 Yeah, I think I will be audible now So yeah, we were covering the first portion of Inherency last week. We will have a few concluding thoughts on that topic today And then in our second session, we will start off with the doctrine of God so To continue with the inerrancy of the Bible which we were looking at last week We saw that there are Two types of errors mainly in the You know Transmitted word of God which has been transmitted down the ages to us One is the copyist errors. There are errors which the People who are making copies handwritten copies. They made some spelling mistakes. They replaced some alphabets things like that a second kind of Textual variation that we see is because of the older Manuscripts which have now been found we talked about that last time we talked about how Two kinds of manuscripts have been discovered. There are the Byzantine manuscripts which are maybe from around 680 to 980 is when the people would have made handwritten copies of those Byzantine manuscripts but then in the mid-1900s They discovered Much older manuscripts which are called the Alexandrian manuscripts and those were written hand-copied much earlier And it was noticed that the Alexandrian Manuscripts which are more original which are more ancient were shorter Than the Byzantine manuscripts when they compared the two sets of manuscripts. They found that the Byzantine manuscripts seem to have almost additional 6000 words and so the Understanding is that as time was passing by maybe someone would have added a few lines of explanation here and there Trying to make some particular words more understandable or something So which is why the modern translations that we have the English modern translations that we have they prefer the older Manuscripts because they regard those as being more original more ancient and so they remove these extra 6000 words which is how we sometimes end up with missing passages in the NIV and in the other modern versions So There's a lot of debate that has been going on about that. So some people feel very strongly that no Did anyone speak up am I not audible? Yeah, I'm assuming that I'm audible As no one has written anything in the chat All right, so I was saying that Some people feel very strongly that these passages were there even in the older times whereas Many people who base their argument on the Alexandrian Manuscripts, they just say that no these must The additional 6000 words which we find must definitely be later additions now we as students over here Don't need to get very very Harried and worried about this because Even if you were to remove these particular two three passages From your NIV we don't lose any doctrinal matters We don't lose anything of value because whatever is mentioned in these passages Is repeated in other portions of scripture as well So even these two three passages even even though the NIV may not mention them and just put them in the footnotes We do not have to worry because the things which are mentioned the Spiritual principles which are mentioned over here in these passages those things get repeated in other portions of the Gospels So which are other portions of the Gospels and the epistels. So let's look at three such passages The reason that we are looking at these passages now is because critics Skeptics who criticize the Bible they say look, you know These passages we don't even know whether they are true or not and then you have Versions like NKJV including these passages who knows whether these are genuine passages or fake passages and all of those criticisms are You know directed against these passages So we will see that whether you choose to continue including them or whether you remove them We don't lose out on anything because the facts the principles mentioned in these passages Get repeated in other portions of the Bible So the first passage such passage that we would be looking at is first John chapter 5 Versus 7 to 8 So if someone could read out from the NKJV Because that will include this passage on the other hand and I we will put a footnote saying This particular wording is not there in the more ancient manuscripts So if someone could read out first John chapter 5 verses 7 and 8 from the NKJV version, please There are three that bear witness in heaven the father the word and the Holy Spirit and These three are one and there are three that bear witness on earth the spirit the water and the blood and these Three agree as one Now if we were to look at the NIV It will not include this portion which talks about the heavenly witnesses father word and Holy Spirit It will only mention the The The three witnesses that are you know included in verse eight where it just talks about the spirit the water and the blood and The explanation that NIV will give in its footnotes is that the more ancient Alexandrian manuscripts do not mention this verse So which is why we have not included it in the NIV version is what they will say so now this is a passage that the Critics from the Muslim community tend to generally get hold of They say this is the only verse over here in the entire New Testament which talks about the Trinity So if you remove this from the Bible, it means that there was actually no Trinity, which is actually a very very false statement, right? I mean you people studied the Topic of the Holy Spirit in your previous semester in great detail You would have seen all the passages where the Mention is made of the Trinity, you know in different forms It is mentioned that the Godhead has three persons you would have seen that you would have covered that in detail so this allegation that Muslim critics make that this particular verse first John chapter 5 verse 7 may or may not be Original and if you remove that it completely makes the entire doctrine of Trinity collapse That is just a wrong statement because we see many other scriptures where the doctrine of Trinity is covered So whether we continue to retain this particular verse in some of the translation So whether we remove it from some of the translations, it does not affect the doctrine of Trinity Let's look at some verses where you have, you know Doctrine of Trinity in other places where the doctrine of Trinity is mentioned very clearly in the Old Testament You know, I mean this is something you already covered. So I'll just very quickly go through it Genesis 1 1 it talks about the term Elohim, which is plural. It's not God in the singular God in the singular would be L but Elohim is plural. So why is it talking about the Why is it using the plural word over here? That's because the Godhead is made up of three persons So in Genesis 1 1 in the beginning Elohim created not L. L is singular Elohim is plural So the term over there itself indicates that the Godhead has caught three persons If you were to look at Genesis 1 26 3 22 Genesis 11 7 Isaiah 6 8 in all of these places that term us is mentioned For instance in Genesis 1 26, God says let us make mankind in our image So again over there, we see the Godhead referring to himself in the plural not in the singular So again, this is proof that the Trinity is spoken of in other passages coming to Isaiah Isaiah 48 16 and Isaiah 61 1 in these places You have the Son of God speaking. Maybe we can have one person read out for us. Isaiah 48 16 if someone could read out, this is what the Son of God is speaking in these verses Isaiah 48 16 come near to me and listen to this I have not spoken in secret from the beginning from the time that it happened. I Was there and now the Lord God has sent his spirit in and with me All right, so here the words are being spoken by the Son of God and He refers to the sovereign Lord that is the father He refers to the father sending him and he says that he is Will be endowed with the Holy Spirit So over here all the three persons of the Trinity are being mentioned in Isaiah 48 16 in the same way Isaiah 61 1 over there, you know The wording says the spirit of the sovereign Lord is on me and Jesus takes this Particular scroll in the New Testament. He reads it out in Luke chapter 4 verses 14 to 19 After reading out these this passage he clearly says to the people sitting over there today here in your presence This passage is fulfilled because basically he's saying I am the one standing over here I am the one about whom this passage talked about and this passage says that I have been sent by the sovereign Lord with the endowment of the Holy Spirit to accomplish these things so all of these passages are an indication that The Trinity is mentioned even in other Bible passages So it is very wrong when the Muslim critics say that Once we remove first John chapter 5 verse 7 then the entire doctrine of Trinity is wiped out from the Bible that would be a very false and Ignorant thing to say. All right, so Now that is regarding this first Textual variation the variation being that the old Alexander and manuscripts do not mention this verse 7 the more modern Byzantine manuscripts written around 680 780 they mentioned this particular verse first John 5 7 the second such passage Which is debated will be the mark 16 9 to 20 passage So if you were to look in your NIV Bibles again It will say over there that this passage is not present in the most ancient Manuscripts is what you know, it will say over there in the NIV But if you were to look at the verses in mark 16 9 to 20 if you look at each verse Mentioned over there almost every single verse that is mentioned in this passage is repeated in other Gospels and epistels. So there's nothing over here, which is you know lost Whether you continue to include this passage or choose not to include this passage in your particular translation English translation Nothing is lost because all the things which are mentioned over here in the mark 16 passage are mentioned in other places For instance mark 16 9 says that Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene We know that from the Gospel of John we know it from other places and then it talks about whom else he appeared to It talks about how he appeared to the people from on the road to Emmaus It talks about how he later appears to the 11 it talks about his ascension all of these facts We find them in other places So Even if you were to say that this particular passage is not original and remove it It does not affect us in any manner coming to the you know the verses 17 to 18 Which talks about how God will empower his believers to do ministry Now over there if you were to look at the wording which is used again Those things are repeated in other places if we could have someone read out for us mark 16 verses 17 to 18 Mark 16 17 to 18 and these are testing signs will accompany those who believe in My name they will drive out demons. They will speak in new languages They will pick up serpents and even if they drink anything deadly it will not hurt them They will lay their hands on the sick and they will get well Yes, so if you were to look at these two verses Even if these two verses are declared as not being in the original manuscripts nothing is lost The signs which follow the believers which are mentioned over here We find these things mentioned in other passages the driving out of demons we see it all over the book of Acts Speaking in tongues that is mentioned in the book of Acts Then even when it comes to you know people laying their hands on the sick and delivering them That also we see stories about that in the book of Acts The one thing that maybe you will not find a direct reference to is the drinking of deadly poison So we don't find any examples of that maybe in the other You know gospels or in the epistels But we have that incident in which Paul was involved now that could be at chapter 28 Verses 1 to 6 where you have Paul and the other missionaries who are with him. They are in that ship which which gets shipwrecked So now they end up over here on the island of Malta and then even as they are gathering wood to light a fire You know you have that wiper which which You know fastens itself on his hand so in Acts 28 verse 3 it says that this Poisonous snake comes out of the wood and it fastens its fangs into his hand Which literally means that if you know if it has fastened itself by its fangs The poison which is in the fangs would have gone into his body And so it says over there in that passage the islanders they look at him and they say oh Maybe this was one of the more bad criminals So even though he escaped from the shipwreck look God is bringing a judgment on him And they wait to see whether his entire body will swell up with a poison and whether he will drop down dead But after many many hours, they see that he's completely unaffected and then they change their opinion about him So the signs which follow the believers which are mentioned in mark 16 17 to 18 Even if that passage is removed and declared as not being there in the original manuscripts It does not affect, you know any of our doctrines any of our principles all of these are very much mentioned in other passages Which are you know, which have been accepted as being there in the original manuscripts a third passage Which generally is not included in the more modern English translations will be The passage of In in John chapter 8 the first 11 verses in your John chapter 8 Where it talks about the lady who was caught in adultery now They say that this is not there this particular passage is not there in the in the more ancient Alexandrian manuscripts However, we do know that the principles mentioned in this story Are found in other places because in Luke chapter 7 in that passage you have a Lady who used to have an immoral lifestyle She comes to Jesus and Jesus declares her forgiven So in the same way in this John 8 passage the woman caught in adultery Jesus says to her I will not condemn you go and leave your life of sin in the same way even over here in the Luke 7 passage You have Jesus speaking to that lady who has who had a immoral background and he says to her your sins are forgiven. So The point that is being made is that no important Doctrine of the Bible is lost due to any of these copyist errors or due to any of these Textual variations the teachings the principles what we believe in that remains firm So no critic can attack the Bible and say oh if you remove this passage and start doubting its originality Then finish this this doctrine is gone. No, that would just be a very silly ignorant argument to be made so how do we deal with? these you know Alleged contradictions that critics talk about when we use the term well alleged. We are saying They are making that allegation But that allegation is not really true The allegation is not really based on you know solid evidence So they make these alleged Contradictions the PR critics point out and say oh see this contradiction is here that contradiction is there How do we deal with such critics? There was this person named Warner Wallace And his book became a quite a best-seller in Christian circles. It was called cold case Christianity okay cold case Christianity by Warner Wallace now this man He says because he was from a police background or something not particularly Yeah, I think maybe he was from a police background. He says a detective Decides whether something is correct or wrong based on the Proof that is available based on the evidence that is available So he says I will use the same detection skills in finding out whether the Bible is true or not And so in a very logical manner He builds up a case to prove that the Bible is accurate that the Bible is to be trusted that it is reliable So that entire book is all about that. It's called cold case Christianity the same way detectives, you know handle cold cases from Older times and they find out who the murderer is based on the evidence in the same way He says I'm going to take up the Bible as a cold case Which has been you know Set aside and I'm going to prove with evidence that this is correct. The Bible is original So he actually presents a few principles that we can use to deal with such Contradictions, we should not allow these criteria the strong contradictions that the critics talk about to Pause us to be shaken in our faith because these contradictions are not genuine contradictions There is an explanation that can be given for such contradictions So he says when people come to us and criticize and say look there is this contradiction here and that contradiction there He says there are some basic principles which we can apply To prove that whatever is being said by the critics is wrong So the first principle that he provides principle one understand how ancient Civilizations recorded history The way the ancient civilizations recorded history is very different from the way we write history books today Now the emphasis is on Chronology, you know if you're going to be talking about the battles which took place in South India You'll first start off with in the ancient times. Maybe around 5,000 B.C. Well, you know 4000 B.C. From then on you will start building your Historical record and step-by-step battle after battle kingdom after kingdom you will mention in a chronological manner or the things which took place in South India But in ancient civilizations, that's basically not how historical records were written Because the writer who was writing that particular about that particular event wants to mention certain highlights So he will just focus on those particular highlights alone. He will not give us all the details He will not say exactly, you know How many people were how many soldiers were there in the army? He will round off the figure instead of saying there were 1,967 soldiers, you just simply round it off and say 2,000 soldiers So because in ancient civilizations the way they recorded history Was not done the way we do it today and it we need to understand that and accept that so it's not just the biblical Historical records, you know, which were written in that way if you look at all the secular other other secular writings of that ancient times Even those historical records were also written in that way So the the Bible writers who were inspired by the Holy Spirit when they recorded historical events they followed the Method of history writing which was available to them in those times So in the same in the same way the others rounded off the figure of the number of soldiers Even the biblical writers probably would have just rounded off the figures, you know During while recording certain events another thing that we see when we look at the genealogies Recorded in all these ancient historical works The genealogies do not mention every single descendant. They just pick on the main names So there are gaps in the genealogies So there are some people who you know use the genealogies in the Bible to calculate the number of years and they say oh This number which is not tallying with the age of the earth That's because not every single person In the genealogy is always mentioned in every single genealogical record That is simply not the way they recorded genealogies To use an example If we were to look in Matthew chapter 1 verse 8 We are told over there in Matthew 1 8 that Jehoram is the father of Uzair But if you really want a more detailed genealogy If you were to go to 1st Chronicles chapter 3 versus 11 to 12 there You see that actually you have three generations separating Jehoram from Uzair so yes Jehoram was the father of Uzair in the sense the word father was used for ancestor of Uzair So it doesn't be so it's not literally saying that you know He was the biological father is talking the term father is used for ancestors in the switches Why in so many places you have Jesus being called son of David Did David give birth to Jesus? No, he was a descendant. So the term son is used talking about a descendant This is the way history was written now. Of course in your history book today It will say great grandfather grandfather father Whereas in the ancient historical records, it will just simply say father of and that word father is just referring to an ancestor So we can't take the modern history writing methods Which are available today and use that to judge the ancient historical writings I was someone wants to use that kind of a measurement They would they should use it even for all the secular Historical records why do they criticize only the Bible the biblical historical records that does not make sense, right? So principle one understand how ancient civilizations recorded their historical records the the Methods that they used so based on that methods we would interpret those passages in that particular manner principle to the second principle Understand the context of the passage We sometimes think that there is a contradiction simply because we have not bothered to look at the context of the passage the writer What kind of an audience was he writing to would the The original audience have understood what he meant when he used those particular words No, to use the same example that we used earlier, you know, if that writer would say This was the father of so-and-so the people of that time who are used to the the wording used They would immediately understand. Okay. He's not talking about biological father. He's talking about an ancestor The original audience would have understood the words which are being recorded in a particular way Are we understanding those passages in the same way the context becomes very very important So this is one criticism that we just you know made Against the the Bible. This would be in your mark chapter 4 Versus 30 to 32 where it talks about the mustard seed So if you could have someone read out for us Mark chapter 4 versus 30 to 32, please Yeah, if anybody online or in the class mark chapter 4 30 to 32 Mark chapter 4 was 30 then he said to what shall we like in the kingdom of God or with what Parable shall we picture was 31? It is like a mustard seed Which when it is sown on the ground is smaller than all the seeds on earth was 32 But when it is sown it grows up and becomes greater than all hubs and shoots up and shoots out large branches So that the bird of the air may nest under its shed the criticism that is made is that People in biblical times knew which is the smallest seed was definitely not the mustard seed The mustard seed was not the smallest they were smaller seeds than that look Jesus didn't even know his facts What he said was wrong is the allegation which some people make But over here if you look specifically the kind of community that Jesus is talking to is talking to an agricultural Community which definitely would have known its seeds very very well. I mean their entire Vocation their profession is agriculture if they are not familiar with the kind of seeds which are used who would be familiar So over here, it's specifically talking about seeds which are sown on the ground You know when you look at the another parable where it talks about the sower who Through you know who sows the seeds on the ground If the imagery is of a farmer who's walking through his field and as he's going is taking a small handful of seeds And he's flinging them into the air and the seeds fall in different places So those are the kind of agricultural seeds that Jesus is talking about over here Because it says very clearly in verse 31 that The seeds which which are sown on the ground is what it says Now the NKJV has done a translation error I can say which has led to this fall wrong criticism You see what they have done is this in your NKJV if you were to look at verse 31 it says it is like a mustard seed when it is sown on the Ground the Greek word used over there for ground is gays G-e-s okay Like a mustard seed When it is sown on the gays, you know on the ground is smaller than all the seeds on the gays Same word is used for the NKJV people have gone and written earth Same word same word gays is used in the first portion of the verse Same word gays is used in the second portion of the verse There's a free software available online called Bible hub If you ever want to look at any verse in the original just go to Bible hub if you click on If it's a new testament you'll click on Greek if it's Old Testament you'll click on Hebrew It will give you a word by word translation of every single verse So you can go there and confirm for yourself in this verse mark 4 verse 31 Jesus is saying the mustard seed which when it is sown on the gays the ground is smaller than all the seeds On the gays on the ground He's not making a statement and saying if you look at all the seeds on the entire earth The mustard seed is the smallest among them He's not saying that it's just talking about the kind of seeds which they used to sow on the ground in their Agricultural community and so the listeners who were listening to him at that time would have clearly understood That is not talking about which is the smallest seed on earth is talking about the seeds Which they sow on the ground in their agricultural community Context becomes very very important People make false accusations when they do not really have when they have not really understood The background and the context of the Bible passages Third principle principle number three Let the Bible explain the Bible If we if someone does not understand why what one's particular Bible verses saying look whether that same kind of a thing is mentioned in other Bible verses Because maybe there's a more detailed explanation available in maybe in some other Bible passage So always whenever possible if you don't understand a particular verse allow Other verses to explain that particular verse to you So there's this wrong doctrine which some people have come up with Based on first Corinthians chapter 15 versus 42 to 44 Where it basically talks about the resurrection of the dead So if we could have someone read out for us first Corinthians 15 42 to 44 first Corinthians 15 42 to 44 First Corinthians chapter 15 verse 42 So also is the the resurrection of the dead the body is sown in corruption It is raised in in corruption verse 43. It is sown in dishonor. It is raised in the glory It is sown in weakness. It is raised in power for 44. It is sown On a natural body. It is raised a spiritual body. There's a natural body and yeah, yeah So in your verse 44 This is the statement which paul makes in his letter. He says This human body it is sown a natural body You know into the ground. I mean the person is dead The natural human body is placed buried under the ground But then at the time of the resurrection when it comes out from the ground when the lord, you know Calls to the dead to rise up and you have both the Righteous and the wicked are all resurrected at that time that body comes out as a Spiritual body and the greek word used over there is pneumatic cause So the wrong doctrine that some people came up with is that Jesus after he was resurrected. He was like a spirit Why because his body was sown in the natural But then when it was raised it was raised a spiritual body, which means he was like a spirit He does not actual physical body Which is why he could go through the wall without opening the door because he was a spirit But look at the word pneumatic cause. How does paul use this particular word in other places in the same letter? If you were to look at this word used by him in all the other places It's not talking about a disembodied spirit He's talking about a spiritual Matters as compared to worldly matters. So the body is raised a spiritual body It basically means it is something that has been brought to life through the work of god It's a spiritual body in that sense. It's not talking about a vaporous spirit That is not what this term is talking about because in first corinthians 2 15 the same paul writes the same word in another sentence and he says he who is pneumatic cause He who is spiritual Judges all things, you know, it's talking about believers over here So is paul saying that all the believers are vaporous people who have no physical actual physical bodies No That word pneumatic cause is talking about spiritual matters as compared to earthly matters It's it's using the word in that sense So if you do not understand one particular verse Then look at what the other verses in that same gospel or in that same letter are saying And then when you compare you will know, you know, in what way that particular writer used that particular Praise so principle three let the bible kind of explain the bible principle number four Old testament quotations are not um Meant to be verb atom now the word used over there v r b a t i m that basically means Today if you are making if you're giving a quotation I want to give a quote. I mean, I want to write a quotation, you know of something that Modi said in a speech So I would say, you know, the prime minister said I would put my, you know The quotation marks and then word for word literally what he said I would write it down over there and then close my quotation marks. That's the way an a modern quotation would be done But when you look at the way quotations were quoted in ancient writings, they would just paraphrase it summarize it you know, so just because the Verse in the old testament doesn't exactly match the quotation which is given in the new testament It's wrong to say that the new testament writers were making errors No, they were not making errors. They were using the way There's the style of putting which was done back in those days That's the way all the writers of that time did their quotations. They did not do word for word verb atom quotations. They summarized um Maybe just to take one example um Zechariah 12 10 where it talks about how uh, you know, the people will one day moan For the savior whom they have uh crucified So Zechariah 12 10 over there in Zechariah 12 10 the actual old testament wording is this it says Then they will look on me whom they have pierced Okay, so uh, it says then they will look on me whom they have pierced John when he's quoting that same verse in the new testament He modifies the wording a little bit because he's paraphrasing it. So in john 19 37 Is he says as the scripture says they shall look on him whom they have pierced It's been modified so Critics point out to the quotations old testament quotations which are there in the new testament and they say look These people have done their recording all wrong It's not correct because that's not the way quotations were uh quoted back then, you know in in in those ancient times So, um old testament quotations, um are generally never verb atom principle number five Differences in perspective are not contradictions Okay principle number five says differences in perspective are not contradictions. We already kind of Talked about this in our previous class when we were looking at the empty tomb passages from matthew mark Luke and john all the four gospels talk about the empty tomb passage Where the where you have the ladies going to the tomb and some of them say that they saw one angel Some of them say that they saw two angels It's a difference in perspective. We talked about how probably the ladies, you know, we're searching around As they while they're waiting for mary magland to go and come back They're they're over in that place looking around to see maybe whether the body has been hidden somewhere And some of them see one angel some of them see two angels Some of them see an angel sitting some of them some of them see the angel standing Different perspectives are presented But just because different perspectives are presented. It doesn't mean that they are contradictions So that's another important principle to keep in mind when we are looking at the biblical passages principle number six Description is different from approval There are many many things described in the bible But it doesn't mean that god approved of all the things which are recorded in the bible People acted in evil sinful wicked ways Those things are described in detail in certain passages of the bible But just because those things are mentioned in the bible It doesn't mean that god approved of the actions of those people know So This is a criticism that is leveled against the bible by many to say if you look at the bible the bible is a Dirty book it contains details of all kinds of sins What a low standard this God of the bible has is what they say But that's ridiculous I mean if I were to write a book tomorrow and I were to describe in detail the you know the other Actions of a murderer. Does it mean that I approve of what the murderer did? No, I'm just giving a account of what took place and how the detectives, you know solve the case and how Justice was finally done. The whole emphasis of my writing is to talk about how justice was finally done So just because I'm talking about the things which the murderer did it doesn't mean that I approve of what he has done So just because the bible gives descriptions of what the different people in the bible the different characters did It doesn't mean that god approves of all their actions So yes, the bible does talk about how david and solomon had multiple wives But no way does it does it say that god approved of of a person having multiple wives? What did god say right in the beginning in genesis? He said one one man will cleave to one woman to his wife and he will stay emotionally Physically loyal to her for the rest of his life It never said that a man would go and cleave to multiple women so It's just because the bible describes david and solomon having multiple wives It's not saying that god approved of what was done. And so which is why when it finally comes to the new testament times The Leaders of the church are very clear They say if you want to be in leadership position go back to what the word of god says you cannot have multiple wives You have to follow what strip chair has taught and you must have only one wife So the things described in the bible It doesn't mean that all of those things all of those actions just because they are described in the bible God approved of all of those acts I mean especially when you look at the book of judges the terrible terrible things which the people did in the book of judges God records those details so that we can learn lessons from those stories But it doesn't say that god approved of the actions of those people Amen and then the levite cuts up the dead body of his concubine and sends, you know pieces of her body to different places now It doesn't say over there that god approved of their actions It does it know there is no words indicating that god approved of what was done. It's just recording What was done by those people? So it's very important to remember That description of something is very different from approval of that particular thing which is being described All right. Um, so these are some of the Some of the maybe principles we can apply when people point out certain passages to say To us and they say, uh, look, these are contradictions. They are only alleged contradictions their allegations false allegations which are being made about a contradiction But when you look at the explanation if you take the effort to find out from someone what the passage is actually saying All of these contradictions can be, uh, you know, um, explained with a satisfactory explanation. So, um These are the main things that we need to know about the inerrancy of the bible So we looked at how the canon was formed. We looked at how the canon Was transmitted faithfully down the ages We looked at how there are errors sometimes and textual variations sometimes But it does not affect doctrine in any way and fourth We looked at what are the some of the principles we can use when we are dealing with critics who point out Alleged contradictions to us. All right. So, uh, we will um take an early break because I Don't have anything more to say with regard to this particular topic So when we come back from our break, we will be getting into doctrine of god. All right. So thank you