I here state the presuppositions that I bring to my task. The Sovereign Creator exists, He has addressed a written revelation to our race, and He has preserved that revelation intact to this day to the extent that we can know what it is based on objective criteria. The original wording was never lost, and its transmission down through the years was basically normal, being recognized as inspired material from the beginning. Family 35 constitutes the ultimate proof that God has preserved the New Testament text. God's concern for the preservation of the biblical text is evident. This concern is reflected in Family 35. It is characterized by incredibly careful transmission. I affirm that God used Family 35 to preserve the precise original wording of the New Testament text. The presentation you are about to see is the pilot for a series of 16 videos titled, Every Word, Every Letter, The Divine Preservation of the Text of the New Testament. We would like for you to give us your feedback on this pilot segment and ask any questions that come to mind as you watch. You will find a link at the bottom of this page that will take you to an online feedback survey. The featured speaker in this series is Dr. Wilbur Pickering. Dr. Pickering has been a linguist and Bible translator for over 50 years. His parents were American missionaries working in Bolivia, and he was born in Brazil in the 1930s. He earned his undergraduate degree from William Jennings Bryan College in Tennessee in the 1950s. He earned a master's degree in theology from Dallas Theological Seminary and a PhD in linguistics from the University of Toronto. He labored in Brazil as a missionary in the field of Bible translation for over 40 years. Dr. Pickering has written several books on linguistics and on the identity of the authentic original text of the New Testament. Since the year 2000, Dr. Pickering has done unprecedented, painstaking research in a quest to identify the precise wording of the text of the Greek of the New Testament as it appeared in the original manuscripts. I often refer to Dr. Pickering as the Erasmus of the 21st century. 500 years ago, the Roman Catholic scholar Desiderius Erasmus undertook the painstaking work of examining and comparing ancient New Testament manuscripts in the libraries and monasteries of Europe. Erasmus was on a quest to identify the authentic original wording of the New Testament in its original language, Koine Greek. Why did Erasmus do this? In a letter to a fellow scholar, he wrote that often, in manuscript copies, the Greek of the New Testament has been wrongly rendered. Often the true and genuine reading has been corrupted or actually altered. So Erasmus undertook the task, which he described as slave labor, of painstakingly comparing available Greek manuscripts, word by word, letter by letter. to determine the authentic wording and spelling of the original. The result of Erasmus' work is what we know today as the Received Text of the Greek New Testament. The Protestant Reformers used the Received Text to produce the Geneva Bible in the 1500s and the King James Bible in the 1600s. The New King James Bible in the 20th century and many translations in other languages are also based on the Received Text. Since Erasmus' time, a few other scholars have taken the same painstaking work of collating and comparing New Testament manuscripts. Some of them, like Erasmus the Roman Catholic, were unbelievers. Others, like John Burgon and Frederick Scrivener in the 19th century, were authentic Christians. But no one in the history of the Church has done this work on the size and scale that Dr. Pickering has undertaken full-time now for over 20 years. He has compared hundreds of Greek manuscripts of every book of the New Testament, word by word, letter by letter, a true labor of love for the Word of God. He has had access to a far larger body of manuscript evidence than Erasmus did in the 16th century. Dr. Pickering's work is the extension and refinement of the received text legacy of Erasmus, Burgon, Scribner, and others. His work demonstrates the validity of the received text. And as you heard a few moments ago, Dr. Pickering's work leads him to conclude that the original wording of the Greek New Testament, as given in the original manuscripts, has not been lost. He presents the evidence that the authentic original text of the New Testament is to be found in a body of manuscripts within the Byzantine texts known as Family 35. Family 35 is the mainstream in the river of New Testament manuscripts. Most Bible scholars, both believers and unbelievers, under the influence of secular textual critics, claim that the exact original wording of the New Testament has been lost and that it is essentially impossible to reconstruct it. If that is true, then we cannot know with absolute certainty that we have the authentic text of the New Testament, the authentic Word of God, in our hands today. Virtually all Bible translations produced in the last 140 years are based on that false assumption. These include the American Standard Bible, the New American Standard, the Revised Standard Version, the New International Version, the English Standard Version, and many others. All of these use Greek texts which, as Erasmus observed 500 years ago, were corrupted through carelessness or, in many cases, deliberately altered. The Greek manuscripts used to translate these Bibles omit or change thousands of words from the original New Testament. Are these changes significant? Yes, they are. The omissions, changes, and additions in the corrupted Greek texts that are used for the vast majority of Bible translations today would represent the equivalent of changing every word in the first nine chapters of the Book of Romans. That is why we are producing this video series. We want to help Christians understand what is at stake we need to employ translations of the authentic text of the scriptures in our personal study of God's Word, in our homes, in our churches, and in our Christian schools and homeschool programs. As you heard a few moments ago, Dr. Pickering's work is based on a firm belief in the Bible's own declaration that God's Word has been preserved intact in the original languages, and that it will remain so forever. Because of international travel restrictions, Dr. Pickering was not able to travel to be with us, and we could not travel to be with him. The footage we are using in this video was filmed in his home in Brazil by a member of his church. This pilot video is part of a series that will, the Lord willing, present the evidence for the divine, supernatural preservation of the text of the New Testament. Every word, every letter, as Jesus himself promised. So now we invite you to watch and to give us your feedback using the link on this web page. Where careful work is required, the attitude of those to whom the task is entrusted is of the essence. Are they aware? Do they agree? If they do not understand the nature of the task, the quality will probably go down. If they understand but do not agree, they might even resort to sabotage, a damaging eventuality. so In the previous segment, Dr. Pickering proved, contrary to the claims of the textual critics, that the early Christians did know that the New Testament manuscripts they were beginning to read and copy were Holy Scripture in the very same sense as the 39 books of the Old Testament. And so they were exceedingly careful in accurately copying the manuscripts for distribution and use in the early churches. In this segment, Dr. Pickering addresses another false claim of the textual critics. They claim that the earliest and best New Testament manuscripts came from Egypt, not from Asia Minor, the area where the Apostle Paul and others did most of the church's early missionary work. Dr. Pickering answers this false accusation by answering three crucial questions. First, who was best qualified to faithfully and accurately transmit the New Testament writings, and what were those crucial qualifications? Second, where were those people geographically located in the first and second centuries? And finally, what factors were important for guaranteeing faithful transmission of the New Testament text as copies of the original manuscripts were made and disseminated in the churches and homes of the early Christian believers? As we begin, we need to understand some special terms that Dr. Pickering will use that may be unfamiliar. He refers to the autographs. These are the original manuscripts of the New Testament, written down by holy men of God who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. He also mentions the region of Asia Minor. This was the area of the Roman Empire where Paul did most of his missionary work. The nation of Turkey occupies most of that area today. Dr. Pickering also mentions Alexandria, the principal city of Egypt in the early centuries of Christianity. Alexandria, as we shall see, was a hotbed of apostasy in that time. Dr. Pickering will also mention the Gnostic religions. These were false cults that mixed elements of Christianity with Greek and Roman pagan philosophies. At least 11 Gnostic cults had a corrupting influence in Egypt in the early centuries of the Christian era. Dr. Pickering will also mention papyrus manuscripts. Papyrus was the main writing material before the invention of paper. It was made by hammering together layers of the stems of the papyrus plant. He will also mention that some of the early New Testament manuscripts were written on parchment. Parchments were sheets of leather made from sheep and goat skins and therefore very expensive compared to papyrus. Dr. Pickering will also speak of Koine Greek. Koine Greek was the common commercial language of that time, just as English is the predominant commercial and internet language today. The New Testament manuscripts were written in Koine Greek. Dr. Pickering will also mention several early Christian leaders in this segment. Clement of Rome, who lived in the time of the Apostles. Barnabas, who also lived in the time of the Apostles and appears in the Book of Acts. Polycarp, who was a student of the Apostle John and Ignatius of Antioch. Why are these men important? They are important because we have their preserved writings. Their writings include many quotations from New Testament books that help identify the authentic text of the New Testament and where that text originated. Their writings show that the original manuscripts were being faithfully copied and widely distributed in the earliest days of the Church. In this segment, Dr. Pickering also quotes from the writings of several 20th and 21st century men who were liberal New Testament critics. In other words, they were not Bible-believing Christians. He mentions Bruce Metzger of Princeton Seminary, the most notorious American liberal textual critic of the 20th century, and E.C. Caldwell of the University of Chicago. He also mentions Kurt Alland, the most notorious European liberal textual critic of the 20th century, Adolf Harnack, another German New Testament textual critic, and C.H. Roberts, a liberal critic at Oxford University in Britain. Why are these men important? None of them believed in the divine preservation of the New Testament, and all of them promoted the false idea that the best New Testament manuscripts came from Egypt, where unbelief was dominant, not authentic biblical Christianity. In this video, Dr. Pickering shows that in their own writings, These men ironically prove that the Alexandrian manuscripts they promote are not authentic copies of the New Testament autographs, but in fact are corruptions. The mainstream of the Byzantine manuscripts, mainly from Asia Minor, are in fact the divinely preserved authentic text of the New Testament. Continuing with the historical evidence for preservation, I will discuss who was best qualified to transmit the New Testament writings. What factors would be important for guaranteeing, or at least facilitating, a faithful transmission of the texts of the New Testament writings? I submit that there are four controlling factors. access to the autographs, proficiency in the source language, the strength of the Church, and an appropriate attitude toward the text. First, access to the autographs. This criterion probably applied for well less than a hundred years. The autographs were presumably worn to a frazzle in that space of time. But it is highly significant to a proper understanding of the history of the transmission of the text. Already by the year 100, there must have been many copies of the various books, some more than others, while it was certainly still possible to check a copy against the original or a guaranteed copy, should a question arise. The point is that there was a swelling stream of faithfully executed copies emanating from the holders of the autographs to the rest of the Christian world. In those early years, the producers of copies would know that the true reading could be verified, which would discourage them from taking liberties with the text. However, distance would presumably be a factor. For someone in North Africa, to consult the autograph of the Ephesians would be an expensive proposition, in both time and money. I believe we may reasonably conclude that in general the quality of copies would be highest in the areas surrounding the autograph and would gradually deteriorate as the distance increased. Important geographical barriers would accentuate the tendency. So, who held the autographs? Speaking in terms of regions, Asia Minor may be safely said to have had 12. John, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1st and 2nd Timothy, Philemon, 1st Peter, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John, and Revelation. Greece may be safely said to have had 6. 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Philippians, 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, and Titus in Crete. Rome may be safely said to have had two, Mark and Romans. As to the rest, Luke, Acts, and 2 Peter were probably held by either Asia Minor or Rome. Matthew and James by either Asia Minor or Palestine. Hebrews by Rome or Palestine. While it is hard to state even a probability for Jude, it was quite possibly held by Asia Minor. Taking Asia Minor and Greece together, the Aegean area held the autographs of at least 18, that's two-thirds of the total, and possibly as many as 24 of the 27 New Testament books. Rome held at least two, and possibly up to seven. Palestine may have held up to three, but in AD 70, they would have been sent away for safekeeping. quite possibly to Antioch. Alexandria or Egypt held none, like zero. The Aegean region clearly had the best start and Alexandria the worst. The text in Egypt could only be second-hand at best. On the face of it, we may reasonably assume that in the earliest period of the transmission of the New Testament text, the most reliable copies would be circulating in the region that held the autographs. Recalling the discussion of Tertullian above, I believe we may reasonably extend this conclusion to AD 200 and beyond. So, in the year 200, someone looking for the best text of the New Testament would presumably go to the Aegean area, certainly not to Egypt. Proficiency in the source language. As a linguist, a PhD, and one who has dabbled in the Bible translation process for some years, I affirm that a perfect translation is impossible. Indeed, a tolerably reasonable approximation is often difficult enough to achieve. The semantic areas of the words simply do not match, or they do so only in part. It follows that any divine solicitude for the precise form of the New Testament text would have to be mediated through the language of the autographs, koine Greek. Evidently, ancient versions, Syriac, Latin, Coptic, may cast a clear vote with reference to major variants, but precision is possible only in Greek in the case of the New Testament. Not that by way of background, but our main concern here is with the copyists. To copy a text by hand in a language you do not understand is a tedious exercise. It is almost impossible to produce a perfect copy. Try it and see. You virtually have to copy letter by letter and constantly check your place. It is even more difficult if there is no space between words and no punctuation, as was the case with the New Testament text in the early centuries. But if you cannot understand the text, it is very difficult to remain alert. Consider the case of Papyrus 66. This papyrus manuscript is perhaps the oldest, around 200, extant New Testament manuscript of any size. It contains most of John. It is one of the worst copies that we have. It has an average of roughly two mistakes every verse, many being obvious mistakes, stupid mistakes, nonsensical mistakes. From the pattern of mistakes, it is clear that the scribe copied syllable by syllable. I have no qualms in affirming that the person who produced Papyrus 66 did not know Greek. Had he understood the text, he would not have made the number and sort of mistakes that he did. Now consider the problem from God's point of view. To whom should he entrust the primary responsibility for the faithful transmission of the New Testament text? Recall 1 Chronicles 16.15, A Thousand Generations. If the Holy Spirit was going to take an active part in the process, where should he concentrate his efforts? Presumably, fluent speakers of Greek would have the inside track, and areas where Greek would continue in active use would be preferred. For a faithful transmission to occur, the copyists had to be proficient in Greek, and over the long haul. So, where was Greek predominant? Evidently, in Greece and Asia Minor. Greek is the mother tongue of Greece to this day, having changed considerably during the intervening centuries, as any living language must. The dominance of Greek in the Aegean area was guaranteed by the Byzantine Empire for many centuries. In fact, until the invention of printing. Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453. The Gutenberg Bible in Latin was printed just three years later, while the first printed Greek New Testament appeared in 1516. For those who believe in providence, I would suggest that here we have a powerful case in point. But now, how about Egypt? The use of Greek in Egypt was already declining by the beginning of the Christian era. Bruce Metzger observes that the Hellenized section of the population in Egypt, quote, was only a fraction in comparison with the number of native inhabitants who used only the Egyptian languages, end quote. By the third century, the decline was evidently well advanced. I have already argued that the copyist who did Papyrus 66, about 200, did not know Greek. Now consider the case of Papyrus 75, about 220. E. C. Colwell analyzed P75 and found about 145 idiosystems, plus 257 other singular readings, 25% of which are nonsensical. From the pattern of mistakes, it is clear that the copyist who did Papyrus 75 copied letter by letter. This means that he did not know Greek. When transcribing in the language you know, you copy phrase by phrase, or at the very least, word by word. Courtelant argues that before 200, the tide had begun to turn against the use of Greek in the areas that spoke Latin, Syriac, or Coptic, that's Egypt. And 50 years later, the changeover to the local languages was well advanced. Well, again, the Aegean area is far and away the best qualified to transmit the text with confidence and integrity. Note that even if Egypt had started out with a good text, Already by the end of the 2nd century, its competence to transmit the text was steadily deteriorating. In fact, the early papyri, they come from Egypt, are demonstrably inferior in quality taken individually, as well as exhibiting rather different types of text, that is, they disagree among themselves. Third, the strength of the Church. This question is relevant to our discussion for two reasons. First, the law of supply and demand operates in the church as well as elsewhere. Where there are many congregations and believers, there will be an increased demand for copies of the scriptures. Second, a strong, well-established church will normally have a confident, experienced leadership, just the sort that would take an interest in the quality of their scriptures and also be able to do something about it. So, in what areas was the early church strongest? Although the church evidently began in Jerusalem, the early persecutions and apostolic activity caused it to spread. The main line of advance seems to have been north into Asia Minor and west into Europe. If the selection of churches to receive the glorified Christ's letters in Revelation 2 and 3 is any guide, the center of gravity of the church seems to have shifted from Palestine to Asia Minor by the end of the first century. The destruction of Jerusalem by Rome's armies in AD 70 would presumably have been a contributing factor. Courtalant agrees with Adolf Harnack that, quote, about 180, the greatest concentration of churches was in Asia Minor and along the Aegean coast of Greece, end quote. He continues, the overall impression is that the concentration of Christianity was in the east even around AD 325. The scene was still largely unchanged. Asia Minor continued to be the heartland of the church, end quote. the heartland of the Church. So who else would be in a better position to certify the correct text of the New Testament? Well, so what about Egypt? C.H. Roberts, in a scholarly treatment of the Christian literary papyri of the first three centuries, seems to favor the conclusion that the Alexandrian Church was weak and insignificant to the Greek Christian world in the second century. As Kurt Allant states, Egypt was distinguished from other provinces of the Church, so far as we can judge, by the early dominance of Gnosticism. He further informs us that, at the close of the second century, the Egyptian Church was dominantly Gnostic. and then goes on to say, the existing copies in the Gnostic communities could not be used because they were under suspicion of being corrupt. Now this is all very instructive. What Allant is telling us, in other words, is that up to AD 200, the textual tradition in Egypt could not be trusted. Alain's assessment here is most probably correct. Notice what Bruce Mesker says about the early church in Egypt, and I quote, Among the Christian documents which during the second century either originated in Egypt or circulated there among both the Orthodox and the Gnostics are numerous apocryphal Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypses. There are also fragments of exegetical and dogmatic works composed by Alexandrian Christians, chiefly Gnostics, during the 2nd century. In fact, to judge by the comments made by Clement of Alexandria, almost every deviant Christian sect was represented in Egypt during the 2nd century. Clement mentions the Valentinians, the Basilidians, the Martial Knights, the Paratites, the Ancretites, the Dosatists, the Haimatites, the Canaanites, the Olphites, the Simonians, and the Eutychites. What proportion of Christians in Egypt during the second century were Orthodox is not known." But we need to pause to reflect on the implications of Kurt Hollande's statements. He was a champion of the Egyptian or Alexandrian text type. And yet he himself informs us that up to AD 200, the textual tradition in Egypt could not be trusted. And that by 200, the use of Greek had virtually died out there. So on what basis can he, Alant, argue that the Egyptian text subsequently became the best? Halland also states that in the 2nd century, 3rd century, and into the 4th century, Asia Minor continued to be the heartland of the Church. This means that the superior qualifications of the Aegean area to protect, transmit, and attest the New Testament text carry over into the 4th century. It happens that Hort, Metzger, and Aland, along with many others, have linked the Byzantine text type to Lucian of Antioch, who died in 311. No, really. Wouldn't a text produced by a leader in the heartland of the Church be better than whatever evolved in Egypt? Of course, I ask the above question only to point out their inconsistency. The Byzantine text type existed long before Lucan. Fourth, attitude toward the text. Where careful work is required, the attitude of those to whom the task is entrusted is of the essence. Are they aware? Do they agree? If they do not understand the nature of the task, the quality will probably go down. If they understand but do not agree, they might even resort to sabotage, a damaging eventuality. In the case of the New Testament books, we may begin with the question, why would copies be made? We have seen that the faithful recognize the authority of the New Testament writings from the start, so the making of copies would have begun at once. The authors clearly intended their writings to be circulated. and the quality of the writings was so obvious that the word would get around and each assembly would want a copy. That Clement and Barnabas quote and allude to a variety of New Testament books by the turn of the first century makes clear that copies were in circulation. A Pauline corpus was known to Peter before A.D. 70. Polycarp, about 115, in answer to a request from the Philippian church, sent a collection of Ignatius letters to them, possibly within five years after Ignatius wrote them. Evidently, it was normal procedure to make copies and collections of worthy writings so each assembly could have a set. Ignatius referred to the free travel and exchange between the churches, and Justin to the weekly practice of reading the scriptures in the assemblies. They had to have copies. A second question would be, what was the attitude of the copyists toward their work? We already have the essence of the answer. Being followers of Christ and believing that they were dealing with scripture to a basic honesty would be added reverence in their handling of the text from the start. And to these would be added vigilance since the apostles had repeatedly and emphatically warned them against false teachers. As the years went by, assuming that the faithful were persons of at least average integrity and intelligence, they would produce careful copies of the manuscripts they had received from the previous generation, persons whom they trusted, being assured that they were transmitting the true text. There would be accidental copy mistakes in their work, but no deliberate changes. It is important to note that the earliest Christians did not need to be textual critics. Starting out with what they knew to be the pure text, they had only to be reasonably honest and careful. I submit that we have good reason for understanding that they were especially watchful and careful, this especially in the early decades. And in one line of transmission, this continued to be the case. Having myself collated at least one book in some 70 manuscripts belonging to the line of transmission that I call Family 35, I hold a perfect copy of at least 22 of the 27 New Testament books. Copies made in the 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, and 15th centuries. For a copy to be perfect in the 14th century, all of its ancestors had to be perfect all the way back to the family architect. I believe that the archetype of family 35 is the autograph. But if not, it must date back to the 3rd century at least. Going back to the second question, as time went on, regional attitudes developed, not to mention regional politics. The rise of the so-called School of Antioch is a relevant consideration. Beginning with Theophilus, a bishop of Antioch who died around 185, the Antiochians began insisting upon the literal interpretation of Scripture. The point is that a literalist is obliged to be concerned about the precise wording of the text since his interpretation or exegesis hinges upon it. It is reasonable to assume that this literalist mentality would have influenced the churches of Asia Minor in Greece and encouraged them in the careful and faithful transmission of the pure texts that they had received. For example, the extant manuscripts of the Syriac Peshitta are unparalleled for their consistency. By way of contrast, the 8,000 or more manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate are remarkable for their extensive discrepancies. and in this they follow the example of the old Latin manuscripts. It is not unreasonable to suppose that the Antiochian antipathy toward the Alexandrian allegorical interpretation of scripture would rather indispose them to view with favor any competing forms of text coming out of Egypt. To the extent that the roots of the allegorical approach that flourished in Alexandria during the 3rd century were already present, they would also be a negative factor. Since Philo of Alexandria was at the height of his influence when the first Christians arrived there, it may be that his allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament began to rub off on the young church already in the first century. Now I'm coming to the point, since an allegorist is going to impose his own ideas on the text anyway, he would presumably have fewer inhibitions about altering it. Precise wording would not be a high priority. Okay, you get the contrast between an allegorist and a literalist. The school of literary criticism that existed at Alexandria would also be a negative factor if it influenced the church at all. And W.R. Farmer argues that it did. Quote, there is ample evidence that by the time of Eusebius, the Alexandrian text critical practices were being followed in at least some of the scriptoria where New Testament manuscripts were being produced. Exactly when Alexandrian text-critical principles were first used is not known." He goes on to suggest that the Christian school founded in Alexandria by Pantanus, around 180, was bound to be influenced by the scholars of the great library of that city. The point is, the principles used in attempting to restore the works of Homer would not be appropriate for the New Testament writings when appeal to the autographs or exact copies made from them was still possible. In conclusion, what answer do the four controlling factors give to our question? The four speak with united voice. the Aegean area was the best qualified to protect, transmit, and attest the true text of the New Testament writings. This was true in the 2nd century. It was true in the 3rd century. It continued to be true in the 4th century. So, in AD 350, the middle of the 4th century, where should we go to find the most correct copies of the New Testament? to the Aegean area. Egypt would be the last place to go. If the transmission of the New Testament text was reasonably normal, the Aegean area would continue to have the best text down through the succeeding centuries. But there are those who have argued that the transmission was not normal. So to that question I now turn. A few moments ago, Dr. Pickering mentioned that in the second century, Clement of Alexandria stated that most of what was being written in Egypt, both copies of the New Testament scriptures and commentaries on the scriptures, were being written by men who embraced the horrible errors of Gnosticism. Clement named 11 Gnostic cults that were at work in Egypt in those days. The history of these cults sheds a great deal of light on the question of who was best qualified to faithfully and accurately transmit the New Testament from one church to the next and from one generation to the next. One of the Gnostic cults in Egypt was called the Valentinians. They were polytheists. They mixed Jesus with Greek gods. Another cult, the Basilitians, employed sorcery and other demonic arts in their religious practice. The Marcionites rejected the Old Testament and the New Testament Gospels, and they taught that Paul was the only true apostle. The Pariti replaced the biblical trinity of the persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit with what they called the three worlds of the Father, Son, and unformed physical matter. They eliminated the Holy Spirit, the divine author of all scripture, from their theology. The Encritites forbade marriage, required abstinence from meat, rejected the book of Acts, and placed a curse upon Paul and his epistles. The Docetists taught that Jesus did not actually come in the flesh. The Ophites also taught that Christ did not exist in the flesh, and they worshiped the serpent of the Garden of Eden, not Jesus, as the true liberator of mankind. The Cainites venerated Cain, who killed his brother Abel, as we read in the book of Genesis. They claimed fellowship with Esau, whom God said that he hated, and with Korah, who led a rebellion against Moses in the wilderness. And they claimed fellowship with the men of Sodom. They taught that indulgence in sin was the key to salvation. The Simonians revered Simon the Sorcerer, whom Peter rebuked in Acts chapter 8. They called Simon a Gnostic savior. Now, it is unthinkable that any of these people could be called Gnostic Christians, as the textual critics claim. And it is unthinkable that faithful transmission of the authentic text of the New Testament could have taken place in an environment so heavily influenced by people who perverted Christianity and the Bible so thoroughly. On the other hand, as Dr. Pickering has just demonstrated, those who were best qualified, those who had a strong interest in the careful, word-for-word, letter-for-letter preservation of the New Testament they were to be found primarily in Asia Minor and not in Egypt. Thank you for watching this pilot video. We are very interested in your feedback and so we invite you to click the link below on this webpage. It will connect you to an online survey where you can give us your input and ask any questions that you may have. We look forward to your feedback and we will gladly respond to your questions. Thank you. you