Home » Posts tagged 'Wes Huff'
Tag Archives: Wes Huff
Answering the “Cultish” Wes Huff Podcast on King James Only (Part Two)
Loving the KJV?
About middle of first episode, Wes Huff says he loves the King James Version, even though he also says in the same paragraph that he doesn’t recommend the King James Version of the Bible. Those like Wes love almost every English translation of the Bible for some reason or another, even though they differ in their underlying text two to seven percent. He thinks the KJV is wrong on a number of passages — longer ending of Mark, woman caught in adultery, and the inclusion of 1 John 5:7. But that’s okay, because no one is completely sure anyway.
Certainty is what makes the “KJVO cult.” To not be a cult requires something more in line with confidence, which is not perfection. Even though I think Huff would support verbal, plenary inspiration of scripture, he doesn’t think we know with certainty what those words are. The underlying text of the King James Version, based on naturalistic presuppositions, is too long.
Tradition? Liking a Clean Narrative and Stability?
Huff then says, “There’s something about humans that like tradition.” He’s saying that support of the King James is because of tradition. I don’t know anyone who says that. He gives no evidence that this is the reasoning behind a continued use of the King James Version. Huff is flat-out wrong on this. Maybe tradition in the Church of England results in the continued usage of the King James Version in certain Anglican congregations, but this isn’t true of the confessional bibliology, ecclesiastical text, or perfect preservationist crowd.
Furthermore, Huff says, people “like a clean narrative” and “stability.” That’s it. He just knows what people really think that they don’t say that they think. They do anyways, because Huff knows better. But this isn’t true. They have scriptural and historical presuppositions. The verses that teach the perfect preservation of scripture guide the expectations about the Bible just like many other doctrines. This is living by faith and not by sight.
Dumbing Down “Perfect”
One of the hosts asks Wes Huff, “If your Bible is not perfect, then how can it be the Word of God?” Huff starts his answer with the words, “I think it begs the question by what we mean by perfect.” Then he says, “I don’t know if I would use the word perfect, because the word perfect implies flawless.” Huff explains that for most of recorded history, you couldn’t do a photocopy of something. You had to write things down and sometimes mistakes were made, Huff says — even with the printing press, giving the example of the infamous “Wicked Bible.”
Question: “Is the Bible a supernatural book?” Could God keep every Word perfect? Did He say He would? Then that’s what we believe — what God said He would do.
Scribal Errors and Debunking God’s Promise of Perfect Preservation
Huff says, “We can’t just brush over the way God has preserved His Word.” He introduces that statement with the reality of scribal errors found in the massive manuscript evidence. He says, “God included humanity into the process.” Huff is true in that men copied scripture and made errors in copying. What he doesn’t mention are these underlying scriptural presuppositions of providential, divine preservation and a settled text. Men have faith in the inspiration of the original manuscripts and they also must have faith in the perfect preservation of the Words of God, based on His promises.
When Huff says we can’t brush away the way God preserved His Word, he’s saying that God didn’t preserve every Word, which itself isn’t preservation. It is unbelief. The prevailing scholarly view is that words were lost. They don’t want to say that, that they are still attempting to restore a lost text, but that is their view. This is their so-called non-cultish view. God said He would keep them, they would be available, but they weren’t, and this is reality.
Hebrews 10:7
The primary host of Cultish asks Huff about an argument from Gene Kim, an online Bible teacher and pastor in Berkeley, California, where he refers to Hebrews 10:7:
Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Kim says that God has more than just manuscripts, but a Book. I believe Kim makes a good argument in the line of a settled text of scripture. You can’t just slough it off, like Huff does. God says, “the book” here in Hebrews, a quotation too from Psalm 40:7. Believers would expect “the book,” one book, not just fragments and copies of mere individual books. “The book of Moses” isn’t just one book, but five books. Yet, it is “the book.”
The historical interpretation of “the book” in Hebrews 10:7 is not an anachronism, what Huff calls it. I know someone who hand copied the entire Bible (many have done this) and it is still “the book” as a manuscript, a manual copy, not a printed edition, of the Bible.
The Job of an Apologist
Exegesis
Huff and these men on Cultish are apparently apologists. What’s the point or purpose of apologists or apology? It is defense of what? Shouldn’t they defend what scripture says rather than defend a particular dogma that proceeds from a naturalistic presupposition, conforming scripture to a preconception? Instead, they undermine faith in a perfect Bible, because of the existence of textual variants. Where does denying verses of the Bible stop in the presence of “external evidence” that apparently disagrees with the teaching in the verses?
The historical, biblical interpretation of “the book” in Hebrews 10:7 is the present written scriptures as of the writing of Hebrews 10:7, which is the entire Old Testament, a singular book. “The volume of the book” is “the scroll of the book” both in Psalm 40:7 and Hebrews 10:7. A scroll speaks of a hand copy, that is still a book. This is simple exegesis that Huff will not engage. He ignores the biblical argument and instead shoots from the hip about the anachronism of “the book” as it relates to manuscripts, essentially creating a smoke cloud of obfuscation.
The Expectation of the Book
Huff says that these books, speaking of individual books of the Bible, “floated around independently.” According to scripture, these books were not “floating around.” We know that copies of individual books were sent and shared (Colossians 4:16).
The second host of Cultish then made a point that “the book” in Hebrews 10:7 is not the King James Version. Genius. Who says that? The Father said to the Son, “In the scroll of the King James Version it is written of me.” The point of Kim, I’m sure, is that saints should have an expectation of “the Book,” speaking of all the individual books into one book. What is controversial about that? He is saying that digging up all these fragments and portions of hand copies should not overturn the book God preserved and said He preserved.
“It Is Written”
Furthermore, a point I didn’t hear. Maybe Kim made it in his presentation. “It is written” is perfect indicative passive, meaning that it remains written in the writing of Hebrews. When was the volume written? Settled in heaven with the Father and the Son and continuing until the writing of Hebrews. This is teaching preservation of scripture. These apologists can’t dig into that, because it contradicts their naturalistic presuppositions, ignoring the doctrine of preservation.
I don’t know if Gene Kim thinks that “the book” is the King James Version or its underlying text (apparently, Kim is a Ruckmanite, which we oppose here vociferously). Either way, his point remains, that is, everything written in the book remains in the book. That is the underlying text from which the translation comes. That means the translation is “the Book.” Something is the Book. Kim is saying it is something. I am saying it is something. They are saying, it isn’t quite something. Maybe it is what is written. Probably not, because that’s “reality” as Huff says, which is his epistemology.
More to Come
Answering the “Cultish” Wes Huff Podcast on King James Only (Part One)
Cultish from Apologia Studios
Shortly after Wes Huff appeared on Joe Rogan, he came on a podcast, which affiliates with Apologia Studios, called “Cultish.” The men who do this show are also trying to become viewer or listener funded. In other words, they think they should go full time doing what they do. Their show came on my radar because of Wes Huff’s interview by Joe Rogan. The number of hits on this episode showed the Joe Rogan effect two times removed, 58,000 plus having watched this “Cultish” episode.
Just listening to the interview with Huff to answer King James Only, I would tell them, Don’t quit your day jobs. No one should fund this and for many reasons. It’s a hot mess. So why answer it? I’m doing it because it offers an evaluation of what kind of gibberish and absolute gobbledygook addresses King James Only. It reminds me of the typical left-winged rubbish, such as the woman at CBS who said free speech caused the holocaust. It is on that level, so ignorant, it’s hard to fathom. I find myself just wagging my head.
Straw-manning Versus Steel-manning
Maybe you’ve heard the difference between steel-manning and straw-manning a position. Wikipedia gives a definition to steel-manning (in case you don’t know):
A steel man argument (or steelmanning) is the opposite of a straw man argument. Steelmanning is the practice of applying the rhetorical principle of charity through addressing the strongest form of the other person’s argument, even if it is not the one they explicitly presented.
These men, including Wes Huff, only straw-man the position. If someone were examining something to see if it is a cult (you know, out of concern for the cult member), he would want to give an accurate representation. They do not do that. This is in the nature of bias confirmation and speaking into the echo chamber.
Just to start, why does KJVO appear as a cult? That’s never explained. The subject matter doesn’t belong on a show about cults, but it’s low hanging fruit for the heavily tattooed Apologia crowd and its cohorts. If someone will call KJVO a cult, someone could easily call something an Alexandrian or Vatican text cult, and have similar grounds for it. If KJVO is a cult, how does calling it a cult help deliver someone, who embraces the King James Version as the Bible, from the cult to which he belongs?
The Vulgate Argument
The content of the podcast of part one begins actually around the six minute mark. The Cultish host asks Huff a question about bridging a gap between the Council of Nicea and 1611 and the King James Version, there seeming to be a crying need for a translation from the original languages in 1611. It’s not a bad question. Huff answers the question by saying that the contemporary view of Jerome’s Vulgate is similar to the KJVO view of the King James Version. He says the arguments for the Vulgate and the King James are about the same.
The Vulgate argument did not originate from Huff. It’s been around for at least fifty years, and it is a strawman. As the critical text became more and more accepted in evangelicalism, men began developing arguments against the prevailing view and King James Version support. Huff says the argument is that the Vulgate had been the Bible for a thousand years (404 to 1604) and the King James for five hundred years (1611 to 2025). Actually, five hundred years would span the period of the printed editions of the Textus Receptus (1516-2025) from which the KJV New Testament came.
Truth about the Vulgate Argument
It would be nice to have a conversation about these things from two sides. The acceptance of Jerome came from an apostate state church, those who also believed a false gospel and heretical works salvation. The true internal testimony of the Holy Spirit is not involved in the acceptance of Jerome’s Vulgate, as also seen in the Roman Catholic embrace of extra-scriptural tradition, Papal pronouncements, the magisterium, and apocryphal books. They did not look for preservation of scripture in the original languages or in making the Bible available for Roman Catholics.
The Textus Receptus and Hebrew Masoretic was received by those truly saved by grace through faith alone. They were the texts received by the churches as authentic. The Vulgate didn’t come from an original Hebrew or Greek Text. Jerome worked from the Greek Septuagint and Latin Translations, not original language texts. Later Jerome looked at Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament for the sake of accuracy, but he still stuck with Old Latin translations for his New Testament work.
Jerome didn’t translate from the Greek New Testament and consider that “the Bible of the church” as Huff invents on the spot. He does this on many different occasions when I’ve heard him in different podcasts. He says this with a face of total confidence, but it is absolutely untrue. Huff says that the Roman Catholic objection of an original language text is the same as the one of KJVO, that is, the Latin has been the Bible for one thousand years.
Original Language Preservation
Historically, after the fall of the Roman Empire and throughout the Middle Ages, there were limited vernacular translations due to low literacy rates and strict control over biblical texts by the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical authorities. They didn’t want translation work done from original language texts, but in keeping with the approved Latin Vulgate, which become increasingly less understood by the rank and file citizens of Europe.
The argument for the King James concerns the preservation and availability of the original words of scripture in their original languages. The churches agreed on these words for hundreds of years. These were Spirit indwelt men and churches operating therefore with the testimony of the Holy Spirit. This is the heritage of the King James Version, not a magisterium model of Roman Catholicism. When you read the bibliology writings of truly converted theologians for hundreds of years after the printing press, they embraced the infallibility of the apographa, the copies of scripture, identical to the originals by providential preservation.
Huff says the KJVO and the Jerome Vulgate were “almost the exact same argument.” This is just an ad hominem and strawman attack that is patently false. What Huff really thinks will come out in this podcast and I’ll point it out when we get there. It was only Roman Catholicism arguing for continued use of Jerome’s Vulgate, not true churches.
Further along, Huff says that the apostles quoted from the Greek translation of the Old Testament. This is itself a new and common argument from critical text supporters, advocating for a corrupt translation of the Old Testament as an authority. This makes way for support of a less than perfect text of the Bible, not the biblical or historical view of the church.
Earlier English Translations
From the Vulgate conversation, the other Cultish host asked Huff about the history of English translations of the Bible. He mentioned Wycliffe and then Tyndale, also saying that Tyndale died for translating the Bible into English. At his execution on October 6, 1536, Tyndale was accused of “Lutheran heresy” for including prologues and footnotes that criticized church doctrine and authority. The charges did not say Bible translation.
Huff fails to reveal that the earlier English translations also translated the Textus Receptus and the Hebrew Masoretic, so that the underlying text of the King James was received and reigned before 1611. He also does not mention that Henry VIII authorized the Great Bible and ordered the translators to compare with Tyndale’s work. The King James Version is very close to Tyndale. Huff later says that part. They obviously also relied on his work. Tyndale, even though not carrying the name Baptist, which no one used yet, was Baptistic, even as he took a believer’s baptism position, even against both Puritan and Anglican alike.
Editions of the Textus Receptus
The next argument against this “cult” of KJVO from Huff relates to the underlying text of the King James being a Texti Recepti, rather than one Textus Receptus. Again, this is a strawman. The editions of the Textus Receptus, although they differ in a very small number of ways, represent one text. Those who printed these editions didn’t see them as different texts. Every historian and scholar knows that. Those who like to point out the several editions are angling for the King James translators doing textual criticism, as another faux argument.
You really can’t say that the King James translators were looking at Hebrew and Greek texts from which to translate and then also say that no text existed for the King James until Scrivener’s in the late 19th century. These contradict one another and this brings us back to a absence of a needed steel-manning.
Huff called the editions of Stephanus and Beza “updates” of Erasmus. The editions are homogeneous because they are the same text with minor variations, explained as corrections of minor errors. This period of printed editions did not continue past the middle 17th century. The churches settled, this explained as the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit.
The text behind the King James Version was a settled edition from the printed edition period. Huff says the translators used the science and art of textual criticism, which is a revisionist spin on what they did. All of the words in Scrivener’s were available to the King James translators and the churches. They possessed the original language words translated in 1611. No one was saying, “We don’t have a Greek text.” No one. That’s a modern innovation from those whom Huff mimics with this argument.
Underlying Text and Preservation
Huff entraps himself at about 22:45 in the podcast, when he reads the title page of the Trinitarian Bible Society Greek New Testament, which says the underlying Greek text of the 1611 King James Bible. The key word there is “underlying.” It underlay the King James Version, not proceeded from it.
One of the hosts asks Huff at about 24 minutes what is the difference between the critical text and the Textus Receptus and Huff says the critical text is “a text that is produced.” Good answer. You’ve got a preserved text and then a produced text. The latter does not represent the biblical doctrine of preservation. It denies it. Huff never mentions it. The doctrine of preservation should be at the forefront, but it isn’t because they deny the biblical and historical doctrine of preservation of scripture. They see it as naturalistic, something humanly produced.
More to Come
Wes Huff on Joe Rogan: The Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll and the Hebrew Masoretic Text
Huff, O’Connor, and Rogan
Popular agnostic or atheist Alex O’Connor, not as popular as Joe Rogan but more than everyone else in this story, has caught onto an error made by evangelical apologist Wes Huff on Rogan’s show. O’Connor sees this as very important in a greater scheme of things. He also targets the cover-up of the error by Huff and many others who defend him. They won’t admit wrong or concede the error. These also talk like experts, yet saying with great confidence false things as though they were true.
Wes Huff and those who defend him are not know nothings. They show a wealth of Bible knowledge, but Huff and many of his defenders get their attention mainly from their presentation and production value. They know how to connect with a modern audience on youtube and podcasts. However, when they get their content wrong, it devastates their credibility in front of the world. And then it only gets worse when they then spin their mistakes. All this makes an Alex O’Connor seem more credible than they are.
What raises the level of this clash between Huff and O’Connor is the tangible perception of Joe Rogan. Rogan has said twice that a miracle occurred with the finding of the Isaiah scroll and its identicality (according to Huff) to the Hebrew Masoretic Text. A thousand year gap exists between the Great Isaiah Scroll, 1Qlsaa, one of the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in Qumran on the West side of the Dead Sea in 1947, and the Hebrew Masoretic Text, also called the Leningrad Codex. The latter is often called The Received Text of the Old Testament.
Miracle Claim
Even though 1Qlsaa is very close to the same as the Hebrew Masoretic Text of Isaiah, and the estimates are one to seven percent word difference, there are hundreds of variations. It is not close to word-for-word identical. Alex O’Connor focused on this because Joe Rogan called it a miracle. Rogan saw this kind of preservation of Isaiah as supernatural. He couldn’t stop thinking about it.
O’Connor appeared on the show of another popular youtuber and asked the host what was significant to the miracle claim of Rogan. O’Connor then answered his own question, saying that it implied the work of God and in particular the work of the Holy Spirit in this identicality of the Isaiah scroll and the Hebrew Masoretic Text. It is saying that God did something, so God is real and actively intervening. O’ Connor speaks of divine preservation of scripture. That’s Rogan’s thinking. If scripture is divine, people expect perfect preservation by God.
The Promise of God and Preservation of Scripture
Neither Huff nor any evangelical host then says, “Yes, God preserved it with perfection like God promised.” None of them say that. O’Connor asked an evangelical podcaster, “At what percentage of difference would it become a concern to you?” The podcaster pauses and says, Not fifty percent, but I would say, seventy-five percent (I’m paraphrasing). I contend that evangelicals like this man are conditioned to a degree of difference. They adjust their expectations for what God can and will do.
Sure, God can save. He saves. The most frequent thought is that God could have kept His Words. He just didn’t. He didn’t do it, and so He didn’t promise it either.
Does this sliding scale kind of approach to preservation of scripture do anything to the faith of professing saints? Of course it does. Rather than embrace a presuppositional approach that believes what God said He would do, they follow what they think is the so-called science. What I’m saying is real and evangelicals should stop acting like it isn’t. Alex O’Connor gets it, which is why he was hot on the trail of this Joe Rogan story. Everyone gets it, it seems, except these evangelical leaders. People in the pews of churches get it. The low percentage of confidence is intolerable to the normal Christian.
Great Isaiah Scroll Related to Hebrew Masoretic Text
Let me return to the Isaiah scroll and the Hebrew Masoretic. The actual physical manuscript, the Hebrew Masoretic, the Leningrad Codex, is one thousand years old. The Isaiah scroll is physically older, predating Christ’s physical appearance on earth. But the Hebrew Masoretic is the original between the two. Even the textual critics say this. Leading textual scientists say they know the Hebrew Masoretic Text (not the physical copy) was the master for the Isaiah scroll.
The scribes of the Isaiah scroll took a free or liberal approach to the text, which contains editing, morphological smoothing and updating, and a modernization of terms for an audience of second temple Judaism that no longer understood classical Hebrew forms. The scroll represents the language of Palestine in the time period of its copying. Textual scholars see the variations as that of a nonofficial, vulgar text. The Isaiah scroll is apparently closer to the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament, both of which represent a free rendering of the text.
The Hebrew Masoretic is not the Great Isaiah scroll. The former is original. It represents the text from which the scribes of the Isaiah scroll produced their rendering, which differs. Nonetheless, the two are amazingly similar and point to a dovetail moment in time. According to textual criticism, the two Hebrew texts are the same, but not word-for-word identical. Historically, however, the Isaiah scroll says that the text of Isaiah existed at that time. In fact, the copy of the Isaiah scroll in the Jerusalem museum was a copy of an even earlier copy of Isaiah, modernizing it to a small degree.
True Apologetics
Joe Rogan, thinking that Wes Huff said, “word-for-word identical,” says, “That’s a miracle!” It would take the providence of God, divine intervention, to get perfect preservation like that. Yet, what Rogan thought Huff was saying, he wasn’t saying. As O’Connor said: the Holy Spirit would be involved. Where did O’Connor get this idea? He studied the Bible at Oxford. O’Connor perhaps knows about this historic doctrine of preservation or at least the expectation of the supernatural related to the Word of God.
Moslems would seize gladly the imperfection of the text of the Bible, the non-miraculous nature of it. Apologetics proceed from giving scriptural answers and stand for the faith. Textual scientists dealing in percentages and incomplete assurance, that is not apologetics. Without faith, it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6). Genuine Christians should not capitulate to such squishiness.
What God Did
The Great Isaiah Scroll was gone for over two thousand years, lost in the Qumran Caves in Israel. It was not available to God’s people, unlike the Hebrew Masoretic Text. That text continued before, after, and still today. Israel and then the church received the Hebrew Masoretic Text and translated it to many different other languages. Wes Huff could have told this story and explained why the Isaiah scroll was lost until 1947.
On the other hand, what a gracious discovery, the Great Isaiah Scroll. The book of Isaiah, a prophetic book, predates the fulfillment of many, many of its prophecies. Those were prophecies! We believe that, but here came a document that afforded evidence of that reality. But finding those copies in that cave, that isn’t a miracle. Any Christian already assumes, based on God’s promises that God preserved every Old Testament Word in the Hebrew Masoretic Text.
Wes Huff on Joe Rogan: My Take
History of Huff and Rogan
Professing Christian and Christian apologist Wes Huff appeared on Joe Rogan for three hours. I believe this is the first time Rogan had anyone like Huff on his famous and popular podcast. Rogan was a fan of a man named Billy Carson. Wes Huff dominated Carson in a recent debate. This put Huff on Rogan’s radar, who according to him then watched twenty Huff videos. Huff greatly impressed Rogan.
Before having Huff on his show, Rogan seemed like on a trajectory toward faith in Christ. He is not there yet, but this was a significant jump for Rogan. Other factors affected Rogan in this path, including the faith of some of his friends he interviewed on his podcast. Rogan does not discount historical and even biblical evidence for Christ. It helped him a lot to hear from Huff.
Minimal Facts Approach
Huff took a “minimal facts approach” in his defense of the faith to Rogan. This means he focused on Christ Himself, targeting the historical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus. He presented the most basic or minimal facts about Jesus that unbelieving historians will not themselves deny. Then he connected that evidence with the biblical account. To do this kind of presentation like Huff, someone must study it and practice it. It worked with Rogan, who said, “Wow,” in response to Huff dozens of times.
Rogan is his own fact checker on the show. If he doesn’t think you’re right, he questions you. He challenged Huff, but not in any egregious way. For an unbeliever, he asked good questions. As an apologist, Huff gave him good answers too. He was ready to give them.
Danger
As much as I agreed with most of what Huff said and was glad Rogan had him, I believe it is also dangerous too to overall biblical Christianity. Huff is a non-separatist, culturally liberal Christian of the popular variety.
Huff was not well known at large before the Billy Carson debate. That went viral. He went even more viral with Rogan and now Huff is famous, just that quickly. The trajectory of his entire life now changes because of that. I believe that almost any Christian podcaster hopes for this series of events to occur.
It is easier for pop Christianity to appear on Rogan. It surely must be someone who allows for all sorts of compromise to get to that place. I’m not saying it is impossible for a separatist to go viral, but very unlikely. This is the nature of celebrity Christianity today. Nevertheless, like Paul in Philippians 1, I am glad for the information Huff got to Rogan and his audience.
Huff on Rogan will open up many, many more opportunities for Huff and even for those now connected with Huff. Mark Ward will know that. He appears on Huff’s website first as an endorser, so anyone who checks out Huff will see Ward there. Huff has had him on his podcast. I would say that just by connection, Ward might double his audience. It’s probably already occurred.
Not a “Scholar”
As good as Huff was, I did not hear him as the scholar that people have projected him. He is right now in PhD work, not finished. He’s thirty-three. What Huff did, just ordinary Christians could do. They should, but most can’t. He made obvious mistakes that a scholar would not make. Someone does not need to be a scholar to do what he’s doing. I would say he is a very good student, who is much better, talented in his presentation, the ability to put these podcasts together. This is where we’re at today.
Someone who has technological capacity and knows how to use the medium for communication will move into the scholar category. He is at least a popular scholar because he makes it into the forum. Huff gets through the door with his abilities. He can talk to a Rogan, who also is no scholar. This is the new world in which we live. That too is dangerous, because it really does matter in this world if you have the “excellency of speech” that Paul warned against in 1 Corinthians 2.
The Great Isaiah Scroll
Shot in the Foot
One never knows the ultimate effect of such an interaction as that of Huff with Rogan. I saw negatives to it and I will list them in no given order. One, Huff said that the great Isaiah scroll in the Jerusalem Museum was word-for-word identical to the Hebrew Masoretic Text. This is a Dead Sea Scroll. Since the appearance, Huff has said apparently that when he said word-for-word identical he didn’t mean word-for-word identical. But he said word-for-word identical. How does that mean something different? It doesn’t make sense.
When I heard Huff say that, I knew he overstated his case, and it didn’t make any difference to Rogan, who believed him. Problem though, after the debate all the fact checkers and critics make a multitude of answer podcasts and shows savaging his point. It turns what he said a bit incredible. If you are going to go on a big show like that in front of millions, you have to get it right. You can’t say confident bombastic statements that come back on you.
The Dead Sea Scrolls are helpful. I use them at times when I evangelize. They are a net gain. However, the great Isaiah scroll, which I’ve seen myself displayed in the Jerusalem museum, varies from the Hebrew Masoretic in 2,600 places. That could be why it got buried at the Qumran caves for a few thousand years. It is not the text God preserved for His people. That is the Hebrew Masoretic.
Other Points on the Scroll
The Great Isaiah Scroll, a complete manuscript of Isaiah helps for fulfilled prophecy in Isaiah. The scroll shows Isaiah to be older than the fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecies. I’ve noticed that the lost have no answer for that. Isaiah has a lot of prophecies and they predate their fulfillment, like any prophecy would.
I believe in word-for-word identical preservation, so that type of language I’m fine with it. However, we can look at the Hebrew Masoretic and compare it to the Great Isaiah Scroll and see that they are not identical, that is, unless someone wants to change the definitions of “word-for-word” and “identical.” I believe Huff shot himself in the foot with that one.
One more thing. Critics, like Alex O’Connor, the famous agnostic in England, the cosmic skeptic, he jumped on Huff’s statement on Isaiah and made hay over it. O’Connor overreacted though. The Great Isaiah Scroll is very, very close to the Masoretic text. That is still great evidence. O’Connor reacted with glee to a mistake that really doesn’t help his cause. That scroll shows that we have a preserved text that predates the fulfillment.
Four Hundred Witnesses?
Two, Huff said that four hundred witnesses saw Jesus ascension in 1 Corinthians 15. How could a scholar get the wrong number there? That was extremely curious. I don’t know where Huff got the four hundred number, but missing it was an unforced error on his part. If an ordinary Christian did that, I would not say it was a big deal. Someone purporting to be a scholar like Huff does, he can’t do that.
Stolen Body
Three, when Rogan asked Huff if there were any early examples of people rejecting the resurrection account, Huff jumped hundreds of years forward and absolutely missed the biblical account at the end of Matthew when the Jewish religious leaders made up the stolen body theory. That should have been instant recall of attempts to discredit the resurrection. It’s a perfect story and it’s in the Bible. Huff missed it there. It’s hard to explain how he could do that. My brain was screaming that passage to him as I watched.
The stolen body story shows what critics will do to discredit the resurrection, knowing how important it is. This began a long line of those trying to debunk the resurrection. The cover-up works as a force multiplier for the resurrection. They knew how important it was and rather than believe it, they tried to cover it up. And the cover-up is part of the record.
I liked that Huff used Jordan Peterson to discount moralism. He showed how that Peterson’s rejection of the bodily resurrection, viewing as a mere archetype undermined the gospel. Peterson explains the resurrection like a Phoenix rising from the ashes. That misses the point of a true, actual, bodily, and historical resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus is alive today in a glorified body. Huff gave some respect to Peterson and then exposed that untruthful, unbelieving approach of Peterson. I was happy with that.
Better at Preaching the Gospel
Last, Huff could do better with preaching the gospel. He could have done better at going on the offensive and doing that. I’ve been in hundreds of similar situations as Huff, and an evangelist should preach the gospel. I get planting the seed and I’m glad he did. Also, I’m not saying he didn’t preach the gospel at all. He got some of it in. So many people were watching and it was three hours. He could have done better at going on the offensive with the gospel. Someone can do that in a respectful way and weave it in, if he knows what he is doing.
I could write far more than what I’m writing. Don’t get me wrong. Huff did good things. I rejoiced in those and still do. The issues I addressed needed addressing.
The Huff interview was so big nationally in the realm of Christianity. I don’t mean this at all like click bait. It is an opportunity for input on such an event and commentary on what happened.
Recent Comments