The SillyBrit pointed me to another wonderful example of the "yeah, we are biased, we don't care, its the new journalism" mentality of the modern Left. Here is a BBC article making the rounds, written by Roger Bolton. I would like to think Mr. Bolton was not purposefully trying to be a complete snob toward believing Christians, but his writing makes it hard to conclude otherwise. Let's look at some of the more notable comments found in this BBC production.

Under the picture provided above a caption is provided, "What is probably the oldest known bible (bible? How about qur'an?) is being digitised (yes, that proves it is a British production), reuniting its scattered parts for the first time since its discovery 160 years ago. It is markedly different from its modern equivalent. What's left out?"

I am truly left wondering if Mr. Bolton himself has ever studied Codex Sinaiticus? I have more resources on the subject than the time to read them, but when I get a few moments I do enjoy reading works like the one pictured here. If I only worked in NT subjects I'd spend a lot more time on the issue, since I have such a passion for textual critical issues. But I was recently reading through portions of this work on a flight to...somewhere (I lose track), and my, I got odd looks from my fellow passengers. Almost as odd as the looks I get when reading books filled with Arabic quotations. In any case, one of the frustrating things about this article is the obvious assumption on Bolton's part that believing Christians are a bunch of bumbling fools without the first interest in the history of their own faith. And given Bolton's main source is...Bart Ehrman (just how important is that debate in January?), I have to note that Ehrman likewise hints broadly that Christians have in essence "hidden" the history of the Bible and, in general, are ignorant thereof. That is partly true, but it is not because those of us who are not ignorant of the truth do not make every attempt to spread that knowledge far and wide. Ehrman even claims to be the first one to write a layman's level book explaining textual critical matters. I guess he skipped The King James Only Controversy, which did just that long before his own book came out (he was referring to MisQuoting Jesus---I would say there is a lot more discussion of textual variation in my work than in his).

Getting back to the article, is א (Aleph, the designation in textual critical works for Codex Sinaiticus) "markedly different" than modern Bibles? Well, aside from its age, its language, its form, to what is Bolton referring? Two things: a warped, "textual scholar spins stuff for the ignorant media" view of how "different" its text is from the modern Greek textual platform (NA/UBS) together with the "if it was bound together as one volume, that must mean the original creator viewed all the books as canonical" claim. That's the extent of it. The well-read Christian already knows this, so evidently we are not the folks Bolton is trying to impress.

The article gives a little background and mentions the fact that א is going "on line" (see it here). Then we get this amazingly condescending paragraph:

For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today's bible.

Oh no! Surely, no one who believes the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered Word of God has ever run into a history of the Bible! None of us have ever poured over Sinaiticus, marveled at such a treasure...oh, wait, even Tischendorf was a Christian who believed the Bible was the Word of God. Well, so sorry, chap (please read that with a British accent). I guess I can't blame Bolton---Ehrman likewise gives the impression that "born agains" are these ignorant, back-woods folks who don't know anything about the Bible. He promotes the viewpoint regularly, whether he knows it or not, so possibly Bolton is just following his sources? In any case, the idea that the publication of א is going to present "questions" that we Bible believers have not fully worked through long, long ago only shows how little Mr. Bolton knows his subject.

The Codex, probably the oldest Bible we have, also has books which are missing from the Authorised Version that most Christians are familiar with today - and it does not have crucial verses relating to the Resurrection.

Notice the assumption that "inclusion between leather covers = inclusion in the canon." He clearly has no idea that this is a disputed claim, and is simply following Ehrman, who, sadly, often forgets to provide "the other side" to the ever-hungry media. Yes, א contains non-canonical books, specifically, the Shepherd of Hermes and the Epistle of Barnabas. Both were, at some point in time, viewed as canonical by small groups of believers, often by those from the area where the books were actually produced. But it is a long leap from this historical observation (one known to any first year church history student in Bible college) to the uncritically promoted conclusion that this means the original copyists/producers of א believed these books to be Scripture. It is just as likely, and in fact, more likely, that they did not. Why? Because א was produced around the time of the Council of Nicea, and the fortunes of both of those books had fallen off considerably by that time. They were considered by many to be good books to be read for edification, but not part of canonical Scripture (to borrow the conclusion of Athanasius writing just a few decades later). Having them copied and included no more made them canonical than including John MacArthur's study notes makes them canonical. It was easier to have such a major project as that represented by א done in one fell swoop rather than having lots of smaller projects, and the result was a very, very large book. But one book is easier to transport/carry than multiples, and evidently, that is what happened in this case. But the specifics aside, I can only shake my head at the condescending attitude of the media today that would assume that if you believe in inerrancy you must be an IQ-challenged dolt without the first clue as to the history of your own faith. And I hope the reader finds Bolton's quotation of the words of Barnabas at least somewhat revealing: how dare Barnabas contain such words...except...that they come from the New Testament (Matthew 27:25).

At this point Ehrman comes into view, and of course, what I found interesting was Ehrman's repetition of his "the Bible can't be inspired because it was not copied perfectly in every single instance" argument: the very essence of our debate in January. Listen to this paragraph:

And although many of the other alterations and differences are minor, these may take some explaining for those who believe every word comes from God.

Sadly, the answers given...for centuries...often by leading Christian scholars in the United Kingdom seem to be utter news to this writer. This level of ignorance is truly amazing. Later he opines,

Fundamentalists, who believe every word in the Bible is true, may find these differences unsettling.

Yeah, us fundies have never heard of Sinaiticus alright. Amazing, just amazing. Can Bolton really believe Sinaiticus is news? We move on,

Mr Ehrman was a born again Bible-believing Evangelical until he read the original Greek texts and noticed some discrepancies.

The Bible we now use can't be the inerrant word of God, he says, since what we have are the sometimes mistaken words copied by fallible scribes.

Someone needs to get this story straight, and I think Dr. Ehrman should be on the front lines correcting all these misapprehensions...unless it is his own story that has caused them. Ehrman has directly, clearly said that it was not the textual issue that caused him to lose his faith, it was theodicy, the problem of evil. Yet, he does not seem overly intent upon correcting this kind of false assertion. Sadly, MisQuoting Jesus sold a lot better than God's Problem did, so, when you are depending upon your role as the "reverse Paul," maybe it is acceptable to allow the readers to think you converted for reasons you say you did not, as long as it "helps the cause."

This may not sound like a heavy-weight argument, but I intend, early on in our debate, to ask a basic question of Dr. Ehrman: "Why?" Yes, "why?" Why do you believe God could not have inspired His Word in writing (outside of chiseling it in a mountain side) until Gutenberg, at the earliest, and probably, not until computerized technology came about? Can you give us something more than "Well, I just don't think He would use imperfect human beings to transmit His Word over time...or, he'd remove their humanity from them long enough to over-ride any possible copyist errors anyway"? I hope my question will be answered in the opening statements, honestly, but if it isn't, I will be asking that one pretty early on.

Four variants are noted in the article. Note that Bolton never gives the references. He leaves it nebulous so that it looks a lot more nefarious than the reality. Regular readers of this blog will have to chuckle just a little bit at this one:

Nor are there words of forgiveness from the cross. Jesus does not say "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".

Who was it who did an entire hour on the textual variant at Luke 23:34 just recently on their webcast? Oh, that was me and Alan K.! Yes indeed. And did we not discuss the two readings of Sinaiticus? In fact, I posted graphics from the manuscript to aid those listening to the webcast (found here). And yet somehow, I still believe in the inerrancy of Scripture! How can this be?

Isn't it odd that we conservative, Bible-believing Christians produce hour long webcasts going in-depth into the text of א but all the BBC can do is give vague references without even providing the citations of the relevant texts? And why even raise well-known textual issues like John 7:53-8:11, unless you are either writing this solely for shock value, or, you really have no idea what you are talking about?

Once again, this is all we can expect out of the leftist media today, almost anywhere. There is no counter-balancing in sources, no checking of facts. Just throw it out there, assume anyone who is not a good secular humanist is an ignorant and gullible person fresh off the farm, and think you have practiced true journalism. My, how far the BBC has fallen!

Greetings Dr White

I would like to express my gratitude for the blessing that your ministry has brought me. My interest in the serious study of God's Word and theology started when I first listened to the Dividing Line 8 yrs ago. Your ministry exposed me to serious scholarship in theological studies. After studying and embracing the doctrines of grace, I can honestly say that theology has impacted my Christian life greatly. Yes, theology does matter! May God continue to give you opportunities to proclaim the gospel with boldlness and clarity.

Soli Deo Gloria

Greetings from Florida,

Many years ago I read an article by James White in the Christian Research Journal on the doctrine of the Trinity. This article caused me to understand the subject better and enabled me to witness to folks in the UPCI. Our church has hosted two debates on the subject in the past five years and we have seen some folks strengthened from these discussions and we have seen some leave the UPCI. I personally pass out "The forgotten Trinity" at these discussions as well. All of this is a result of reading that one article.

I was formally anti-Calvinist as well, though still not a Calvinist, I am now open to seriously studying the subject because of James' attitude with others that are non-Calvinist. I now have many friends that are Calvinist and have realized that you can't judge all Calvinist alike.

Finally, this ministry continues to bless me with the wonderful articles, books, and especially the debates. I pray for James and alpha and omega ministry on a regular basis. This is a very unique ministry indeed and it must continue.

--DA

KUWAIT CITY : Kuwait Human Rights Society (KHRS) Chairman Dr Adel Al-Damkhi has asked the government to put pressure on the officials of ‘YouTube’ — a video sharing website — to delete all derogatory statements about Islam and Muslims from the site, reports Al-Seyassah.

Urging the authorities to take the necessary legal action in case the website fails to erase the statements, Al-Damkhi stressed “uttering profanities against Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is the worst form of human rights violation in the world. Attacks on the values and tenets of Islam are extremely dangerous and unacceptable.”

Al-Damkhi pointed out the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) strongly condemns attacks on the holy prophets and religions. He confirmed KHRS recognizes the importance of freedom of conducting scientific research, exchange of information, and significance of the latest technologies and media on human lives, but it is against how ‘YouTube’ depicts Islam. He said this is an outright violation of the human rights of millions of Muslims all over the world.

Dear Dr. White,

I first discovered Alpha & Omega Ministries about eight years ago. I was looking at the NIV website, and at the bottom was a link to ?New Age Bible Versions Refuted.? I had never even heard of the King James Only issue, but I read your article and eagerly looked for more. That was only the beginning!

Aomin.org is the first website I pull up on my computer in the morning. I have read all your articles, listened to every Dividing Line webcast, read three of your books (and am looking forward to ordering the new edition of ?The King James Only Controversy? when it comes out), and have mentioned your site many times to others as a great source of information. Call me a junkie if you like, but that?s okay.

Eight years ago I had no idea what Christian apologetics was. Though I had been a Christian for ten years by then, I knew next to nothing of most of the topics with which you deal, and had never even heard of many of the theological terms. Nowadays my pastor refers to me as a ?good apologist,? and I was frequently asked for my views during his recent class on bibliology. Furthermore, I am going to lead our weekly men?s Bible study soon, and I plan to teach the proper biblical interpretation of Matthew 16. Without the information I?ve picked up from your apologetics work, I would have had no interest, much less the tools, to do such a thing.

But well beyond theology, your work has taught me critical thinking skills that I have used in other arenas. I can spot poor argumentation and the proper methods of combating it. I have gained an appreciation of the importance of preparation. I have come to see the importance of scholarship, but have also seen the importance of not attaching infallibility to it. Even if I were to never see or listen to your output again, I have gained that much.

I?d love to get together with you sometime and enjoy a theological discussion over a game of chess (my peak USCF rating was 2035) [VB: mine was just over 1800, but that was when I was 14!] Failing that, I would love, beyond seeing a continuation of your present work, to have you bring out an ?Apologetics Study Bible,? such that it would contain your concise notes next to the myriad of verses that get debated so often.

May God continue to bless your ministry for many years. Please also pass along my kindest regards to Mr. Pierce, whose hard behind-the-scenes work we all appreciate so much.

--VB

Very early this morning I happened to get up. I wandered into the kitchen to get a drink, and ran my finger over the touchpad of my Mac to check my mail. One of the e-mails was from Sami Zaatari, a Palestinian Muslim living in London. Mr. Zaatari was in the LA area a few weeks ago, and presented Islamic objections to the Christian proclamation of the Gospel during the Friday evening activities. You may recall that he was one of the Muslim debaters in Norfolk, Virginia earlier this year as well. He is a very young gentleman. When I first heard him speak I could tell he was an intelligent fellow, though not at all well read in the Christian faith, to be sure. During his second debate I was a bit less impressed, simply because I sensed a certain sharpness as in a willingness to say things that are simply untrue for the sake of "effect." He likewise demonstrated the standard "Muslim street" tactic of citing anything, no matter how inconsistent it might be with his own self-professed worldview, as long as it could be used as a shallow, thoughtless weapon against Christianity.

Mr. Zaatari and I will be debating in London in November, and again at some point (date not yet determined as I write this) in Connecticut in February (along with Jalal Abualrub). I am sometimes asked why I would debate a young, inexperienced man like Sami Zaatari. The answer is simple: while I seek to defend the Christian gospel against the leading proponents of Islam, I have come to realize that especially in the West, there is a vast difference between the arguments and approach of those leading intellectuals and those in leadership in Muslim countries. You can see this for yourself. Go listen to a Hamza Yusuf lecture on YouTube, then listen to MemriTV and listen to the most recent appearance of a leading Imam from Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the like, and compare them. If you did not know better you would think they were presenting different religions, the only similarity being the language they use. Of course, in passing, you might note the freedom Muslims have in non-Islamic countries to speak their case, and the lack of such freedom for Christians in the Islamic countries. We will return to that later. In any case, Mr. Zaatari represents the "Muslim street," the kind of Islam that represents the views and feelings of the mass of Muslims, the ones living in Islamic societies, and, the ones attacking our brothers and sisters in other lands. They may do so only verbally, arguing against Christians in the marketplace, but as we all know, they do so regularly in a much more open fashion, persecuting, beating, imprisoning, and even killing, believers who refuse to renounce their allegiance to Jesus Christ. So for the sake of those precious believers who suffer in Muslim lands, I debate the Sami Zaataris and Osama Abdullahs and Jalal Abualrubs so that I may provide to those precious brothers and sisters the biblical and apologetic resources they need to give an answer in their own contexts. As long as I have the freedom to do so, I will. Of course, Islamic leaders are doing their best to use the ignorance and gullibility of the secularized West to silence all such efforts, as I noted just yesterday here on the blog.

Now, the last contact I had with Mr. Zaatari were some e-mails a few days about out the details of our upcoming debate. They had been "bland" discussions, nothing of any note. So as I scanned the beginning of Mr. Zaatari's e-mail early this morning, I was left wondering what had happened. The first paragraph read:

Here is a new article I just wrote against you http://muslim-responses.com/Soldier_of_Christ/Soldier_of_Christ_ which fully exposes you to the core. It exposes what is becoming an apparent rising bigotry in yourself against the Muslim nation. I am seriously loosing more respect for you by the MINUTE, not the days or weeks or months, but by the MINUTE, not that you really care though but I care and I just though you should know how I feel about you before we debate because I’m not a coward and speak my mind and let people truly know what I truly believe and feel, whether it be about their beliefs or the person them self.

I rose this morning and went back to the e-mail, this time following the link to the article. And finally I had my answer. As you can see by reading his article, we have here a very valuable insight into the religio-political nature of Islam. Islam is not merely a religion. It is an entire political ideology. They are inextricably linked. To the Muslim who cannot think outside of that "box," the matters that separate us are not primarily religious in nature. It would be like my trying to hear Barak Obama lecture on monergism vs. synergism: no matter how hard I try, I will "hear" what he would say with political overtones of partial birth abortion, gay "marriage," and sub-prime mortgages, and the truly religious nature of the dialogue would be deeply, deeply colored by those things. This is how the Muslim hears the Christian speaking today (outside of the intervention of the Spirit, anyway). I posted a letter from....A SOLDIER! Gasp! The fact that it never once crossed my mind in doing so that someone like Sami Zaatari, a Palestinian Muslim, would come unglued as a result, illustrates the vast chasm that separates us. For him, I am a hypocrite, since, for him, this illustrates that "Christianity" is invading Islam.

A similar thing happened recently in talking to Osama Abdullah on the way to San Diego. Mr. Abdullah blamed Christianity for the rise in homosexuality. He made reference to "Christian cultures." I demanded he name a single "Christian culture" in the world today. After repeatedly demanding he do so, he finally said, "Well...America!" He found himself on the end of a fairly fervent mini-sermon, I assure you. But this is how they think. For them, it is Christianity vs. Islam, the Crusaders vs. the faithful. And no matter how painfully obvious it is that the West HATES the Gospel, DESPISES God's law, and only rarely FEIGNS honor toward Christ, their political ideology trumps these facts and twists their thinking. The result has so far cost countless lives.

This mindset explains lots of things. For example, Muslims will call almost anyone in the West a "Christian" when citing sources in debates, even if there is a clear, obvious inconsistency in so doing. The political boundaries trump those of theology. Hence, they can assert a level of disagreement amongst "Christians" that doesn't actually exist, simply because they insist that basically, if you aren't a Muslim in the West, you are a Christian. Hence, secular liberalism becomes a form of Christianity in their thinking. So, the secularists who promote homosexuality are "Christians," hence, Christianity becomes responsible for homosexuality, abortion, you name it. Logical? Truthful? Of course not. But it is the Muslim mind, and we better understand it. Of course, as soon as we understand it, we are faced with a major problem: if the Muslim mind is, by definition, irrational and impervious to truth, what hope is there? And that is why theology matters! If you are an Arminian reading this, I don't have any suggestions for you. If you, like me, believe God raises the spiritually dead to life, changes hearts and minds by sovereign grace, then you already know why the situation is not hopeless.

So you can see the great "hypocrisy" I am guilty of in the mind of Sami Zaatari. For him, any soldier is equivalent to a Crusader, in essence (though, anyone at all familiar with the Crusades and the Islamic response knows how deeply, deeply ignorant modern Muslims are about that time period). So, while I can express amazement at Jalal Abualrub's assertion that "Christianity invaded Iraq," here I am saying just the opposite. Or so, that is what he "hears," not because it is true, but because Islam by its very nature distorts and twists the truth.

I know only the Spirit of God can make Sami "hear" what I am saying, and I truly pray God will open the young man's mind to the glory of Christ. But I will keep saying it, in the hopes that eventually, God will have mercy upon his soul.

James -- As a cradle Catholic and pretty much a life-long Catholic (who seriously considered studying for the priesthood at one point), and even a veteran of several years' worth of Opus Dei "evenings of recollection," I cannot thank you enough for your ministry. I was one of those who was a happy Catholic, and overjoyed with the publication of ECT. That is, until I started looking at the issues. And just about that time, the Internet started coming on line, and I was able to look at both sides of that issue with clarity, thanks to your efforts. I mentioned your name specifically as an influence, when I sent "Father Dan" my resignation letter from our parish. (That was no small decision on my part -- I was the guy with five kids who frequently sat up front, holding two little ones in my arms, who frequently had to exit, red-faced, carrying a crying baby).

I am a long time web fan of yours and I have read a number of your books. Particularly helpful to me were "The God Who Justifies," "The Potter's Freedom," and of course, "The Roman Catholic Controversy."

As well, I can second the letter that you posted earlier, in that "I have actually learned how to think logically and biblically by reading your correspondence with others. I find the manner in which you communicate with those whom you disagree as graceful yet bluntly honest. I notice the great dishonesty and flat out bad argumentation of those who try to debunk you (really debunk actual Scripture or historical accuracy). Your direct refutations with fact and documentation are wonderful. Stick to the honest facts, and truth will prevail. I have learned what honest argumentation is in contrast to the flawed and egregious."

Plus I have come into contact with some great people (in real life!) through your ministry.

Many thanks for all that you do. I hope you continue to do what you do for a long, long time.

-JB