Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
My faith is old Heart is hard My prayers are cold to be your spirit wash me. And of course, you know the voice of.
Keith green my eyes are dry. A beautiful hymn of Repentance and restoration. A great way to start today. Because I want to start off With a confession today. Yes, we all obviously have things to make confession for.
But I am referring specifically to something that happened last Tuesday.
And.
It was just a part of my normal morning routine. I Have I've set up. I've had been using Google Reader for a very very long time. And I have a number of blogs and news sites that I Monitor and look at first thing in the morning sort of how I know what's going on in the world.
I don't turn the television on anymore. There's really no reason to do that. I don't need the entertainment or the spin and so I was reading through all of the the news sources and I came across a Story and I didn't read very deeply into it.
I'll be honest with you. But I read enough of it to know what was what was going on. I'll read you the whole story here or at least most of it. This is the version from the New York Times from a week ago today.
A week ago today. Geneva the Obama administration announced on Tuesday that the United States would use all the tools of American diplomacy including the potent enticement of foreign aid To promote gay rights around the world.
In a memorandum issued by President Obama in Washington and in a speech by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton here the administration vowed to actively combat efforts by other nations to criminalize homosexual conduct abuse gay men lesbians bisexuals or Transgendered people or ignore abuse against them.
Some have suggested the gay rights and human rights are separate and distinct Mrs. Clinton said at the United States United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, but in fact, they are one and the same.
Neither mr. Obama nor mrs. Clinton specified how to give the initiative teeth. Caitlin Hayden the National Security Council's deputy spokeswoman said the administration was Not cutting or tying foreign aid to changes in other nations practices.
Down below it says with campaigning already underway in the 2012 presidential contest. Mr Obama's announcement could bolster support among gay voters and donors who have questioned the depth of his commitment.
He chose the Reverend Rick Warren a pastor who opposes same-sex marriage to deliver the invocation his inauguration. Mr. Obama himself has not come out officially in favor of same-sex marriage. But he successfully pushed for repeal of don't ask the don't ask don't tell policy that prevented gays from openly serving in the military and the Justice Department has said it will no longer defend in court the Defense of Marriage Act which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
As I read the headline and Took in the the thought that the United States of America Was going to be using its considerable wealth and influence Around the world to promote homosexuality and Gay rights and homosexual marriage and the like what I did is I went on to the next news story.
There are many of them like that and if you like me Scan through I don't know how many of you if I didn't clear my queue each each. You know a couple times each day. It would probably you know during during weekdays I don't know how many things would show up at I don't know seven eight hundred in a day.
I don't know a lot.
And we.
It's the data fog we were exposed to so much of this stuff and it happens so fast. It used to be you know You'd read the newspaper and and some of the stuff in there would be a day or two old because it takes time.
It took time back in the olden days for news to travel. It's not the case anymore and yet as things change so quickly in our day and That's one thing. It's just totally changed since you know, I'm old enough now my my birthday is coming up this weekend and and I'm gonna be starting my Wow sixth decade, I guess yeah 50th year sixth decade.
Yeah. Yee-haw As I as I I'm old enough now to recognize Things change much faster. Now. It's not just oh, well you older folks. You're just not used to know The the way that our society is changing. Is it as an incredibly rapid pace now?
When you when you think About 25 years ago could anyone have thought about what would be happening with the the the utter degradation of marriage the the complete overthrow of Centuries of Cultural commitment to one understanding of what marriage was.
I mean 25 years ago we were talking about the plague of divorce. Now in Washington DC more than 70 of The african-american children are born to unwed mothers 70 don't have dads. Marriage has been thrown under the proverbial bus and now it's being extended To people that can't get married no matter what you do.
You cannot redefine marriage in this way without absolutely destroying the institution and you see what's happening to the society as a result and We see this and we know this and and we know what? The Bible says about a nation that would do what this nation is doing.
It's in the back of our mind. We know what it is. Even the most liberal person who calls himself a Christian for whatever reason a liberal would call themselves Christians. Knows and the liberal may be embarrassed by this but Knows what the Bible says?
About God's wrath coming upon a nation that would use its wealth and its power to promote that which is simply ungodly and the fact the matter is When we pray God deliver us from an unrighteous rulers.
We have ungodly evil unrighteous rulers anyone who would promote the Destruction of the God-ordained The God-ordained Institution of marriage is an evil person not someone of a different perspective.
They are evil they are promoting ungodliness and we're afraid to say that and And how long we're gonna have the right to say that is A real question. I read that story and I knew in the back of my mind.
I know Romans 132.
Although they know the ordinance of God That those who practice such things are worthy of death They not only do the same but also give hearty approval to those who practice them. Sin loves company and the vast majority of people who are promoting the destruction of marriage and A sexual perversion that destroys life and it does destroy life.
The vast majority of people are not themselves homosexuals. They're not and Yet they are promoting. What is ungodly? They they encourage? Ungodliness amongst others, it's it's a part of the rebellion of man and This is what's happening at the highest levels of the government the United States of America, and I read that.
I rolled my eyes and I moved on to the next story. Maybe it was about Tim Tebow or maybe it was about something in the elections, I don't know and The reason I talk about confession this morning is is I have to confess that I have fallen into the trap that I have a feeling most of my listeners have fallen into and that is we we are we are bombarded with this stuff so often that we develop a We develop some sort of a defense mechanism and we become jaded we become insensitive.
Our eyes become dry and unlike the psalmist in Psalm 119 Who talked about how? His eyes flowed with rivers of water. Because of the The fact that he saw God's law being being trampled underfoot and People people showing disrespect to God's law unlike that unlike that psalmist.
My eyes don't weep anymore for that because it's it's all around us. And I I don't I'm not saying that I know exactly How to find the right balance. But I know that if we if we try to find the balance in Ignoring it and not thinking about it that eventually leads us to apathy about these things and we don't communicate to the next generation and That next generation then well, it's it's always been this way hasn't it?
No, it hasn't always been this way. I think it's one of the things going on in our nation. Is that you know the the generation that fought World War two is passing away very very quickly thousands dying each each week as the last of those people passed from the earth and The generations that have come after that Don't know almost anything about sacrifice for the freedoms and All the blessings of Liberty that the United States of America possesses.
Same thing in Europe the generation that fought against totalitarianism and fascism. That generation is passing has passed away and The next generation took for granted everything that had been given to them and we did not communicate to the next generation the current generation of young people the value of The sacrifice of those who went before us we had it given to us we knew the people we still had some commitment to those things, but we haven't passed that on and So the ideas of our liberties the freedoms that we have and the foundations upon which they are built the moral Foundations upon which they are built.
We haven't communicated that to the next generation. So the next generation thinks on the basis of well what I deserve and what I am owed. Nothing about self-sacrifice to get those things it's all connected together and When we talk to the younger generation about the issue of homosexuality, how do they judge it?
They don't judge it on the basis of viewing ourselves as creatures made in the image of God and That God has the right to determine what is and what is not appropriate sexual behavior and there's such things as perversions.
It's all whatever makes you feel good and if that's what if that's what makes you feel good and happy then that's good and The result is the the utter degradation of our view of humanity. We no longer see that we are Creatures made in the image of God and as a result we do not view God's law as something that is good and honorable and something that we should meditate upon and present to people and Let's face it the vast majority of evangelicals are embarrassed by God's law.
It's that stuff in those books back in the Old Testament that I barely made it through when I did my One time reading through the Bible thing, you know, and so we don't talk about What the Christian life should be about and that is the life of repentance.
Of course, we have some people amongst us that don't think repentance is even a part of the Christian life. And it's sort of hard to even understand how that's even a part of Christianity. I don't think that it is.
But.
Sometimes people say how can I live my life in such a way as to as to really stand out from the world? Well, it's not by dressing like the world and speaking like the world and acting like the world and and everything else I would suggest that the way to live your life in a way that is utterly unlike the world would be to Live a life of repentance because that's the one thing the world cannot even begin to understand and cannot begin to do.
Now we look at this situation and the United States Promoting homosexuality around the world. Well, I'll tell you if you if you want to. If the Obama administration wants to give something to the Muslims To help Them recruit people to be jihadists.
Do that just brilliant. That's brilliant. There's there's the great Satan over there promoting homosexuality, there you go, whoo-hoo, but the reality is. It's it's easy to become angry. It's easy to become angry.
It's something like this but that isn't our our anger accomplishes nothing and I can't repent for somebody else. I can only repent for myself. I can only repent for my own attitudes and I can pray for my nation.
But what do I pray for a nation whose leaders are absolutely intent and spitting in God's face. Because that's what these people are intent on doing. Why isn't anybody saying this. I Guess it's because there are some people who say it and and then they they do it in such a way that shows they've Never really looked all that deeply at it.
And we don't we don't like the You know the the wild-eyed King James only guy talking about How evil the United States is. But the same time people who should be saying this seem to be frightened absolutely frightened at saying what needs to be said and that is.
And this needs to be communicated to the leaders of this nation with clarity if you promote that which is in direct opposition to God's truth. You are engaging in evil and you must repent you will be judged by God.
Not by me. I Don't have the right to judge you. I have the right to vote against you as long as I still have that right as long as I still have my freedoms there's a lot of people a lot of people who would like to see a totalitarian system of government that Guarantees free speech for only one side.
We already see this happening in Europe and it's heading our direction folks. If you if you're not seeing it, it's coming. But the reality is we need to be proclaiming God's judgment. God will not be mocked if you sow these things you can only reap what you have sown and If you promote that which is directly in opposition to godliness, you will reap death eternal death separated from God it seems a lot of Christians have Confused the Bible and the Constitution.
Well, actually not even the Constitution a post constitutional concept. Separation of church and state which in their mind becomes Separation of what I do in my culture and God's law and what's right before God so that oh a Politician isn't going to be judged what they've done.
Really? You really think that on the Judgment Day? Those people who made it possible for us to swim in the blood of Innocent children murdered in the womb when we know more about The humanity of the preborn child than we have ever known in the history of mankind Folks if the amount of light determines punishment.
Then all those people Who killed little children in the Dark Ages? Well, they'll be punished. But what about us today? We have all watched videos of the development of that little child in the womb.
We have no excuse at all.
We know that's human. We know that if you don't go in there and kill it with salt or rip it apart with a knife. It's gonna be a human being with separate DNA a separate genetic code a unique individual.
We know that we have no excuses none.
Zero and yet we become apathetic. It's it's there's just too much. We no one could no one could keep up with it all. And so like I said, I I read this story. Sorry about the sermon, but I read the story.
And I moved on and a few days later. I heard somebody mentioned. Oh, I heard might have been the next day or the day after. I forget when it was when Al Mohler mentioned the same thing in the briefing that is a.
That is a webcast by the way that you need to subscribe to. I Certainly do I listen to it every day? Well, I listen to every day when he's doing it anyways. He mentioned as well and I started thinking about it.
So, you know, I read that story and I just I just passed over it and.
I.
Did not you know in the back of my mind all you know, all the all the theological truth is there.
But I.
Just passed over it and. So maybe you like I need to need to confess that it's it's become far too easy to find a means of accommodation a way around having to face The cultural Suicide that our nation and Western cultures as a whole seems to be Absolutely intent upon committing and I'm not sure where the balance is there.
But I know that I would rather continue to be sensitive to God's truth and to God's law Than to be comfortable in This present evil age. That's not it's not that we're the first people to live in an evil age.
How did Jesus describe this age. Is this present evil age? But there does seem to be.
Such a.
Present reality of the evil in the sense of the The access we have to it that we can see it right in front of us. Unlike any time in the past. Maybe it was a mercy from God. That news of evil could only come to us at a certain speed in the past now.
It's instantaneous and It's just all around us. It's just all around us. So I confess I read that story and.
It didn't.
You know, I I mean I I Added it to the. You know, I have. I have a bookmark folder in Chrome on my on my Mac. I think I called it cultural decay. And I may have even dragged it in there. I don't know.
Sometimes I get tired of it Just dragging stuff in there. There's so much. But I confess I just I just passed it by and I shouldn't have done that. I have to say it I've often.
More and more lately considered. What must it have been like day-to-day life in Sodom tomorrow, yeah. Would we Ever look back and consider that there might have been those who say god bless Sodom. Yeah.
And Gamora. When I hear politicians and others get up these days and say god bless America, that's America. I wonder. Is that appropriate any longer? Is that a reasonable request?
Well, obviously remember September 12 2001. We were on the air that day and what I said was not what most people were saying and in fact if I recall correctly Carla even made a t-shirt from what I said, and that was god bless America with a a Heart rending soul shaking repentance because that's I think that is the only Blessing that we can pray for our nation.
I I don't know how we can look at a nation that will take its money to Promote godlessness around the world and say god bless us with more money to do. What with? To continue to spit in your face.
Well, you were. Was a lot even a voice.
In Sodom anymore, or was he just he was known. He was known and I'm and the way they turned on him. So quickly, yeah, you know, who are you, you know foreigner to judge us? I'm sure they had Observed his life and when they observed his life, they felt conviction.
But he had had to have come to a point of accommodation. There's no question his wife had. Yeah. And in fact even at that the angels literally had to drag him out of there.
You would think that Someone with a righteous soul would have been so well. Hebrew says he was vexed, but did he find a means of accommodation? I don't know. We have to be careful of it. It just I Wanted to to raise the issue for folks and to think about it.
Because I would imagine that almost every person in this audience Has seen those stories over the past week and like me Just moved on. Because the feeling is what can I do about it? That's true. I can't.
You know, I mean I can I can do what I can do as a citizen. I Certainly pray and of course the way we pray the way we pray it the Phoenix Foreign Baptist Church is not the way that I was Taught to pray when I was younger.
And what I mean by that is We pray that God would protect us from evil leaders and if the God we pleased to either change their hearts or to remove them from office but protect us from evil leaders and I led the pastoral prayer Sunday morning, and I prayed about this very issue.
Confessed our nation has done this we we cannot ask for your blessing upon our nation.
Unless.
We repent unless we are repentant. That that is absolutely all we have to do. I mean, let me close with that text from Psalm 119 then maybe we'll just go ahead and take a break and then we'll come back with the DIA Muhammad debate and The Bart Ehrman will continue those those series, but that text is Psalm 119 136 the 136th verse of the 119th Psalm.
My eyes shed streams of tears because people do not keep your law. My eyes shed streams of tears because people do not Keep your law. Well, I don't want to. I don't want to become a person who doesn't understand What the psalmist was saying there?
I? Want to be a person who? does have a sensitivity to God's law and Holds that as a much higher standard Than any accommodation I might seek with this world when we come back DIA Muhammad and Subject of Islam.
We'll be right back.
The man such a rarity today. So many stars. Strong and true. Quickly fall away. Alpha and omega ministries is pleased to introduce the Christmas morning CD by Todd Lindstrom. Passion and peace are what sets Todd's music apart from others.
These 12 instrumental favorites will bless and inspire you as you entertain guests and spend a Christmas morning with your family. You can find this beautiful music that celebrates the birth of our Lord in the bookstore at a omen org.
This portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God. The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church.
The elders and people of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming Lord's Day. The morning Bible study begins at 9 30 a .m. And the worship service is at 10 45. Evening services are at 6 30 p .m.
On Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7. The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix. You can call for further information at 602 to 6 grace. If you're unable to attend you can still participate with your computer and real audio at PR BC org where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day.
What is dr Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book chosen, but free. A new cult. Secularism. False prophecy scenarios. No, dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called Calvinism.
He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent. Philosophically insufficient and morally repugnant in his book the potter's freedom. James White replies to dr. Geisler, but the potter's freedom is much more than just a reply.
It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded. Indeed it is a defense of the very gospel itself in a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate.
James White masterfully counters the evidence against so-called Extreme Calvinism. Defines what the reformed faith actually is and concludes that the gospel preached by the reformers is the very one taught in the pages of Scripture.
The potter's freedom a defense of the Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's chosen. But free you'll find it in the reformed theology section of our bookstore at a omen org.
Someone in channel just said Great sermonette doc. Unfortunately on Sunday our deacon was talking with the elders and he He said well remember sermonettes make for Christian nets. So. Hmm, but um boom yes poor pastor Frye went about 15 minutes shorter than the full period on Sunday.
Deacon was saying well remember pastor Frye sermonettes make for Christian nets.
Don't remember the last time I got done anywhere. No, I I always take the full time. But anyway, yes I know LaShawn's trying to get in but she says she got in and then no one's there which means she's either on the wrong Network or didn't join the right channel or something like that.
So someone has to go find her. She's poor. LaShawn's wandering about in the in the in the Not the blogosphere the IRC a sphere and we're gonna send out search parties. See if we can drag her into Prasapalagiyan because she's.
I guess she's trying to make the effort to get in but she hasn't found.
Our.
Either our network or our channel yet. Spelling Prasapalagiyan can be fun. Anyways, but anyways. Oh, by the way, Lord willing we will need to move the Thursday program to Friday morning. I and a friend are going to be Doing something absolutely insane on Thursday I hesitate to make mention of it because then I have to actually do it.
But our goal our goal is to climb On our bikes 10 ,560 feet 10 ,560 feet on on Thursday, which is two miles two miles of ascent. It should take about 72 to 73 miles at the particular spot. We're gonna be doing this at and So I've never climbed over 10 ,000 feet in one day and with my birthday coming up over the weekend.
Some of you know, I try to do something to sort of mark that and so between the ride I'm gonna do then and I'm and on my birthday. I'm shooting for 15 ,000 feet in before this particular birthday, so Only a few years ago.
I was only able to do a hundred feet per year so leverage about 4 ,500 feet or something like that and I'd have to prepare for that and then it was really exhausting and stuff and things have changed but anyhow, so we're gonna move it to Friday morning and The weather should allow for that and stuff like that.
All right, let's get back to we're gonna jump into the DIA Mohammed debate first we have been listening to his opening statements and He is of course making the argument that the Trinity has been removed from the Bible because of 1st John 5 7 which he keeps calling John 5 7 and Let's continue on listening to his presentation.
I'd with God. How can he be clean that he was born of a woman? So the Bible says how can anyone be justified with God of he who is born of a woman?
Now there's an interesting objection How can Jesus be clean if he's born of course from the Islamic perspective he was. So I'm not really certain Why you would make an objection that would actually refute your own perspective because From the Islamic perspective Jesus was sinless in fact, even that famous hadith about the end times when all of humanity comes to First to Adam and then to Noah and then Abraham and Moses and Jesus and stuff and they all say It's not for me to intercede with my Lord.
Jesus is the only one who doesn't make any reference to sin and One of the forms if I recall correctly of that hadith actually even points that out doesn't just pass over But actually even points out he said nothing concerning sin, so I'm not really sure how that's an argument.
But be that as it may. Obviously the Bible does say that man is born of a woman and as a result those who are naturally born Are unclean and that's the doctrine of original sin. I don't think that mr. Muhammad actually believes that either does he?
There I think you can make the argument that Muhammad had that understanding certainly some of the Hadiths Hadith support that certainly the famous Hadith where Adam and Moses are sort of arguing with one another Supports the idea that Adam in his fall brought his his progeny in his posterity into sin.
But the Bible clearly differentiates between Jesus's birth and the birth of Most men be through the concept of virgin birth, which again is a part of Islamic theology. So I really don't know on what basis.
Mr. Muhammad is bringing this issue up because on any basis we approach it from He's contradicting his own faith in making that kind of argument.
Not our words words that you're talking about. And it continues. How much less is man. That is a worm the son of man. The son of man referred to Jesus is a worm. I.
Don't know I I've I've heard a few other people use this. And I guess it just gets sorry gets passed around or something son of man as a as a title Does not always refer to Jesus obviously. There is the divine son of man in the book of Mark when Jesus applies that using applying the prophecy of Daniel to himself, but son of man can simply be a reference to a human being and In this context it is talking about the son of man as a human being in comparison to God and anything in fact this goes back to.
Part of my response to Mr. Barron a few weeks ago. Remember we did that two-hour mega DL that we dedicated to Big Ralph and One of the things that that was brought up there Likewise sort of sort of touched on this and and that is these Unitarians will say well Well that that phrase doesn't always have to mean this.
It can it can mean that or can mean one of these that's true and like a go I mean for example Doesn't always refer is it is not always a claim of deity. When the blind man in John 9 says I go I mean he's not claiming deity duh but any word or phrase has a meaning in the context in which it was used and Jesus uses son of man and son of God even interchangeably in Contexts that indicate he's drawing from Daniel and the specific eschatological son of man Who is brought before the Ancient of Days so on so forth and he has servants who worship him and all the rest that stuff so just because you can find the phrase son of man and Here you have the vast difference between the created order and the uncreated God.
That was the other thing I was going to mention about Responding mr. Baron was that you know, they the Unitarians are always say you shouldn't say that we believe Jesus is merely a creature. Yes, we should say you believe he's merely a creature because the chasm between the created and the create the creator and the created is.
Infinite and.
So no matter how exalted you are on the created side. You're still created. And you're a mere creature in comparison to God in the same way the Son of Man even though create an image of God is Like a worm in comparison to God on a level of being which of course is what's being referred to there again?
Not my words. This is from the Bible and both seem to correct me if I'm misquoting.
Well, that's that's exactly what we're attempting to do. It's not so much misquoting as completely ignoring the context of the quotes that you give.
Now.
In John 3 16.
Edie Christian will know. Okay now here. This is the okay. Here we go. This this is where I really think. The stuff I'm watching Twitter over here and I watching the channel a little bit and Squirrel just said breaking news dozens of channel rats on Twitter work diligently to get Leshawn into prosper again.
You.
Know the sad thing is Leshawn is that we get lots of folks in our channel that we don't really want in our There are there are all sorts of lamers who show up Yes, and who come in to to tell me about what a terrible horrible person I am and we want you in channel And we can't get you there.
It's just not fair. It's sort of funny anyways, this next section is going to be very very educational if I ever get around to it and stop playing our channel Here is Here is where? You need to be able to explain to someone to a Muslim DIA Muhammad is very representational of The standard set of complete misunderstandings on the part of the Muslim in Western culture and so What you have to be able to do is to be able to Explain basic fundamental things to them that they may already actually know when it comes to you know I have a feeling DIA Muhammad would recognize that when you're studying the Quran There are certain words to use in the Quran you need to see how the Quran used those words and the context those words and We probably recognize that certain Arabic words and certain surahs have different meanings and when they're used in other surahs and all the rest that Kind of stuff, but when it comes to the Bible, they don't want to extend to us the Same Privilege I guess and so What you're gonna hear here is DIA Muhammad Has imbibed a certain understanding of the word begotten only begotten specifically.
He doesn't know what the Greek is. He doesn't know what monogamous is. He doesn't understand that monogamous comes from genesis and not from geno which means to beget and only has one new not two news in it and and He's not taking the time looking at that stuff he doesn't wouldn't even know where to look and unfortunately probably hasn't run into too many Christians who can explain it to him and So he's got this idea of what begotten means and the primary source the primary source of DIA Muhammad's understanding of Christian theology is Ahmed D dot.
Yes Ahmed D dot the showman the storyteller the deceiver and he was You cannot you cannot you cannot tell me he wasn't I can I have I have documented look at look at our YouTube site and We haven't even commenced to begin if we really want to invest some time in it.
We could document so it's it's it's it's just as easy as Documenting gross errors and a part of Zakir Naik Who's still alive and will not debate people who can document his errors and he knows that he is hiding in fear From those that he knows Could demonstrate his utter errors.
He's hiding in fear and Those of you who are Muslim apologists know it. In fact, I will point out something the better a Muslim apologist. You are in other words The more you actually study the other side and you understand the issues and you can present a consistent perspective The more you're gonna recognize that your most popular speakers Don't have a clue what they're talking about.
Don't have a clue what they're talking about. I could name names of Muslims I have debated over the past couple of years and I know if we sat down and I started presenting to you the arguments of Ahmed D dot and Zakir Naik, you know, they're bad arguments.
And one of the reasons I know that is because you don't repeat them. If you thought they were good arguments, you wouldn't beat them, but you know that they're bad arguments and yet they are Absolutely the most popular arguments out there and unfortunately DM Muhammad likewise has done the same thing he has just followed Ahmed D dot and What you're gonna hear is exactly exactly what Ahmed D dot says listen to what he says.
About begotten what who what John 3 16 is For God, so I love the world that he gave his only begotten son. Begotten not made and he was named Jesus. It is now I get the feeling.
Honestly.
Because he said this a number of times that that DM Muhammad actually believes. That the phrase begotten not made is in the New Testament. He's even gonna say it. That's a creedal statement. That's from that's from the Nicene Creed.
It's not it's not a New Testament statement in any way shape or form. But did you remember when we were playing this earlier? He even pointed out he didn't bring his Bible. This is all stuff in notes.
He can't even check the context. These things he wanted to.
He really I think he really thinks. That's what John 3 16 says his mother's one and his begotten not made. The brothers changed the words a little when he referred to it where he said the one and only son.
Seaton did you hear he changed the words a little? Here's a man who knows That the Quran was written in a language other than English and And so he would know that if we tried to present an argument based upon Differences in English translations of the Quran you go.
That's that's not right. That's not how you handle the Quran. The the the Quran was written in Arabic. You've got to look at the Arabic. You can't be looking at English translations. Let's say we made an argument based upon the difference between the Sahih International translation and Yusuf Ali and then we compared those with Pictol and We said see the Quran they're changing the words of the Quran.
What would be the only meaningful way that you could argue?
That.
The words the Quran are being changed. Well that the Arabic is being changed and so when I present examples of this from the early Tafsir literature It's not from translations it is. Specifically in regards to the Arabic text of the Quran that we're talking about.
Right. And yet here. Because Samuel Greene had more accurately Translated monogamies as unique or one-of-a-kind. Then the result of the accusations you're changing the words.
Fundamental basic errors, that's not what the Bible says. The Bible says begotten.
Begotten and we all know what begotten is we got the Bible says begotten. No, sir. The Bible says monogamies. You're you're making an English translation the standard of what the Bible is even when you know that you'd never do that with the Quran and What is the what is the famous saying that I've been saying now, you know, it's been over five years.
Been over five years now since I coined this one. I remember where I was when I I came up with this statement and It has become famous and I think it's a very good statement. Inconsistency, it's a sign of a failed argument and I Appreciated the fact I appreciated the fact that Abdullah kunda Said to me after our debates Said well, I'm trying I'm trying to be that consistent Muslim.
Because I said I keep looking I keep looking and I appreciate the effort to move that direction, but I'll be perfectly honest with you. I don't think it's possible because of the essence of the religious system of Islam coming after Christianity and the statements that are made about Christianity in the Quran.
That's where the problem lies. So You will find folks Applying double standards and you have to try to gently and clearly point to them out to them that they are. They're doing that the gotten.
Refers to the lower animal functions of six.
There you go. Begotten refers to the lower animal functions of sex. Well the term cannot Oh Might refer to that and by the way that comes straight out of the Akhmed D dot quote book. I mean, it's been years since I've played in the Akhmed D dot on the Program.
I need to do that again. Because I do want I I think after we finish the D of Muhammad thing I do want to play some of the sections from the D dot debate with Josh McDowell. Why I mentioned you. I listened to that and One of the things that one of the reasons I hesitate to do that is That even for me who has listened to this guy for years now.
If my if my mind wanders for even a moment I lose the context and his accent is so thick his South African accent is so thick. Then it can take me two or three sentences before all of a sudden it starts making sense again.
I mean literally if you lose the context, it's like gone, it's just words and But there was this there was an just a. It was Very much on the level of Jerry. I'll take just one. If those of you who know my debates know that's one of the most famous Instances in 1998 or 96 1996 in the first Marion debate on Long Island Algo has this entire thing the entire thing memorized and Quotes it each morning and when he gets up, it's a frightening thing.
There's this incident in the DDOT debate with with McDowell where McDowell just DDOT throws him a moon ball and he just cranks it up and sends it over the fence.
The the thing that's amazing to me is that after that Embarrassing crushing of DDOT on that very same point guess who to this very day Continues to repeat the same error the DDOT had made Zakir Naik Zakir Naik It's just.
The man has the man has no shame. That's what it means. You and I we're all begotten.
What I was gonna say is Ganaa 'o can mean that.
Monogamous in this context, how about Ganaa 'o in a spiritual sense? Does Ganaa 'o always have to do with sexual reproduction? No, can it refer to sexual reproduction? Sure. How do you know the difference?
It's called Context it's called. How is the term being used in any given context? And we know that monogamous does not come from Ganaa 'o and so if you're gonna make the argument you're gonna have to go much more deeply into The language and the context to make your argument.
And it's clear that mr. Muhammad has no earthly idea. What the information is that he would have to be getting into to substantiate the assertions.
He's making and the Bible's going out of his way to say, you know, he wasn't made.
He was begotten. See he really thinks that it says begotten not made in the text of the Bible. And he's confusing the text of the Bible with the Nicene Creed.
This is what you're you're attributing to to a holy holy man the Prophet or even your Lord that he was begotten.
Well, I I do believe he was born of a virgin. Just like you believe that that's what the Quran says. If you read surah 19, it's it's it's there. So what he's reading into that is some type of a sexual act.
All based upon his misunderstanding of monogamies.
In acts 2 to 22 seconds, which was his email of Israel. He these words Jesus and of nethers a man approved by God a man.
Now, you know again if you've if you've dealt with Jehovah's Witnesses at the door or people like that. You've heard all of this before and it does give you the strong sense that what we're getting is is coming from Secondary sources like that, you know go on the internet find arguments cobble them all together.
We believe that Jesus was a man and what's this? What's the false assumption? It has to be dealt with here Obviously Unitarianism. And What's the fundamental? assumption of The Muslim at this point that we dealt with in the debate with Abdullah kunda.
There can be no incarnation. He's a man. That's all he you can't be anything other than a man. You can't have a God man. Not possible. It's just the it's the presupposition of the position that is not being defended a.
Man, there was a time in the story relating in the Bible where Jesus arrived in a town. And he saw a fig tree and he was here. Comes the feet to the argument. I see big today. Ah, we love you big.
Sub you're going. What do you. What do you do if you've never seen the fig tree video? It's it's definitely on the on the YouTube channel Big three. Yes the big three. We had a fell. I don't know where he was from.
But we we had a questioner during the first debate we did with Muslims with Hamsa. I'll do Malik in 1999 and and I play this. It's a part of my regular Presentation on Islam to give you the the varying views and I love watching the audiences when I played the fig tree.
When I when I watch people's faces when they hear the fig tree argument. A lot of people will at first they don't they don't get what the argument is. And then then I think they get it and they they start to chuckle like I think that's a man I thought I thought the Jehovah's Witnesses were wild but that that that's amazing, you know, and they they they sort of go okay, well, you know, whatever and So.
But then once it's over with I go, all right, you know, I saw y 'all chuckling at that, you know. But how would you respond to it? How would you answer this? And That's when it becomes a little bit more difficult to deal with.
Let me see if you know, let me Don't have it on this one trad. I'm gonna find this. I mean, let me let me let me pull this. There it is. Okay, I want to play the fig tree argument in case you haven't seen it.
So some of you have some of you have but let's let's listen to the fig tree argument.
This is from 1999 and.
This is during the cross-examination period with Hamza Abdel-Malik. This is no Scott. I'm sorry not. Cross-examination audience questions and Here is here is the question that was asked to me the fig tree argument.
Yes my question to the doctor.
I heard you repeating many times saying he's a creator about Jesus. Be some blessing be upon him because we Muslim believe in Jesus the mighty prophet of God. I heard you many time. He's saying he's the creator of everything and all things.
So I want you to explain to me if it's possible if he's a creator of everything. When Jesus be some blessing be upon him was he woken by the fig tree was his companion. The fig tree was his companion and He wants to eat some fig and they told him master.
The fig is not in season. So if he was God how he don't know if he create the tree how he know how he does. He doesn't know if what's in season or what not in season if he create everything. Okay, and if the fig was not in season and he's God first of all.
We don't accept God to be hungry. He wants to eat but you Christian you said God choose to do so. So that's your faith, but I'm saying even if you was God and fig is not in season. Why. He couldn't order the tree to bring fig.
Okay that God the one create everything.
So there's there you go. There's there's the fig tree argument and I point out to folks that that is a Quranic argument. The Quran makes that argument when it talks about Jesus and his mother eating food now, of course it also Applies that to Mary which makes you go you mean the author the Quran thought Mary was a God too.
And and so, you know. You have to get into that but I go. How do you respond to that now? Here's here's the version as it is offered by by DIA Mohammed. He was overjoyed.
And he went to the fig tree and then he was angry because the season was not yet. You know when we travel we get lost in the spring. Is it autumn is it is it summer? Whatever it may be he was going Thinking there was fruit bearing on this tree, but then he saw there was no fruit on the tree.
So he got angry. If he's God Almighty, he's all-knowing how why would he get angry for the tree? That's following his commands. The tree wasn't bearing fruit. It wasn't season. And he said he got angry.
How can the man or Jesus you're knowing Get angry at the fact. There was no fruit when the tree is following his commands and bearing fruit at certain times.
Now you hear the you hear the paper turn, so, you know. Example done let's move.
From here.
Has has DIA Mohammed taken the time to look up the context of the the fig tree. Does he does he understand how the fig tree represents Israel and does he understand the concept of doing that? You know the funny the thing that bothers me honestly here is These guys know how many times Mohammed did things in the hadith that were meant to communicate something they know.
How many times the Quran for example? refers to ayat signs and How things in nature are taken to have certain meanings? Do you not understand how this means this and that means that there's parables? Even in the creation according to Quran and yet When they read the New Testament Jesus did you isn't allowed to have parables?
Jesus can have parables that no Jesus is angry at the tree because there's no figs and He's supposed to know that what the when if he's the creator then he knows what fit. Well, if he lived in in Israel, he knew what the season for figs was for crying out loud.
You telling me he wasn't as smart as his disciples. I mean, are you really gonna be that disrespectful? The point was that it had The appearance that it would have figs just as Israel had the appearance of having fruit unto godliness.
But it had nothing. It was a parable to quote from my favorite heretic. It's a parable dummy. And I'm not calling the a Muhammad a dummy. I'm quoting from John Dominic Rossum who uses that phrase all the time.
It's a parable. It's not objection read it in context allow it get show enough respect. For the New Testament writers to at least understand what they're saying. At least you know, I call for Christians to handle the Quran correctly to read it in its context to to not be unfair and to not be surface level in your Criticism of it and therefore I can say to you Muslim apologists man.
You really need to step up your game. And I don't mean doing it the way Shabir does it by quoting all the liberals? Let the text speak for itself apply the same standard. Apply the same standards of Scholarship worldview exegesis to the New Testament that you do the Quran.
How about that? I don't think you can do it. Because when you do that The Quran doesn't do so well in comparison to the New Testament. All right, let's let's shift gears and Now that we have LaShawn and channel.
She says I was about to give up and I thought I can do this. Believe me LaShawn, like we said all sorts of people get in there that we wish weren't. What then did I miss something? Yes. Yes, it is with two minutes after of course.
It's a it's a jumbo deal. It's just a jumbo deal just for Ralph's for Ralph's Benefit there. This is just a jumbo deal. It is not a. It is not a mega deal and I don't want to get excited about that or anything like that.
But just so you just so you know. Anyhow, yes, we are going to. I my plan was do the first half hour on the cultural issue half hour on the deal Muhammad debate and the last half hour on.
The.
Bart Ehrman situation. I want to finish my cross-examination of Dr. Erman here. So that we can we can press on here with his actual presentation.
God could have inspired the originals and then decided to allow scribes to change the originals. God could have inspired all the textual variants. I mean if you're saying if it's impossible, then when you're talking about God, nothing is impossible.
Now we're continuing on Analyzing his own theological presuppositions, which he seems loathe to defend. And didn't like the fact that I brought up even though it's in the book that he demanded that we debate.
But now he's just talking about rambling on about the the range of possibilities. But then he gets to what his own view is.
The the church father origin maintained that all of the textual variants were inspired by God that he inspired the scribes. So well, that's you know, that's perfectly fine. That's what you want to think.
I simply don't think so. My view is that if God wanted us to have his words He wouldn't have allowed his words to be changed so that we don't know what the words were. So there you go.
My view is That if God inspired the words, he would not have allowed them to be changed. Who else shares that perspective who else shares that that presupposition? Now obviously, I don't believe he's allowed his words to be changed in the sense is lost.
He's using that that in the sense of any textual variation there would be no copyist errors. There would be no textual variation whatsoever if it had been inspired now, that is a radical view. That has not been the view of The great textual textual critics down to the ages and so Bart Ehrman seems that that was not the view of his teacher.
You cannot tell me that was a view of Bruce Metzger it wasn't. That was not the view of Tischendorf. So he's decided to chart a new path. As he has in many other areas. You need to understand that Bart Ehrman has Has an agenda and he has been pursuing that agenda and very been been very successful in pursuing that agenda because unfortunately my apologies Ahead of time here many of my brethren Who are wedded to the Academy are unwilling to?
Talk straight in other words. This man has hijacked not just the textual critical area. But if there is an entire book out, in fact, I've have it for assigned reading For the Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary class that I'm teaching in January here in the Phoenix area.
Still time to sign up if you want to join in. One of my assigned texts is called the heresy of orthodoxy and It is a specific response to Bart Ehrman and the beginning of the book is a response to Bart Ehrman on What is now being called the Bauer-Ehrman hypothesis, so his name's been attached to it.
What is the Bauer-Ehrman hypothesis? Well, the Bauer there is not F .C. Bauer even though he would hold similar views. But Walter Bauer the same Walter Bauer of the Bauer Donker, Arndt and Gingrich Greek lexicon and Walter Bauer is the one who developed the hypothesis back in the 1930s.
Originally Christianity was a Loosely connected group of differing views and only over time did the as Ehrman refers them proto-orthodox Come to have Victory over everybody else and then they rewrote history To Make it look like they had always been around.
The Bauer hypothesis is that when you look at major cities in the ancient world There's no evidence according to Bauer of an orthodoxy and then a growing Group of heretics rebelling against it. Now the great irony here.
The great irony here is that many people will admit many scholars will admit that in its specifics. The Bauer hypothesis has been refuted most would say in every specific. Every specific location geographical location the cities are looked at with the possible Exception of Odessa, but even that is debatable.
Entire doctoral theses have been written dissertations, sorry. Have been written on Refuting it and yet while many people admit I've even heard Ehrman admit that in its particulars It has not fared. Well, but overall it remains the predominant view of Historians now what kind of a what kind of a theory?
Can Survive When it's foundations been washed away. Doesn't that mean that the people who continue to hold to it must have some other reason for Holding to it. I would suggest that's the case and I couldn't help but thinking about One other Entire Structure political religious theological structure That in its particulars in its in its historical foundation has been utterly refuted and washed away By modern historical research and yet it still stands, you know what I'm referring to the papacy the papacy when you look at Rome's use of bogus documents.
False citations. The pseudo is a Dorian decretals the donation of Constantine. The papacy as it exists today could not have developed without those fraudulent works. Everybody admits that they are frauds today and yet the papacy still stands.
The papacy still stands. It's standing in midair. It's got nothing to stand on but it still stands and just Not very long ago August of 2010 in a debate with a Roman Catholic attorney. What did we have to deal with?
His use of a bogus citation a bogus quotation attributed to an early church father there are books filled with these things who made all this stuff up and What kind of a theory can continue to exist even when its historical foundation has been wiped away.
Well, the Bauer-Ehrman hypothesis can and the papacy can but Let's make another connection here, which I think is rather interesting. Ehrman has just said if God inspired it there'd be no variations.
There's Bart Ehrman Bible critic happy agnostic though. I'm not so sure about the happy part and.
Primary Opponent of biblical Christianity in the East yet in a Western speaking English speaking Western culture. Who else says exactly what he says? Most of you already thought about it.
King James only folks.
The King James only folks have the exact same view. God inspired it won't be any variation. So must be one translation and God's preserved it in the King James version of the Bible. What's the difference in outlook.
None? Absolutely none. The foundational presupposition is identical between the two of them. One just says and since there ain't none. Then I have nothing no reason to believe the Bible at all and I'm gonna become an agnostic.
And the other says well, I'm continue to believe the Bible, but I need to find one particular English translation that fulfills my Standards and I choose the King James version of the Bible. Now 150 years from now will someone be doing that with you know, and IV only ism or ESV only ism.
Who knows? I hope not. I Hope not. But they have the same presupposition they start at the same wrong place. And I find that quite interesting. So the standard then that would have to exist. For you to have maintained the position that you held would have been.
Either the originals or.
Some.
Perfect copy thereof. Now remember that's a Short version of the question that the lady asked. Remember a couple weeks ago. I realized sometimes these these Programs are extended out over so long a period of time that you forget something.
It was Couple weeks ago. I didn't hear it or whatever. I understand how it works But remember the lady I started off with a lady asking Bart Ehrman a question at the end of the debate what evidence would you need and Remember what his answer was.
Well If we if we found ten copies of the Gospel of Mark That we could tell had been written within ten days not ten years not ten weeks ten days of The original and they agreed with it. You didn't hear this did you.
I can tell by the look on your face Here was oh great, you know when the guy at behind the soundboard hasn't heard it.
It's not the case that there was this massive recension at some against that. That's good evidence. Got it discovered. We're all in the original autographs. What would it be in between that that would.
There's a standard of evidence that's trustworthy other than the autographs. Well, if we had early copies if we had copies of Mark suppose suppose next week there there's a archaeological find in Egypt and say it's in Rome an archaeological find in Rome and We can we have reason to think that these ten manuscripts that are discovered We're all copied within a week of the original copy of Mark and they disagree in Point zero zero one percent of their textual variation then then I would say that's good evidence.
There you go, folks. There you go. So ten copies within a week of the original and They agree ninety nine point nine nine one percent. That's what he needs that's what he needs now. Everybody knows and he knows.
Everybody knows and he knows. That in fact the reason I played this is if you listen very very carefully. Let me see if I still got it there. Let me turn this up a little bit so we can hear it and that's precisely what we don't have.
Yes, catch that. Wow. That's Dan Wallace going. Wow. And I wrote to Dan to make sure that's it that you did. Because that's what I was saying when I heard it. Wow, what an outrageous demand. I Mean that is so there has never been a textual critic alive.
Who has ever had that standard. Never this man is out in the weeds beyond the left field fence with something like this and yet for some reason. Everyone just bows and scrapes because well, he's dead under Bruce Metzger.
Well, Bruce Metzger would find that to be absolutely absurd. But if you want to get invited to the conferences, you don't say that kind of thing. I guess I don't know. It's it's it's frustrating. But there was the answer that he gave to that guy was Ten copies nine nine point nine nine one percent agreement ten days.
How would you even know that none of them be dated anyways, but my my assertion is this Bart Ehrman's standard. For the New Testament to be considered trustworthy is a photocopy machine. There had to have been a photocopy of the original.
That's it. Nothing else will do. So no matter how superior to anything else in history the New Testament is by his standard. It cannot be trustworthy. And by the way, as I said last time, let me repeat it to my Muslim friends who are still listening.
That means that by his standard your Quran is not trustworthy. Stop quoting people who don't believe in your book as If they're somehow relevant. He won't talk about your book because he's scared. He won't talk about the Quran because he likes his job and he likes his income.
But if he were to apply the standard that he just applied the New Testament your Quran doesn't cut it. Which means he would have to say if he'd be willing if he'd have the guts to stand up and be consistent with his own Perspective.
No, we can't trust the Quran either. But instead what he does is he dodges that and Says I tried to compare him to a Muslim or something like that. Which of course I never did but that just needs that just needs to be said was there something you wished to?
Well, it strikes me that it would even be higher than the photocopy standard because you think about the photocopiers We used to use in the 80s. Oh, remember the little wire down the middle and all. Clean and they'd get dirty.
I don't think those would measure up.
I don't know as long as you can read him, I guess but the point is Photocopiers were invented in 1949 and I guess God could not speak in written form until 1949 according to barter. Yes. Oh, sorry about that need to switch back to this one here.
Why would God not allow the originals to be preserved?
I used to ask myself that question. I mean if you want if he inspired mark to write down this book Why wouldn't he let it. I mean it wouldn't be impossible for it to be preserved. There are other books Preserved that long.
Why wouldn't why wouldn't he tell Christian what what other book?
Dr. Ehrman what other book has been preserved? For 2 ,000 years in its original. Do we have anything? Anywhere. That has been preserved in its original for for 2 ,000 years. I especially given the nature of the persecuted Church Given the the ferociousness of that persecution.
Are you serious? I Do not know of any work of antiquity whatsoever. That is that old none and I don't think he does either. I Have no idea earthly idea what what he's talking about that when it were he actually said there are some books that have been.
Preserved that shins, you know keep that book so that you have a you have something to judge the copies by but he didn't do that. We don't have the original. So it made me suspect that maybe God wasn't that interested in giving us his words.
If he was why didn't he give them to us? That was my question.
So clearly that's not the perspective of the Apostles themselves who themselves did not have access to any Originals of the Old Testament and yet they quoted freely from the Old Testament Based upon even translations of the Old Testament.
So I'm just it was not their view catch that I want. You know a lot of people go. Why did you ask the questions? I wanted people to hear this stuff to catch what he said, so Your view is not the view of the Apostles.
Your view is not the view of the authors of the books themselves, right? And he said you bet that was not their view. I do not hold the view of the Apostles of Jesus Christ in regards to Scripture. No question about it and Again to my Muslim friends.
Are you listening to this? Is this the man you want to trust?
How many times.
Have I been in debates with Muslims over the past couple years and the primary books on Their table were by Bart Ehrman and you wonder why I look at you and say, excuse me. Why the double standard? Why the double standard?
I'm sorry, that is not there's not their view, right? So as you are thinking about this then I should say though when they quote the Old Testament.
It's a very interesting thing because they say now is.
It's not gonna let me get it. Let's let's go off on a tangent here. You know, yeah, baby. Yeah, it's gonna go off some other other direction into into the issue of the trans quoting Greek Septuagint and and all the rest of that kind of stuff and.
Anyways, that's that's that's. I wanted you to get that material from The cross-examination, I really thought that that brought out some of the most important issues and hence will help us to understand even better his presentation in His opening presentation in the debate with Dan Wallace took place as I recall October 1st, which I will return to now.
We're getting close to the end of the program but we'll be able to get a few minutes worth of material in and Let's let's this is where we this is where we ended and I jumped into the cross-exam so that you could.
I Think we've got a real good idea now of exactly where Bart Ehrman is is coming from in his presentation.
We have a complete copy that survives. There were lots of copies made before this complete copy and there were lots of copies made before p45. P45 is not a copy of the original mark. It's a copy probably of a copy made a few years earlier.
Which is a copy of a copy made few years earlier, which was a copy of a copy made few years earlier now.
Remember. If you've if you've listened or we thought we got into this. Listen to Bart Ehrman's presentation and what is the the the vision in the mind? What is the example in the mind? That you get from this you get a single line Chinese whispers telephone game thing down in Australia.
They told me the telephone game doesn't work for them. It's Chinese whispers. So that's what it's called down there. And I think the same thing in the UK. So we have a different word for it. So I've got to Realize we have a worldwide audience.
So, you know, we need to need to make the translations available when possible. But it's it's a single line to where p45 which I've seen scraps of p45 is a quote of Is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy and what you have to do is Just as he did in our debate where he said well, you know, maybe you know Flippians is only copied once or twice and then I was copied and and all we can get back to is the third generation.
What Bart Ehrman has to present and Dan Wallace is going to bring this out by the way what he has to present is a Minimalized perspective on the copying of the originals so that you do not have multiple continuing lines.
He has to minimize the reality of the early Christian fellowship. So that you do not have Christians Comparing scriptures with one another in their meetings he has to minimize the presence of the authors in the continuing church after the writing of their works and the eyewitnesses.
So you can see why Jesus and the eyewitnesses is such an important book. He has to minimize all of that. Because if there are multiple lines Coming from the original then the vast majority of his theory collapses.
It really does. Because if you have multiple lines then major changes in any one of those lines will be seen by textual variation when compared with the other lines and Now you have to come up with this weird idea.
That all these other lines got destroyed and only one corrupt line somehow managed to make it into modernity. That's what he's banking on in essence to create This modern hyper skepticism and that's what needs to be called modern hyper skepticism or radical skepticism.
That's the phrase that that Dan's going to use in this debate. It is modern radical skepticism. But that's how he does it.
Look, I I realize that it's pretty unusual to challenge Christians to be thinking through the early textual transmission of the New Testament before the first papyri appear but look if We won't do it in this context in the context of faith in the context of the church.
Then we'll be forced to do it out there in the public square. We'll be forced to do it out there where The the cards may well be stacked against us in the sense that we won't be given the the time to really develop things the way that we need to and.
So listen to the presentation that he makes and you can see that it does not fit with what we would expect. I mean think for just a moment. We're talking mark here, right? Do you really think Mark? Went through all the effort.
To write that gospel, that's a I mean for us. Well, it's a surest gospel. Yeah, you want to write it out sometime. I want to see how long that's gonna take you. By hand. Yeah. Yeah, you want to do that?
Do you think he went through all of that effort to have it copied once? Really. One time what would his desire be? His desire would be many copies to be made and if you buy the idea that Matthew and Luke are copying from Mark, excuse me, where did they get their copies at?
There had to have been many copies made and you have if you have many copies made then you have many lines of transmission and if there's corruption and change in one then that Is seen by comparison to the others.
See how important that is. Well, there you go folks. Another eclectic dividing remember next violin will be Friday morning at this normal time. The the Tuesday normal time. I'll put something on the blog about it.
We'll see you then. God bless.
The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries. If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or write us at p .o Box 3 7 1 0 6 Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9. You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks.
Join us again this Thursday afternoon at 4 p .m. For the dividing line.