jesus, then why not have Him stay on Earth to show that? No. Jesus is taken to Heaven instead. Why?

If it’s to show He’s the king, you see why. He has to rule. He has to go to His throne. He has to sit at the right hand of God.

Of course, the cross and resurrection are important. The cross was the intention of man to shut down Jesus. it was the place of utter shame for Him, but it was also where He went to pay the price for sins as well, fighting the enemy of His people head-on. The resurrection is God’s vindication. It is God saying “Yes. This is the King.”

Bates urges us to put kingship before forgiveness. If we don’t, Jesus becomes mainly a means to an end for us, a means of forgiveness. That’s backward. If anything, we are the means to the end of the glory of God. God has inherent glory that cannot be changed, but He also has ascribed glory that can be seen as His reputation in the world and we can affect that. That doesn’t change the nature of God for those concerned, but it does change how the world perceives Him.

If we start with Jesus as king, we come to realize that we need forgiveness because we are all guilty of divine treason against this king. We have sought to be the king instead and we need to change our allegiance and say we are on the side of Jesus.

I also like his idea that we should go with goodness, truth, and beauty to show the work of the king, even to those who don’t think God exists. (A great look at this kind of approach I started recently is Rembrandt in the Wind) In my own works of video games and theology, I regularly point to this along with the impact of a story on people.

Aside from content also, this book was meant to be read by groups. The chapters are short enough that people can read them in a week’s time and meet together and discuss the questions together. Would that more people would do this. I would encourage anyone wanting to do evangelism to read this book. Frankly, I would encourage you to read anything by Bates. You won’t be disappointed.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Christians and Conspiracy Theories

What do I think of Mike Duran’s book? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

There was a time and age when someone with a conspiracy theory on the internet was looked at as nuts. To be fair, some theories are crazy. However, lately, it has seemed that more and more people who claim something against the prevailing narrative are right.

There was a time to say COVID was a lab leak was false. Now it’s acceptable news. The Biden laptop was seen as Russian disinformation. Not anymore. You used to be a villain if you opposed wearing a mask or lockdowns. Now it looks like those didn’t really do any significant good if any.

It looks like more and more that if you want to go and see what today’s news is, just look at the conspiracy theories from 2-3 years ago.

Yet I did say some such theories are crazy. Jesus Mythicism comes to mind. How is a Christian to know what to think? How does one investigate a claim to see if it is true?

I saw that Mike Duran had written a book on this and I decided since this was an area of interest to me, I would get it and check it out. There are a number of benefits to this book. For one, there is a generally good guide to how one should go about studying these claims.

There are general rules to check a source, for example. He mentions that Politifact will often say a story that is largely true but comes from a Republican source as mostly false. This is not to say conservatives like myself don’t have a bias, but it is certain that today, the fact-checkers have a bias as well and we should all watch ours.

He also does talk about levels of skepticism that one can have. You can be completely certain a claim is false or agnostic to it or just skeptical of it. On the surface, there are a lot of claims for any conspiracy theory likely that many a layman won’t be able to answer let alone sometimes an expert not due to them being difficult, but to them going on a highly technical point. Many New Testament scholars don’t bother interacting with arguments of Jesus mythicists and more laymen like myself can usually be better equipped. We can all be sure that the moon landing was not faked, but that doesn’t mean that all of us could easily answer arguments from moon mythicists.

Duran guides the reader through the process and explores how he comes to conclusions on various matters. All of this is good and helpful. Christians should be people of truth and we shouldn’t believe everything, nor should we dismiss everything.

That being said, I have some criticisms. The first one is a minor one.

There is good information here, but I wish that it had been broken down into smaller bits. Normally, I go through multiple books on my Kindle at a time and read a chapter a day of each. I couldn’t do that here as chapters could be unusually long.

However, my main problem was Duran frequently puts his eschatology at the center so what happens when there is a fellow Christian that doesn’t share that eschatology? For instance, on page 191 he writes:

This present age will culminate in a period of great deception and turmoil, concluding in the bodily return of Jesus Christ and the final judgment of the wicked and the righteous. (Matt. 24) All of these claims are elements of biblical epistemology. They are foundational, axiomatic, to the Christian’s knowledge of the world around us.

I find this language problematic. It treats the idea that Matthew 24 is our future as something necessary to a Christian worldview. There is a part where Duran says he knows not every Christian holds to this eschatology (see below), but if you don’t, then where do you fit? Do you deny something that is a claim of biblical epistemology, that is foundational, and that is axiomatic?

I hold to a view of orthodox Preterism. If you tell me that Matthew 24 is about the bodily return of Jesus, I will thoroughly disagree. Thus, when Duran regularly tied his understanding of the world to his eschatology, I could not go along. It’s similar to a preacher I hear on the radio every Sunday as I’m heading to church telling me “Jesus is coming soon. The signs are all around us!”

Which has been being said for how long?

Also on page 202:

Despite the assertion of many possible futures, Christians believe the Scripture reveals a rather specific unfolding redemptive plan. While it could involve technology, nuclear war, and even non-terrestrial entities, the biblical timeline envisions our world culminating in global cataclysm, war, spiritual deception, persecution of Christians, the appearance of the Antichrist, Armageddon, the Second Coming of Christ , and the Final Judgement. Yes, there are different branches of eschatology. But the Church has historically believed that most of these aforementioned elements will constitute the End Times.

However, the church has not historically held to all forms of futurism either, such as dispensational futurism. I can definitely say I hold to the return of Christ and the final judgment, but others like war and spiritual deception and persecution I hold not because of biblical prophecies, but because if you look at the history of humanity, well, let’s just say the odds are on the side of those not ceasing any time soon.

Unfortunately, what about those other Christians is not really explained.

And finally on 202:

One such belief often concerns a New World Order (NWO). The idea of a one-world government is commonly seen in the books of Daniel and Revelation. This geo-political end-times empire emerges after the rise of a confederation of ten nations or regions (Rev. 13:1; Dan. 2:41-42, 7: 16–24). One member of this confederacy (the Antichrist) displaces three of the other members and rules over this alliance. Some see this confederation as the United Nations. Others have associated it with the European Common Market, and even speculate that Brexit plays a part in this unfolding biblical prophecy.

We all know of many futurist predictions of what the Bible says that have been proven to be false. When I meet other futurists, I tell them they interpret the text differently I am sure, but how is their hermeneutic any different?

However, I find it odd to point to Daniel as a fulfillment of One World government. Let’s look at the passage in Daniel 2 entirely. These are the verses Duran cites above:

41 Just as you saw that the feet and toes were partly of baked clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom; yet it will have some of the strength of iron in it, even as you saw iron mixed with clay. 42 As the toes were partly iron and partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle.

But if we look at the passage as a whole.

31 “Your Majesty looked, and there before you stood a large statue—an enormous, dazzling statue, awesome in appearance. 32 The head of the statue was made of pure gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, 33 its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of baked clay. 34 While you were watching, a rock was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and smashed them. 35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were all broken to pieces and became like chaff on a threshing floor in the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth.

36 “This was the dream, and now we will interpret it to the king. 37 Your Majesty, you are the king of kings. The God of heaven has given you dominion and power and might and glory; 38 in your hands he has placed all mankind and the beasts of the field and the birds in the sky. Wherever they live, he has made you ruler over them all. You are that head of gold.

39 “After you, another kingdom will arise, inferior to yours. Next, a third kingdom, one of bronze, will rule over the whole earth. 40 Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron—for iron breaks and smashes everything—and as iron breaks things to pieces, so it will crush and break all the others. 41 Just as you saw that the feet and toes were partly of baked clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom; yet it will have some of the strength of iron in it, even as you saw iron mixed with clay. 42 As the toes were partly iron and partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle. 43 And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with clay.

44 “In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. 45 This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands—a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces.

“The great God has shown the king what will take place in the future. The dream is true and its interpretation is trustworthy.”

Now if you look, Nebuchadnezzar is the gold part. The next kingdom is the Medo-Persian empire. The third kingdom is the Greek kingdom which through Alexander the Great rules the Earth. The final kingdom is a brittle kingdom but one that is strong as iron and crushes everything. This is Rome. Now either in the time of Rome as the text says, a kingdom was established that will never end. Now let’s ponder this. What could be a kingdom that arose in the time of the Roman Empire that will never have any end whatsoever? We have a limited timeframe since the Roman Empire fell in 476 AD.

Could it be, and I’m just taking a wild shot here, the Kingdom of God?

If we’re talking about a one-world government that is the Kingdom of God, yeah. I’m cool with that. Note this does not mean one man claiming to rule on God’s behalf. It means Christ being the king overall. I’m fine with that one.

In Daniel 7, we see similar:

15 “I, Daniel, was troubled in spirit, and the visions that passed through my mind disturbed me. 16 I approached one of those standing there and asked him the meaning of all this.

“So he told me and gave me the interpretation of these things: 17 ‘The four great beasts are four kings that will rise from the earth. 18 But the holy people of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever—yes, for ever and ever.’

19 “Then I wanted to know the meaning of the fourth beast, which was different from all the others and most terrifying, with its iron teeth and bronze claws—the beast that crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. 20 I also wanted to know about the ten horns on its head and about the other horn that came up, before which three of them fell—the horn that looked more imposing than the others and that had eyes and a mouth that spoke boastfully. 21 As I watched, this horn was waging war against the holy people and defeating them, 22 until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the holy people of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom.

23 “He gave me this explanation: ‘The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it. 24 The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings. 25 He will speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people and try to change the set times and the laws. The holy people will be delivered into his hands for a time, times and half a time.

26 “‘But the court will sit, and his power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever. 27 Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be handed over to the holy people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.’

We have again four different kingdoms. How does it end in verse 26 and on? All the Kingdoms are given to God, again. If this is one-world government, I’m fine with that.

Besides this, look at all that is going on in Daniel. In this chapter, you have one kingdom after another conquering each other and then in chapter 11 you have a back and forth history of war going on between two kingdoms. How does this show a one-world government? Revelation is quite similar. See what’s going on in there. You have war taking place constantly. The Beast and the Harlot don’t even work together ultimately.

Duran has a lot of good material here, but I wish he hadn’t made his eschatology central to that. If your eschatology is wrong and you read modern day events in light of that, you could do a great harm and ultimately miss the meaning of the text.

Christians need to think about conspiracy theories. This one is a good start to go to. Put aside the eschatology and there’s plenty of good to get.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

 

 

 

%d bloggers like this: