I’m putting together a video or two for YouTube documenting the amazing antics of one Texe Marrs. So today I played the recording of Marrs’ call to KIXL Radio back in 1994 during my radio debate with D.A. Waite. Then we took a good call on the Book of Mormon, then I reviewed some Jimmy Akin comments on predestination.
Now, I mention a letter Marrs sent to me back then. I also mentioned that when I replied, he sent it back with red letters written across the fax saying he didn’t want anymore of my “evil trash.” And it was sent to me in a particular envelope that had written on it “Rev 1:1” next to “Alpha and Omega.” In his initial letter Marrs had scribbled that I was “a sinner in need of redemption, so arrogant & uninformed you do not even know that the new versions take out the “Alpha + Omega” –the very name of your Fake “ministry” in one passage of Revelation.” So in my response fax I provided him with the following information:
Secondly, you assert that I am “arrogant and uninformed” with reference to the phrase “Alpha and Omega” in the book of Revelation, and the fact that there is one place where the modern texts do not include the phrase. I can assure you, sir, that I am not in the least ignorant of the textual variation found at Revelation 1:11. We chose the name Alpha and Omega Ministries on the basis of Revelation 1:8 and 22:13, not 1:11. The phrase is found in that passage only in the MA text type; it is not found in א A C 1006. 1841. 2050. 2329. 2351. MK lat sy sa. Hence, the Nestle-Aland, UBS 4th, and Majority texts do not place this reading in the text, and rightfully so. Of course, this is in no way, shape, or form does damage to the plain identification of the Lord Jesus Christ as the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. As I have shared this precious truth with many, many Jehovah’s Witnesses over the years, I can assure you that they are hard pressed to explain this clear teaching of Scripture. And I am just as hard pressed to understand both the hard, mean-spiritedness in your letter, and your willingness to defend what is plainly a later addition to God’s Holy Word. I despair of your providing a meaningful answer to this question, but why do you invest infallibility in Desiderius Erasmus, a Roman Catholic priest, who made the choice of including this passage in his text? The inconsistency of this action, given your other statements, is exceptionally plain.
Keep this information in mind as you listen to today’s DL and especially as you listen to Texe Marrs put on one of the most amazing displays of documented dishonesty I’ve seen.