A Multi-Topical Jumbo Dividing Line

Alpha & Omega Ministries

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

Comments are disabled.

00:32

And welcome to The Dividing Line on a very busy, busy Tuesday morning.

00:38

Lots of stuff going on. Most people who are not hiding in a lead line cave are aware of the fact that arguments finished just a while ago before the

00:49

Supreme Court in the Hobby Lobby case and the other co -litigants in regards to the just absurd demand of the

01:01

Obama regime demanding that we lay down our religious rights, violate our religious consciences, to pay for contraception for people who don't want to pay for their own contraception, basically, and I just, there's so much being said about it.

01:21

We won't know for a while what the court is going to do about this, but I, I just simply point out that we are not the ones on trial here.

01:31

This nation is on trial here. Religious liberty is something given to us by God. It is something that is demanded by the fact that He is our

01:41

Creator and He gives us a higher law. This was something that was fully understood by the founder of this nation.

01:49

There's not a single founder of this nation that would have any problems with what the proper decision here should be.

01:56

Well, of course, the whole idea of this massive behemoth of the socialist government of the

02:01

United States, they would never have even conceived of the, that, that monstrosity that has developed.

02:10

So to even ask the question of the Constitution, which never ever conceived of this kind of a mutation taking place, is a bit out of place.

02:21

But the point is that there is absolutely, positively no question as to what the

02:30

Founding Fathers would have said on this subject whatsoever, and the very fact that no one knows what the court's going to do only tells you that what we have here is a, the result of a moral, ethical, legal, cultural revolution in, in the

02:44

United States of America. And those who will be judged are the ones who think they're actually doing the judging, and they'll be judged by what they do in regards to this and so many other issues of the great moral revolution that is taking place in Western culture.

03:03

It is not really a revolution. It is a massive collapse and degradation back into paganism under the guise of being progressive.

03:12

Well, you know, the reality is when you jump off of a cliff, you are progressing very quickly to the bottom.

03:20

So you know, progressive all depends on which direction you think is, is forward.

03:27

And, but when you hit the bottom, there are bad consequences to that type of progression. So the progressives are all over the place.

03:35

Of course, one of the problems in doing the program only twice a week is that I am now at the end of the line.

03:42

Yesterday a news started coming out and then it just, it just exploded all day. And so you've already heard many people much smarter than I am who have addressed this particular subject.

03:55

Dr. Moeller addressed it this morning. Michael Brown's addressed it. Everybody's addressed it. I'm just,

04:00

I'm just here to sweep up the last of the crumbs here, basically. But yesterday the news came out concerning the subject of gay marriage and world vision.

04:16

And as you know, world vision has basically identified as the

04:23

USA branch has made a very narrow policy change, quote, symbolic, not of compromise, but of Christian unity.

04:36

And what is this about? Well, as you know, they want to try to dodge the division currently, quote, tearing churches apart and denominations apart, end quote, over same -sex relationships by solidifying its long -held philosophy as a parachurch organization to defer to churches on theological issues and focus instead on uniting

04:58

Christians around serving the poor. Well, again, this sounds just wonderfully good.

05:06

It is absolutely impossible on any logical or biblical or moral basis to understand what is going on here and the idea that you can remain neutral on this subject.

05:21

You know, Carl Truman nailed this a long time ago. I mean, we talked about it. We talked about his little book about the end of the term evangelicalism, how evangelicalism as a term is worthless any longer.

05:34

What was the one thing he identified that would end evangelicalism as something that really never existed anyways?

05:42

Homosexuality. And the cultural pressure that will be placed upon all of us based upon the exaltation of this unnatural, life -destroying, person -destroying perversion of God's created order, the elevation of that to the best, not just to something that's equal, but to the status of being something that must be celebrated.

06:12

And that's what's going on today. That is what's going on today. I've talked about Uber rights for decades now.

06:19

Well, the Uber rights are now even more clearly seen in the reality that the homosexual movement does not allow any longer, even for someone who will allow them to have their position, just not agree with them.

06:34

You cannot disagree with homosexuals. You cannot disagree that homosexuality is a good, wonderful, positive.

06:41

You have to celebrate it or you're a bigot. And we will bring the force of law against you.

06:48

We are seeing the enshrinement in law, which of course then destroys the entire moral foundation of law, makes it just something that men make up.

06:56

We become a nation of men rather than a nation of laws because there's no longer any meaningful legal foundation or moral foundation for the law.

07:03

But enshrining in law the perversion of man, rebelling against man, is exactly what is going on in our nation.

07:12

And you saw that in the recent St. Patrick's Day parades where certain mayors of major cities would not march in the parade because they were sponsored primarily by Catholics who did not allow specifically homosexual organizations to go prancing down the street in their thongs, demanding everyone celebrate their homosexuality.

07:40

And because they wouldn't allow that, then the mayors say, you've got to celebrate. It's got to be a moral good in your eyes or you're a bad, bad, bad, bad person.

07:50

Now, not a one of them can ever defend that in any type of logical debate, but they don't have to worry about doing that.

07:55

Anyway, so when you look at what

08:02

World Vision said, listen to this paragraph. Changing the employee conduct policy to allow someone in a same -sex marriage who is a professed believer in Jesus Christ to work for us makes our policy more consistent with our practices on other divisive issues.

08:17

It also allows us to treat all our employees the same way, abstinence outside of marriage and fidelity within marriage.

08:24

Did you catch that? I don't care where you work, what you do, if you believe that the

08:36

Bible is Word of God, if you believe what Jesus believed about Scripture, let's put it that way, if you believe what

08:42

Jesus believed about Scripture, you need to start hearing this and recognizing the fundamental compromises being made by major organizations and major -level people in what used to be called evangelicalism.

09:01

What you have in the World Vision statement is a complete capitulation on the nature of marriage, because it refers to same -sex marriage and places it in the same category as true

09:17

Christian marriage, the marriage that God ordained, the marriage that will always be the only kind of marriage there is, no matter what the government says, no matter what the gestapo forces upon us.

09:33

If you cannot define a husband and a wife, it's not marriage. It's not marriage.

09:40

It's a sham. It is a fake, and it is destructive.

09:47

But the statement just allows for same -sex marriage.

09:55

Allow someone in a same -sex marriage who is a professed believer in Jesus Christ. So, evidently, a professed believer in Jesus Christ can enter into profaning marriage itself.

10:10

So you have a complete capitulation, all in the name of, we don't want to take sides.

10:16

You just did, and everybody knows it. You just did.

10:24

They go on to say, it's easy to read a lot more into this decision than is really there. This is not an endorsement of same -sex marriage.

10:30

We have decided we are not going to get into that debate. You can't avoid it. You just got into it, and you got in on the wrong side.

10:41

You can't avoid it. If you want to call yourself a Christian organization, you're going to have to make a decision.

10:49

Do I believe what the Scriptures teach? No matter what anybody does, 1

10:56

Corinthians 6, verses 9 -10 will always say what 1 Corinthians 9 -10 have always said.

11:07

The nice thing is you can jump up and down, and you can do what you want, but the text is very clear.

11:18

The text is very clear. I'm checking, I just wanted to double -check things here.

11:24

There really aren't any textual variants that impact the translation of the text at all, especially one particular verb that must be taken into consideration.

11:41

What does it say? I think the ESV has the best translation here, because the ESV did an excellent job of recognizing something, and I'll point it out here.

11:51

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, me planasta.

11:59

That is a common phrase in the Pauline corpus.

12:05

Me planasta, do not be deceived, do not be led astray. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

12:24

Now, if you compare that with, for example, the New American Standard, it says, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals.

12:31

And I think where the ESV has gotten this exactly right is that they have recognized that uta malakoi uta arsenikoitai.

12:47

They have taken those two terms and they've recognized this is the passive and active partners in homosexual sex.

12:59

And so they've just simply put together as men who practice homosexuality. It doesn't matter whether you're the aggressor or the passive.

13:13

You can't make an excuse based upon that. Will not inherit the kingdom of God.

13:21

And when you question what it says here, then you have to start saying that sexual immorality doesn't matter.

13:29

Idolatry doesn't matter. Theft doesn't matter. Greed, drunkenness, reviling, swindling, all that is now okay.

13:39

It's okay. As long as you get a particular cultural minority together to say that thieves, that theft is a moral good, and get enough people in Hollywood to make you some movies to get all of the minds full of mush in the universities to agree with you, then, well, we need to change

14:04

Christian faith to where now we accept thieves. It's just how God made me. Those artificial property boundaries that you people have put upon me, it's not how

14:16

God made me. It's just I need to be accepted for who I am. Get enough movies made, and there are enough young skulls full of mush that'll go, ah, yeah, it's

14:27

Ryan's love, everybody. But here's the real issue.

14:36

1 Corinthians 6 .11. It's the fourth word in the

14:44

Greek. Kaitouta tenes eita. Eita.

14:54

You see, there really isn't any question that that's what was there. What's nice is the forms of I, me are pretty distinguishable when they're in different tenses.

15:14

This is an imperfect. It's past tense, and it says, and such were some of you.

15:26

Tenes. Such were some of you. It's not such are some of you.

15:33

The present tense form is fully different. There's no textual variation.

15:40

This is what Paul wrote. This is what has been in the

15:45

Christian scriptures all along. Wasn't inserted there recently, and fundamentally, what we're being asked in our society to do is to weigh this text in the balance and decide whether we're going to remain faithful to what was written, to what we believe is inspired, or whether we're going to go, you know, it's just a tense.

16:17

Can't we just imperfect, present?

16:24

It's not that big of an issue, is it? Yeah, it's a huge issue.

16:31

You know why it's a huge issue? It's not because we're a bunch of bigots and homophobes and all the rest of that stuff.

16:43

What you need to understand is if you are willing, as World Vision is willing, to close your eyes to the tense of the verb at 1

16:55

Corinthians 6 .11, such were some of you, but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of Lord Jesus Christ and the

17:05

Spirit of our God. If you're willing to forget what that tense is and to allow it to be changed into a present, and such are some of you, and continuing in that lifestyle, you were washed and you were sanctified.

17:24

Because that's what it says right here. Someone in a same -sex marriage who is a professed believer in Jesus Christ, you cannot put that Greek text and that sentence in the same universe and both be true.

17:40

It can't be done. It's a violation of the law of non -contradiction. It's saying a and non -a true at the same way, in the same time, in the same place.

17:49

It can't be done. If you're willing to do that, then the world will tip its hat to you, because you've just tipped your hat to the world as your ultimate authority.

18:05

And that's what's happened. They've taken a stand. They're saying, we are not taking a stand.

18:11

But by not taking a stand in the way it took the stand, they took a stand. And we're all going to be put in that position.

18:18

All of us. And it's happening so fast. I've said this for a long time now, and a lot of you have always just sort of patted me on the back, proverbially.

18:31

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. That guy's crazy. But I don't know how long we're going to be able to do this, this program, this kind of ministry.

18:41

I really don't, because there are people in our land right now that want to see the force of law used to silence this type of analysis and this type of proclamation.

18:53

You know that. I hope you know that. Do you know that? You see what's going on in our land?

19:00

Take your head out of the sand if you're not aware of this. That's where these people want to go.

19:07

That's what they want. And what we saw in the case of Hobby Lobby, not

19:15

Hobby Lobby, World Vision, and what we're seeing in the Supreme Court today with the attack upon Hobby Lobby's religious freedom is exactly this.

19:27

And it is vitally important to keep this in mind. So this is what's going on in our world today.

19:35

I obviously pray. I do pray today for a reprieve, because that's all it would be.

19:48

Let's say this goes well. Let's say the best case scenario happens and we get a strong Supreme Court decision.

19:56

Maybe even a, wouldn't it be great if it was a 6 -3? You know, there shouldn't be, it should be 9 -0.

20:04

If there is the slightest bit of straight thinking and logic.

20:12

If the court wasn't already packed with ideologues, you could care less what the Constitution actually says anyway.

20:18

It should be 9 -0. But let's say the best thing happens and the

20:26

Supreme Court hands the Obama regime a major defeat and says, what were you people thinking?

20:34

You can't do this. It's just a reprieve because they're not going to give up.

20:45

And even that reprieve is subject to later interpretation by people who have already demonstrated that words don't really have meaning.

20:57

It's wherever we are, however we feel. I know you don't do Facebook, but you know, the

21:03

Citizens United ruling, I get Facebook ads all the time from liberals trying to raise money to overturn quote -unquote

21:13

Citizens United. And yet this is a constitutional decision. How do you overturn that?

21:20

Well, we're going to find some way or another. They will not stop. They will not stop unless God grants repentance to this nation and there is a fundamental change in the mindset, the heart of this society.

21:38

They just keep swinging away and swinging away because that's what the unregenerate man does.

21:45

When God removes his hand of restraint, that's what happens. That's what happens.

21:53

So there you go. Oh, interesting.

22:01

Interesting tweet I just noticed. I really enjoy the dividing line, but you keep misrepresenting

22:07

William Lane Craig's comments, Calvinism and the Hitchens debate. In his view, Calvinism is the difference among brethren, not false teaching.

22:13

I played what he said. Hitchens specifically asked him about false teaching.

22:21

Can you show me? And his only response was Calvinism. I played it. And someone's sending me that he's got a new book out and guess what?

22:32

Ends up in his book as another example of what he is opposed to. Calvinism.

22:37

How many times does he have to go after Calvinism before you get the idea that he's really against Calvinism?

22:44

He just won't defend his position in debate. It's a shame, but he should. All right.

22:50

Let's change course. We're going to have something for everybody today. Something for everybody.

22:59

Last week, I mentioned at one point that I had seen an email that just left me stuttering.

23:09

Nothing should surprise me in the Ergon Kanner scandal any longer, but as TurretinFan keeps adding to his article, remember the huge compilation of material he put together?

23:25

Well, he's adding to that. Everybody needs to be adding to that, basically, as you listen to stuff and plugging stuff in.

23:33

Just to create the overwhelming documentation needs to be there.

23:40

But an email was sent to Ergon Kanner. Should I mention who sent it?

23:48

Yeah, by someone associated with the ministry. And it referenced the article that TurretinFan had posted.

24:03

Now, if you've seen it, again, it's huge. It is thoroughly researched.

24:09

It has all sorts of resources on it. And anyone with a semblance of rationality recognizes, wow, this is a lot of different sources.

24:24

I mean, these are seminaries and churches and church groups, and these are all things that have been uploaded by people who like Ergon Kanner.

24:36

Or at least they did at the time they uploaded it. They had had him come to speak. So it's very clear where this information is coming from.

24:51

So the email was sent, and Kanner's response is sadly typical

24:58

Kanner these days. Let me read it to you. No hello, greeting, and like that.

25:04

I'm going to read you everything. Videos edited by hyper -Calvinists, videos uploaded by hyper -Calvinists, videos rejected by the rest of us.

25:14

Let me be clear. I reject your indictment and call you to repent for following liars and frauds sent from my iPhone.

25:26

Oh, you put on... Well, you don't want to do that. Videos edited by hyper -Calvinists, videos uploaded by hyper -Calvinists, videos rejected by the rest of us.

25:38

Let me be clear. I reject your indictment and call you to repent for following liars and frauds. Now, first line, videos edited by hyper -Calvinists.

25:46

Lie. Lie. Name a hyper -Calvinist that edited any of these videos.

25:53

These were posted by the churches that invited Ergon Kanner to speak. So I guess Ergon Kanner only speaks at hyper -Calvinist churches, right?

26:02

Of course not. It's a lie. It's not even a serious lie. It's not even attempting to pretend to be truthful.

26:13

It's just self -deception. Videos uploaded by hyper -Calvinists.

26:20

No, it's not. No, they're not. They weren't uploaded by hyper -Calvinists. There weren't any hyper -Calvinists around.

26:27

Do you go to hyper -Calvinist churches, Ergon? They were uploaded by your own friends.

26:34

Videos rejected by the rest of us. On what basis? So you reject everything you did before 2010.

26:42

Is that what you do? So when we find audio of you lying at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, lying in the face of Al Mohler, you reject that audio?

26:55

It's still there. It's on the Southern... You're going to say that some hyper -Calvinist put it up there and edited it?

27:01

You want to give us some evidence of that, Ergon? Of course not. Because you know you're lying through your teeth.

27:07

You can't speak the truth. You know that. But notice the depth of this self -deception.

27:16

The depth of this depravity. Let me be clear. I reject your indictment and call you to repent for following liars and frauds.

27:28

All of you Ergon Canner fans, do you realize this is your homeboy?

27:34

This is your innocent lamb victim demanding that other people repent for being liars and frauds?

27:46

He's the one making the liar and fraud accusation without any semblance of evidence whatsoever.

27:54

Nothing but his own authority. The rest of us have documented our accusations ad nauseam.

28:08

And yet there are still so many of these people out there. Oh, Ergon's just such a wonderful guy.

28:15

He'd never do that. You ought to see the stuff this man says in what he thinks is private.

28:24

Vile is the only term that can be used. Videos edited by hyper -Calvinists lie.

28:32

Videos uploaded by hyper -Calvinists lie. Videos rejected by the rest of us. Well, rejected by the rest of who? Us? Who's the us?

28:40

Me and Eamer? Amazing. Just amazing.

28:47

And just to be clear, that was sent to one of our members March 16th. Yeah. This is nothing old.

28:54

No. This is not 2010, 2011. This is last week. No. Nothing old at all.

29:01

Now, I've been listening to some more Cantor stuff, sadly. No, I don't enjoy doing it.

29:07

But more and more is coming out. And I was listening to some stuff he did in 2005 and 2009.

29:20

It's gotten to the point for most of us, we can finish all of his jokes. We know all of his sermons. We know all of his illustrations.

29:29

But every once in a while, he comes up with something. And I checked today, and it's on my screen right now.

29:37

I accessed this about 45 minutes ago. Still there at NormanGeisler .net

29:44

slash articles slash EragonCantor slash default .html. Eragon and Cantor are capitalized. In defense of Eragon Cantor, claim number seven.

29:54

Now, this has been edited over time. We know, remember, just to remind you, bring you up to speed. This was the excuse sheet that clearly was produced by the

30:02

Cantors themselves. Remember, we looked at the subdirectory. This was not hacking.

30:08

This was just simply knowing that Microsoft front page is Microsoft front page.

30:15

And Microsoft front page is messy, messy, messy, messy. We had it.

30:21

We know. And you used to be able to take a Word document, throw it into Microsoft front page, and say convert it into HTML.

30:29

The resultant monstrosity, and it was from any HTML perspective, was truly a monstrosity.

30:41

It was just ugly. Anyone who's ever tried to fix HTML that was coded by front page knows what

30:47

I'm talking about. But it would stick the document that it converted in the same subdirectory with the

30:53

HTML file. And so all you had to do is back out one step, look at the subdirectory, and there was the document.

31:00

And so we download the document. And someone had the brilliant idea of looking at the properties.

31:06

And under properties, under license, what did it say? Truett McConnell College. Why is that significant?

31:14

Because Ymir Cantor is the president of Truett McConnell College and became the president of Truett McConnell College prior to the big explosion of fraudulent, all the exposures of fraud of Aaron Cantor.

31:33

So someone on a machine, and I suppose anybody could put that into the license thing if you wanted to, but why would you?

31:43

Someone associated with Truett McConnell College typed up this stuff that Norman Geisler is still putting on his website to this day.

31:51

It's been edited over time, however. We have the originals. Some of the more absurd, ridiculous, wild -eyed, dumb excuses that were just so easy to mock have been pulled, but all of them are so easy to mock, to be perfectly honest with you.

32:06

It's just one of the silliest collections of inane laughability

32:13

I've ever seen on the net. It makes Gail Ripplinger look sharp, okay? That's what we're talking about here, and it's on Norman Geisler's website.

32:25

If you look at it right now, claim number seven, Ergin claimed his father had many wives and two half -brothers and two half -sisters, but there is no evidence for the half -brothers.

32:36

Response, Ergin's father did have two wives, having divorced the first one. He had three sons by his first wife,

32:43

Ergin, and his two brothers, so Ergin has two full brothers and two stepsisters from his father's second wife. While speaking quickly on one occasion, that's always the excuse, isn't it?

32:52

While speaking quickly. He mistakenly called his brothers his half -brothers.

32:58

This is hardly evidence of an attempt to embellish or deceive. After all, he had the right number of each sibling, and he didn't claim to have 10 brothers or sisters.

33:08

Okay. It's really hard to take this stuff seriously. I can't... What kind of a person, faced with the overwhelming evidence of Cantor's lies, can come up with this kind of stuff?

33:19

I mean, you just have to. You can't have a scintilla of integrity or honesty in your body to type this stuff up.

33:29

But somebody did. So here's the excuse.

33:36

Oh, well, Ergin's father did have two wives, having divorced the first one.

33:44

Is that what Ergin Cantor claimed? Is that what Ergin Cantor claimed? No, it's not.

33:51

On one occasion, he spoke too fast. It wasn't one occasion. Many occasions.

33:59

Ran across another one listening to a presentation done in 2009, I believe, at the

34:05

Northwest Baptist Convention on Saturday afternoon. And, well, ready to go.

34:13

Here's our good friend, Dr. Honesty himself, Ergin Cantor.

34:19

I'm the oldest of three sons to my father. He had other wives, three sons to our mom. As the oldest, it was my job to be the first one to get married.

34:27

I was the teenager. I had been sworn in marriage at age eight in Istanbul, but because we moved,

34:32

I didn't have to be married to that girl who had a better mustache than I did. Turkish women, my people, every

34:40

Friday night, all the women there on their upper lip, all the men shaving to separate the eyebrow.

34:46

We all have hairy backs. Is that graphic enough for you? Well, I didn't want to marry a

34:52

Turk. I didn't want to marry a female version of this. Yeah, OK.

35:01

I guess some people think that's appropriate self -deprecation. If I were

35:06

Cantor, I wouldn't go visit Turkey in any time in the future. But you'll notice what was said.

35:14

And again, all of the defenders of Ergin Cantor, what they do is they take one little segment and they never take it in context.

35:24

Because what's what's what did he say there? Well, I was I was actually promised in marriage and I was eight in Istanbul.

35:38

Now, he doesn't say, well, actually, you know, we've been living here in the United States and, you know, we traveled back for a week and we visited and something happened then.

35:50

Is that what he means? And my father had well, how do you put it?

35:56

I'm the oldest of three sons to my father. He had other wives. Wives, not another wife.

36:04

Had other wives, not was divorced once he had other wives.

36:14

This wasn't the one time excuse. Because, for example, we have this.

36:21

I was the oldest. My father brought his wives with him. Yes, polygamous Muslims do come to America. We call it the

36:27

Abraham lie. They say this is my wife and this is my sister. How many times does it take before we get the idea?

36:38

There wasn't any question about what he was trying to communicate. Why is Norman Geisler promoting this kind of absurdity on his website?

36:47

I think I know the reason why. But there you go. The evidence just mounts and mounts and mounts.

37:02

Can't deny it. Can't get away from it. And what's Cantor's response?

37:08

Oh, must have been some hyper Calvinist edited that one. Man, there must be a lot of hyper

37:16

Calvinists who have a lot of time on their hands. They're just running all over the net and editing videos and audios just right and left.

37:25

And nobody who's hosting them even knows because those videos, those audios, that audio

37:33

I just played to you is still at the Northwest Baptist Convention website.

37:41

You can look at the article the Turton fan posted on it. And until it gets canterized,

37:47

I wonder why it would get canterized. Because these people are liars.

37:54

They are deceptive. They are attempting to deceive people.

38:00

And that's how liars and deceptive people do things. There you go. So a little update.

38:08

Anything, any fact about Eric and Cantor is just simply edited by a hyper

38:13

Calvinist. We haven't met any of these hyper Calvinists, but it's a lie to accuse me of that too.

38:20

But it's common for these folks to lie. All right, we move forward.

38:27

Shifting gears once again. Some really, really, really interesting developments in the

38:36

Islamic apologetic field of late. You all, there's a lot, and I do mean a lot of very interesting responses to the conversation with Ijaz Ahmed from last

38:57

Thursday. Generally, their response was, how do you keep from losing your mind in the middle of something like that?

39:06

I got lots of compliments about patience and things like that. But I already knew at the time of that conversation, but it didn't really come up.

39:19

About sort of a bombshell that was dropped into the middle of the Islamic apologetics community.

39:25

Some of you will remember that, oh,

39:33

I just saw something and channeled it completely. I wonder where Algo got that at. Is that an actual quotation from somebody?

39:40

That makes me wonder. But anyway, some will remember that over the past number of years,

39:47

I have responded to a man who was at one time really,

39:58

I don't know that he was ever the director of, but he was one of the featured speakers of the Muslim debate initiative in London.

40:05

He was in the higher echelons. He actually moderated a debate that I did with Adnan Rashid in London a number of years ago, and his name was

40:16

Paul Williams, Paul Bilal Williams. That was the name that he adopted when he became a

40:25

Muslim. He was a former Baptist, and in fact, the church where I debated Adnan on whether the

40:33

Quran misrepresents Christianity was the church that he had been a member of before he became a

40:38

Muslim. We have noted over the years Mr.

40:44

Williams' unwillingness to engage me, his very arrogant dismissal of, well, anybody he just wants to arrogantly dismiss, basically.

41:01

And then I noticed that he left the Muslim debate initiative and sort of disappeared for a while.

41:14

Now, I do not have time to be chasing these guys around. I'm sure it's probably rather an interesting thing to do, but I just don't have the desire to do it, nor the time to do it.

41:32

I'm addressing too many issues and too wide a range of things to even have the time to do that kind of stuff.

41:40

So, lo and behold, only a matter of days ago, news breaks that Paul Williams has left

41:49

Islam, and he points to an article by Ijaz, the fellow who called last week, as his primary reason.

42:02

That is, basically Ijaz was arguing in an article that if you're going to be a

42:09

Muslim, you have to be a real Muslim. There's no reason to be a Muslim if you're not going to actually do the things that Islam says you need to be doing, the prayers and believing the things that Islam says.

42:19

And, you know, you'd agree with that. I'd rather talk to an actual believing Muslim than an ishy -squishy

42:25

Muslim, and I've talked to a few ishy -squishy Muslims. I don't like talking to ishy -squishy Christians. You know, liberals bug me, and evidently they bug

42:36

Ijaz as well. And basically what Paul Williams said was, you know, in light of this type of argumentation,

42:44

I see that he's right, and therefore that Islam is not for me. Well, you can do some looking around.

42:51

It's not an overly hidden secret that there is a lot of material on the web that has been cobbled together by folks that Paul Williams seems to have homosexual tendencies.

43:05

And in fact, there are pictures of he and another Paul traveling around the world together and sharing hotel rooms together, and there's one particularly troubling one where he's taking a picture of this other man, and he says, isn't he stunning?

43:19

And I found out later that there had actually been conversations where Williams had confessed to same -sex attractions and said that Islam helped him with these things more than Christianity did.

43:30

Well, evidently, that really wasn't the case either. Now, how long the

43:36

Muslims have known about this and the fact there is this double life going on, I don't know. I don't know.

43:42

All that background to an article posted at answeringabraham .com

43:50

where there was a commentary from Paul Williams post, as I understand it, post -apostasy.

44:06

And listen to what it says. My bizarre day in London town started out with a visit to Trafalgar Square to join the protesters at the

44:12

Stand Up to Racism demo and rally, pic taken during cleaning up, clearing up.

44:20

It says, I bumped into some old, this is old, interestingly enough, old Muslim friends who introduced me to one of the sons of Abdul Halim, whose father just happens to be professor of Islamic studies at the

44:32

School of Oriental and African Studies in London and editor of the Journal of Quranic Studies. I took the chance to ask him if he knew his father's views in the

44:39

Quran concerning two questions. Number one, does the Quran teach the Bible is textually corrupted?

44:44

Number two, is the Injil the same as the canonical Gospels or the New Testament, or is it a different book given to Jesus?

44:50

Now it's strange to me, I must confess, that these would be questions being asked by a newly apostate person, who obviously is very fortunate that he lives in a

45:09

Western country. Does he realize that his apostasy in some place like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, Afghanistan might result in his death?

45:23

Anyway, instantly he reached for his mobile phone and offered to ask his dad there and then. Nearly speechless,

45:29

I said, yes, please. So he called his dad, the world -renowned scholar, Professor Halim, who was in Oxford, introduced me and suggested

45:36

I speak to him myself, which I did. All right, this is interesting. This in summary form is what the professor told me.

45:46

He said, one, the Quran does not, not as in bold, teach the

45:53

Bible has been textually corrupted. It does suggest the Bible has been misinterpreted, etc. Number two, the

45:59

Injil is not the same as the four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, or the New Testament. There are just a few shreds of Jesus' teaching left in the four

46:06

Gospels. So Professor Halim would appear to vindicate the off -state views of Sam Shamoon and David Wood, and others of us, on the subject, one, above, and put

46:18

Muslim apologist Bassam Zawadi, who has argued many times to the view that the Quran teaches textual corruption, in the wrong.

46:24

Well, it's not just Bassam. Conversely, however, the professor's answer to question two suggests that contrary to popular

46:29

Christian polemic, the original Gospel, the Injil, has been largely lost to history. The Quran claims to restate the original

46:35

Gospel of Jesus, which Muslims follow today. Now, I think all of this is quite interesting.

46:46

Everything that's going on with Williams, and apostasy, and when did MDI know this, and all that kind of stuff,

46:53

I think is important. But more important to me is the answers given by Abdel Halim.

47:02

He has a translation of the Quran out. In fact, unless I'm mistaken, I believe it's a translation that Shabir Ali is using in the book we're writing.

47:12

He's using this particular translation from this particular scholar. Now, I would put a whole lot more weight on the answer to the first question than the second.

47:24

Why? Because the first question is, does the Quran teach the Bible is textually corrupted? Well, that's a specifically

47:29

Quranic question. But is the Injil the same as the canonical Gospels of the

47:34

New Testament? That's a question about what was in existence at the time of the writing of the

47:41

Quran. And I don't think there is the slightest question.

47:49

The text of the Quran is incoherent, if Abdel Halim's answer to the second point is true.

47:57

There is absolutely no evidence of a different book given to Jesus.

48:05

The reality is the author of the Quran just didn't know. He did not have firsthand access to what was in the

48:12

New Testament. He was ignorant of the New Testament, and hence did not interact with it, and could not interact with it, and could have easily assumed that the

48:20

Gospel of Jesus Christ meant something that was given to Jesus. He had never seen the New Testament. He couldn't read the

48:26

New Testament, did not have access to the New Testament. He was ignorant. That's all there is to it. But the idea that the

48:35

Christians no longer had the Injil turns the

48:40

Quran on its head from many different perspectives. Not just that you're thinking, oh yeah, you go back to Surah 5 again.

48:48

Well, I think that's really important, but Surah 3 says the same thing. You can't make heads or tails.

48:55

Out of the Quran. And take that perspective.

49:01

You just can't. But what is interesting is the first answer to the first question.

49:06

Does the Quran teach the Bible is textually corrupted? Obviously, Abdel Halim recognizes that there was until the modern period, modern period being 1870s, up until that point in time, there were two very strong streams of viewpoint within Islam and within Islamic scholarship on this subject.

49:29

Tarif al -Nasr, Tarif al -Man 'a, al -Nasr, the changing the words, al -Man 'a, the meaning of the words. He recognizes that.

49:35

And he recognizes that if you take the idea that the actual words of the

49:42

Injil have been changed once again, you are left coming up with some pretty weird interpretations of the

49:51

Quran that are just not natural. They just are not natural interpretations of the text at all.

50:00

But again, I'm still left going, why would someone who's just left Islam be asking that kind of question?

50:08

That's very, very strange to me. Then immediately,

50:14

I think the very next day, if I recall correctly, okay, someone in channels providing me with some further information here.

50:23

I love having channel rats. Update, 22nd March, three days ago. There are some wild speculations that this decision,

50:31

I assume it's referring to his decision to leave Islam, was motivated by my homosexuality, a fact about me

50:38

I have never concealed from my Muslim friends who have all been commendably grown up about this. The real reasons are sadly quite pedestrian and are as I have stated on this post.

50:47

The tabloid journalist amongst us will be disappointed, I am afraid, end quote. Excuse me, but Mr. Williams, there isn't any question.

51:00

In fact, let's put it this way. Why didn't you ask Abdelhalim what the Quran's viewpoint of homosexuality is?

51:07

It's really clear. It's really clear. It's real obvious. There isn't really any question about it.

51:15

Why mention the Ajaz Ahmed article, which was pushing the idea that you need to be a consistent

51:21

Muslim. You need to actually believe all that Islam teaches. I'm sorry, but there is no more possible way for you to be a believing, consistent

51:33

Muslim who practices homosexuality than to be a believing, consistent Christian who practices homosexuality.

51:40

Both those world religions do not believe that God made man to have sex with other men, physically, emotionally, mentally, or in any other way.

51:55

That's really clear. That came out,

52:00

I wasn't trying to focus upon it, but that came out very obviously when I looked at the parallel accounts of Sodom and Gomorrah in the

52:09

Quran in my book. Those of you who read it may recall that, though I didn't emphasize it sort of inadvertently because I was looking at parallel accounts of what happened with Lot and the men at Sodom, it became very clear what the

52:26

Quran's view of homosexuality was. I was just pointing out that just like the Gospels have different ways of stating things at the same event, the

52:33

Quran does too. So if you're going to shoot at the Gospels, you're going to have to shoot at the Quran. You've got less reason to defend the

52:38

Quran because you don't have multiple authors. Speaking from different perspectives, you're allegedly only have one author.

52:46

But again, what the Quran views homosexuality as, an abomination, not really a question.

52:53

So I would think that that's what he would be asking questions about, but it's not.

53:06

He's claiming the reasons are not able to do the prayers and rituals and fastings. Why? Why not?

53:14

I think it's pretty clear what the real issues are. But anyways, there is some developments in the area of Islam and I want to in the not too distant future.

53:26

I'm going to have Tony Costa on pretty soon. I've asked James Anderson on. We're going to have some guests to talk about books that they've published recently, let you know who they are and get hold of those books, things like that.

53:37

But another thing I want to do is I want to go through some of the internal evidence in the

53:43

Quran that Muslims just struggle mightily to try to explain. In regards to these very issues.

53:51

Now, let's move over to the last. We've covered it all today, haven't we?

53:57

Let's move over. Well, I guess the first and third topics ended up being related to one another somewhat.

54:03

But good old New World Order Bible versions.

54:10

Someone tweeted me today, I haven't looked at it, tweeted me today that there is a new

54:16

Sam Gip video out and you have to go see if that's the case. I didn't respond to the last one because it was there wasn't anything to respond to.

54:23

It's just like, really? Okay, that's nice. Revving engines and things like that is sort of dumb.

54:29

But anyhow, New World Order Bible versions, the video. Wanted to play you some clips and respond to them.

54:41

What we have in this video really is one of the best examples of King James only preaching.

54:52

For years, I've been saying, well, King James only preachers, they will preach this. They will stand for other people and they will preach 1

54:59

Timothy 3 .16. They'll never talk about John 1 .18. They'll never talk about Revelation 1, but they'll preach 1

55:05

Timothy 3 .16. Well, now I can just show you that happening. Now I can show you

55:11

King James only preachers giving you only a part of the truth and not all the truth and demonstrate very easily their double standards.

55:23

And again, King James onlyism cannot exist without double standards. You apply one standard to King James, you apply another standard to the modern translations, that's what

55:31

King James onlyism is. And that's why it is dying. Because people see that, and because so few people are being raised in the

55:40

King James, they have the emotional attachment to even be able to survive the kind of harangues that are normally a part of King James only preaching.

55:50

But here's, well, let me just play this and then

55:55

I'll respond to each thing as we go along. And it's a satanic agenda to change the

56:02

Bible. A lot of people just think, well, the King James Bible is a great translation. It's very poetic.

56:08

And these other versions are inferior. Maybe they're not as well translated. But I'm here to tell you it goes much deeper than that.

56:16

These new versions are actually Satan's attempt at corrupting the Word of God.

56:21

I'm going to show you that these changes are not just accidental. They're not just minor, inconsequential changes.

56:28

I mean, these changes are strategic changes. They are calculated to attack specific doctrines that the

56:37

Bible teaches. The Bible tells us in Ephesians 6, 12, For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

56:54

There are people who have many millions and even billions of dollars who have an agenda to put out corrupted

57:01

Bibles and then promote them through advertising, promote them through retail stores that will put them front and center, and that will show people this is the

57:11

Bible you ought to be reading. Get rid of the King James Bible. Get the newer, better, improved version.

57:17

Now, I did... So, there's, you know, some music in the background, the guy's conspiracies, and all the rest of this stuff.

57:27

Now, are there bad Bible versions? Yes, there are. Do we have too many English Bible translations today?

57:33

Yes, we do. Those aren't issues. What's very concerning, and one of the reasons that I began addressing this many, many years ago, what motivated me even before writing the

57:46

King James Only Controversy, was I saw as a young man in Bible college that this perspective not only split churches and did great damage along those lines, but that this movement likewise hamstrings any person from being able to give a meaningful, full defense of the key doctrines of the

58:13

Christian faith, especially regarding the deity of Christ. And that is about the only argument that is made at the beginning of this movie.

58:22

I mean, this movie is pitifully shallow in its argumentation. Pitifully shallow. But the one section it tries to make a case on is, say, the modern translations attack the deity of Christ.

58:33

This is the one subject I am absolutely positively confident. None of these people.

58:39

I could get Anderson and everybody in this film and everybody, all the

58:45

King James Only guys together, they can all get together. I'll take 10 of them on at the same time. It doesn't make any difference. This is the one subject they cannot survive in because it's simply untrue.

58:55

None of them are on the front lines debating Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Muslims, people like that that are denying the deity of Christ.

59:03

They don't even know what the issues are. But the facts on this subject are beyond question.

59:12

Beyond question. And so what you've got to do is you've got to get people into a conspiratorial mindset so they don't start examining your arguments.

59:24

So they start off talking about missing verses. Now, did you catch?

59:30

By the way, and again, I can't assume that everyone listening has read the

59:36

King James Only controversy. I know that Steven Anderson has read the King James Only controversy.

59:42

So he knows what the facts are on every single thing said in this film, and he never raises the responses.

59:49

He knows the errors that he is promoting, but he never even tries to defend his position.

59:56

That's reprehensible. Reprehensible. I cannot even begin to understand how someone can behave in that way.

01:00:03

I just don't understand it. I just don't understand it. He knows what the responses are.

01:00:10

There is nothing in this film that is raised by these men that was not thoroughly refuted in 1994 in the

01:00:17

King James Only controversy. OK, it came out in 95. I wrote it in 94. Nothing. Zip.

01:00:24

Nada. They raise nothing. And nor do they even try.

01:00:30

Evidently, they have absolute confidence that the people that they want to see this are never going to take the time to see what the answers are, because as I'll point out to you, there are some real holes in the argumentation.

01:00:41

But let's take a look at Missing Verses. Missing Verses. The NIV is missing 16 entire verses.

01:00:51

Now, I stopped there for just a moment. Did you catch that? Change, change, change. The previous clip. Now, missing, missing.

01:00:57

What's the standard, King James? If you change the standard, look at all the things that have been changed in the

01:01:04

King James. Look at all the added verses. And it all depends on the standard you adopt. And you've got to defend your choice of that standard, which they don't do.

01:01:14

From the New Testament. I mean, just right out of the gate, before we talked about all the thousands of changes, just 16 verses are completely missing.

01:01:22

Matthew 17, 21, gone. Matthew 17, 21, gone. That's because it is a parallel corruption from Mark 9, 29, which is there.

01:01:34

Why don't you tell them that? Why don't you tell them that it's a later scribal error where a scribe familiar with the wording found in Mark chapter 9, just probably because he has it memorized, fills in, harmonizes

01:01:49

Matthew with Mark. How come the very same materials in Mark 9, 29, Pastor Anderson?

01:01:56

If there's some great conspiracy, the music seems to indicate it. If there is some great conspiracy, why is it still in Mark 9, 29?

01:02:06

Oh, well, it needs to be repeated many times for us to get it. Really? It's in Mark 9, 29.

01:02:16

Which is easier to recognize? That a scribe familiar with the Markan form would harmonize

01:02:22

Matthew to it? Or that there is some great conspiracy to only take out one reference to a verse when it's repeated elsewhere, but leave that one in.

01:02:35

Matthew 18, 11, gone. That's because that's a parallel corruption.

01:02:42

Parallel passage, Luke 19, 10. Same material, same arguments, same situation.

01:02:47

Why not mention that? Why not mention that? Oh, because it wouldn't help us to promote our theory.

01:02:55

837. That verse is gone from the NIV, gone from the ESV, gone from the

01:03:00

New Living Translation. Now, listen to how much they do with this. Acts 8, 37. They're going to hammer away on this one.

01:03:08

Completely gone. Acts 8, 36, King James Bible. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water, and the eunuch said,

01:03:15

See, here is water. What does the enemy baptize? And Philip, that's the soul winner, said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.

01:03:21

So the eunuch, that's the sinner, says, What's hindering me, what's stopping me from getting baptized? Philip, the soul winner, says,

01:03:27

If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he, the eunuch, answered and said,

01:03:33

I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. What just happened to the eunuch? He got saved. Why?

01:03:39

If we confess with our mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in our heart that God's risen from the dead, thou shalt be saved. He believed in his heart.

01:03:45

He confessed with his mouth. He got saved. So what'd they do? Verse 38, And he commanded the chariot to stand still, and they went down both into the water, both

01:03:52

Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized them. So verse 36, What's stopping me from getting baptized? Verse 37, As long as you believe you can get baptized, he confessed with his mouth, believed in his heart.

01:04:01

Verse 38, They baptized him. Amen. What does the New International Version say? As they traveled along the road, they came to water, and the eunuch said,

01:04:10

Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of me being baptized? And he gave orders to stop the chariot.

01:04:16

Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. Now, did you just catch what happened? What was missing?

01:04:22

I don't know if you noticed. The entire verse 37 was missing. So according to the New International Version, they're going down the road.

01:04:29

He says, What's stopping me from getting baptized? According to the NIV, nothing. Let's just baptize you.

01:04:34

What's missing? Believe on Jesus Christ. What's missing? The gospel. What's missing?

01:04:39

Why are these Bibles attacking Jesus Christ? The reality, of course, is that the vast majority of Greek manuscripts, including the

01:04:51

Byzantine manuscripts, do not contain Acts 8 .37. How did it get into the Textus Receptus?

01:04:56

Well, Erasmus admitted. He inserted it from the Latin Vulgate. Yes, the Latin Vulgate. The Bible of the

01:05:04

Roman Catholic Church. The Bible that Rome actually said was inspired and inerrant at one point.

01:05:12

That's where it came from. It came from the Latin Vulgate. So does the Latin Vulgate our ultimate authority now? Why not tell folks?

01:05:20

Well, you know, Greek manuscripts, well, the vast majority of them don't contain this text.

01:05:28

And the ones that Erasmus had didn't contain it either, but it was in the Latin Vulgate. And so the official translation of the

01:05:38

Roman Church is the foundation for the insertion of this text.

01:05:44

Why not tell them that? Why not be open and upfront and tell them where it really comes from?

01:05:53

Well, because that doesn't help you when you're trying to promote a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories require something more than that.

01:06:02

Well, now let's look at the next one. The ever popular Kama Johanium.

01:06:08

...believed that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh. This is something that these modern versions constantly change and attack.

01:06:16

Let me give you some examples. First John 5, 7, For there are three that bear record in heaven, the

01:06:21

Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. That's where we get the word

01:06:27

Trinity. Three in one. These three are one.

01:06:32

The NIV, on the other hand, just says, For there are three that testify. Doesn't mention the

01:06:38

Father. Doesn't mention the Word. Doesn't mention the Holy Ghost. And does not mention that the three are one.

01:06:45

Now, Steven Anderson knows. He knows.

01:06:51

He's read the book. That if the Kama Johanium is original, we have no confidence whatsoever that we actually possess the original writings of the

01:06:59

New Testament. None. Because what it means is an entire verse could simply disappear.

01:07:09

Disappear from the entire Greek manuscript tradition. And only be found in the

01:07:17

Latin Vulgate. And hence, Rome's been right all along. We should, we should, well, they don't believe it anymore.

01:07:24

But they were, that we should depend upon the Latin Vulgate. If he was consistent.

01:07:30

He doesn't care about being consistent. That's irrelevant. All, in fact, well, I'll take that back. He does care about being consistent, but he's not being consistent in this movie.

01:07:37

He shouldn't even be bothering to present arguments, because from his perspective, the issue isn't the arguments.

01:07:43

He starts with the supremacy of the King James Version, and then you just cobble stuff together from there. But it's not a matter of actually convincing anybody on the basis of argument.

01:07:51

That's where he starts, presupposition. So he knows that this comes from Latin Vulgate.

01:07:59

He knows it's not a part of the Greek manuscript tradition. He knows that it was inserted into Codex Monfortianus in 1520, just simply to refute

01:08:09

Erasmus. He knows all of this. And that if you take the position that it's original, you are fundamentally capitulating to Bart Ehrman.

01:08:20

You are. You may not want to admit it. But a rational person, an honest person, recognizes you are basically saying we do not have any confidence whatsoever.

01:08:32

None. That we really do possess. In the manuscript tradition as a whole, even in the

01:08:38

Byzantine manuscripts, because this is a, this is not a Byzantine reading. The majority text rejects it. It was not in the first two editions of Erasmus.

01:08:47

It was only inserted into the third. They know these things, but they won't tell their people these things.

01:08:56

Instead, they will play upon emotion. We believe Jesus is God. Well, yes, he is. But I think you are using that in a desperately dishonest way.

01:09:09

When you teach your people in such a way that they believe the truth, but they believe it for the wrong reasons.

01:09:15

You're just using it as a club. You're using it as an emotional trigger.

01:09:22

Nothing more. And that really concerns me. It's one of the reasons we do what we do.

01:09:28

I believe in the deity of Christ, but I think you should be able to defend it truthfully and honestly, rather than deceptively.

01:09:36

Which is what you've got going on here. Then, like I said, you want to preach?

01:09:45

You want to preach 1 Timothy 3 .16? Here's how it works.

01:09:50

Look what they've done with 1 Timothy 3 .16. The Bible reads, and without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness.

01:09:57

Watch this. God was manifest in the flesh. Justified in the spirit.

01:10:03

Seen of angels. Preached unto the Gentiles. Believed on in the world. Received up into glory.

01:10:10

It was God that was believed on in the world. It was God that was received up into glory.

01:10:15

It was God who was made flesh and dwelt among us. And the Bible is crystal clear in 1

01:10:22

Timothy 3 .16 that Jesus Christ is God. In 1 Timothy 3 .16, it's an important passage because I would often read the footnotes in the

01:10:30

New American Standard that I had in seminary, and later on in the NIV and other passages, and they would say in the footnotes, or they would say in their commentaries, or those teaching from the

01:10:39

NIV or the New American Standard, they'd say that there isn't any difference in theology. It doesn't affect any doctrinal perspectives.

01:10:46

But obviously there's a difference between has and theos. If you take as he who was, has instead of theos, instead of it being

01:10:54

God, it obviously weakens the text because you have to assume that Christ is God, or made manifest.

01:11:00

But in theos, there's no wondering about what the text says. It's God who was manifest in the flesh, and that's got to be the person of Christ.

01:11:08

And that certainly influences people's thinking on the deity of the Lord Jesus. Right. Another great proof.

01:11:14

Okay, now keep that in mind. So there you've got, see, they're trying to take out the deity of Christ.

01:11:20

God was manifest in the flesh. Modern translations say he who is manifest in the flesh. And most of our folks are sort of left going...

01:11:31

Now, we actually talked about this just a couple weeks ago. And remember,

01:11:36

I showed you what the actual difference between theos and has is. But keep that in mind. Keep that preaching in mind.

01:11:43

And then check out this little statement from Pastor Anderson. Not only that, they attack his eternal pre -existence.

01:11:51

See, Jesus Christ did not come into being in Bethlehem's manger. Jesus Christ did not come into being in the womb of Mary.

01:11:59

But rather, Jesus Christ has always existed, and always will exist.

01:12:06

He is the first and the last. He is the Alpha and Omega. He is the beginning and the ending.

01:12:11

And that's... Let's catch that. Catch that. He quotes from the book of Revelation. And of course, he's right.

01:12:18

He's right. Just one little thing that he missed. You see, if there is consistency...

01:12:26

And this is why I know King James Only -ism is false. This is why it cannot ever withstand examination.

01:12:34

Because it is inconsistent. You cannot define the word truth. There's some

01:12:40

Muslim on Twitter that just hates me, because I keep pointing out the use of inconsistency by Muslim apologists.

01:12:46

But as I've pointed out to him, you cannot define the word truth without using the word consistency. You can't do it.

01:12:53

If he was consistent, then he would have to explain Revelation 1 .8.

01:13:01

Revelation 1 .8. Take a look at it. Go ahead and get your King James out. Here's the

01:13:08

King James. This is starting in verse 7. 7. Behold, he cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see him.

01:13:17

And they also which pierced him. So we know who this is talking about, right? And all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him.

01:13:25

Even so, amen. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, sayeth the

01:13:31

Lord, which is and which was and which is to come, the Almighty. That's King James.

01:13:39

That's King James. Um, there's something, um, there's something missing.

01:13:46

In the Greek, it says, legai ha -kudios ha -on kai -ha -ein kai -ha -er -kamanos ha -panta -klator, says the

01:13:56

Lord, who was, who is and was and is to come, the

01:14:02

Almighty. But in the Nestle -Aland

01:14:08

Greek text, not the TR of Scrivener, in the

01:14:13

Nestle -Aland text, it says, legai kudios ha -theos ha -on kai -ha -ein kai -ha -er -kamanos ha -panta -klator.

01:14:28

So modern translations say, I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the

01:14:34

Lord God, the one who is and who was and who is to come, the

01:14:43

Almighty, the Word God. Let me go ahead and use the

01:14:49

Pastor Anderson preaching mode. The Word God has been taken out.

01:14:59

No, it wasn't taken out. I mean, if I wanted to preach against King James -only -ism, that's what

01:15:06

I would do. I would use the emotions. But you see, I can't do that. I honor the truth.

01:15:12

Unlike Pastor Anderson, who does not. It's not a matter of being taken out.

01:15:21

The fact of the matter is, Erasmus had a lot of problems with the

01:15:26

Book of Revelation. That's all there is to it. A lot of problems. He had to borrow a commentary.

01:15:36

All he had was a commentary on the Book of Revelation, and he had to extract the

01:15:42

Greek from the commentary. And he was in a hurry. And he did it in a rushed way.

01:15:49

And he made mistakes. That's all there is to it. Yeah, I know.

01:15:55

I know that doesn't sell books. No one's going to be knocking down my door to make a movie about the mistakes

01:16:04

Erasmus made in the Book of Revelation. You don't sell

01:16:10

DVDs when you just tell the truth. But that's the reality.

01:16:20

And the fact is, the far better reading is Lord God.

01:16:25

Jesus is identified as God in Revelation 1 .8. Now, Jehovah's Witnesses say there's a break between 1 .7

01:16:33

and 1 .8, and this is just all of a sudden God himself starts speaking here at the end. That's how they get around it, by the way.

01:16:39

But they're wrong. But Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong, and Anderson's wrong.

01:16:47

He knows Jesus is the Alpha and Omega. Why doesn't he tell his folks that, you know, King James... Y 'all remember

01:16:53

Tex -Mars, Revelation 1 .1, that kind of stuff?

01:17:01

King James -only -ism does not produce a lot of honesty on the part of its proponents. And if you ever hear a

01:17:09

King James -only -ist banging away on 1 Timothy 3 .16, and they don't turn around immediately and deal with Revelation 1 .8

01:17:20

and John 1 .18, then they're not honest. Because John 1 .18,

01:17:26

King James has only begotten Son, whereas the earliest manuscripts we possess all say

01:17:33

Monogenes Theos, the unique God. And don't give me, oh, that's what the Gnostics said.

01:17:38

Bloney, show me a place the Gnostics ever used that phrase. I know Green said it. Show me.

01:17:44

Prove it. Back it up. Go to the original sources. You can't, and you know it. You know it.

01:17:52

So, two places where the modern Greek texts identify

01:17:57

Jesus as Theos, King James does not. Revelation 1 .8,

01:18:03

John 1 .18. And as I showed you, and I suppose,

01:18:10

I've got time. Let me pop it up here real quick. I'll show it to you again, just so we can make sure that we've got it.

01:18:20

As I showed you before, the variation... They showed you. Let me open

01:18:29

Recent, New Testament Documents Plus. While that's coming up, let me see if I can roll back here in the screenshot to 1

01:18:46

Timothy 3 .16. Let me see if I can find it. There.

01:18:56

There. Can you get that screenshot? All right. Now, I don't know what manuscript this is. Looks possibly like Alexandrinus.

01:19:03

I'm not sure. But what they've got circled here is Theos. This is why

01:19:10

I think it is Alexandrinus. I didn't take the time to look it up. I've got Alexandrinus. I could pull it up and take a look at it in accordance, but that would really mess my screen up.

01:19:21

That clearly is Theos because you have the gnomonosacral line right there. But what

01:19:27

I showed you before, I will bring up and I will switch over to the proper thing here.

01:19:36

Window. Window. And we want

01:19:42

Keynote, New Testament Documents Plus.

01:19:48

You should have it now. You have a what? You got it?

01:19:56

Okay. Here is the difference between God and He Who.

01:20:05

In fact, let me back it up a screen. Here is in capital unseal text,

01:20:12

God, He Who. There's the Os. There's Has. Blow it up.

01:20:18

You can see the difference. Theta Sigma with a line over top versus Omicron Sigma without a line over top. Orthographically, they're almost identical to one another.

01:20:29

It's easy for an English -speaking person to say, there's a big difference between He Who and God. It's two different words. One word, no.

01:20:36

In the original maguscule text that was used for the first 800 years, the history of the

01:20:43

New Testament, the difference would be very small and easily understandable why a scribe could confuse the two.

01:20:51

Again, this doesn't sell DVDs. You can't play spooky music behind it. It wouldn't make any difference right now if I had going on behind because it isn't that exciting.

01:21:04

It's just the facts. It's true. Sometimes the truth, it's just true.

01:21:12

It's just the way it is. So once again, if you are going to make this kind of argumentation, if you're going to stand in front of an audience and tell them, look, this is what's going on.

01:21:32

These people are trying to change things. Just be honest. Don't deceive them. Everyone sitting in that room that day with Anderson preaching to them about 1

01:21:45

Timothy 3 .16, their ability to actually defend the

01:21:51

Christian faith was diminished by his preaching, not enhanced.

01:21:59

That's why I deal with this. That's why I deal with this. Let's look at one more. We got time to look at one more alleged issue here that I thought they really stumbled on badly.

01:22:09

Another great proof of the fact that Jesus Christ is God is Hebrews 1 .8.

01:22:14

But unto the Son... This thing is really not easy to switch between, by the way.

01:22:22

Let's see. VLC. And okay, here we go. Another great proof of the fact that Jesus Christ is

01:22:29

God is Hebrews 1 .8. But unto the Son, he saith, Thy throne,

01:22:35

O God, is for ever and ever. So what is the Bible calling the

01:22:41

Son there? It's calling him God. It says, unto the Son, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.

01:22:48

Listen to the NIV. But about the Son, he says...

01:22:54

Recently, I was talking to a Jehovah's Witness in the train station. I went to pick my wife up. And the Jehovah's Witness was starting to read to me out of a devotional book she had.

01:23:01

But I saw her New World Translation. So I said, well, is the New World Translation from the Greek?

01:23:06

She says, from the West Gothenburg Greek New Testament. I said, is it accurate? She said, of course.

01:23:12

I said, have you had Greek? She said, no. I said, what would you do if Jehovah himself spoke to Jesus and called him

01:23:17

God? That never happened. So according to Hebrews 1 .8, unto the

01:23:22

Son, he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. She became so excited, so upset. She took her bags and rolled out the door.

01:23:28

And I followed out the door talking to her. But when I read it from the New World Translation later, it completely has been changed.

01:23:41

Okay, wait a minute. King James, you can't misunderstand it. But not only that, but they attack

01:23:47

Christ's virgin birth. Again, it's so frustrating.

01:23:58

They throw out the New World Translation at Hebrews 1 .8,

01:24:04

which says, God is your throne. That's a possible translation. It's an unlikely translation, especially in the context.

01:24:12

But it has nothing to do with Westcott and Hort. It has nothing to do with the underlying text.

01:24:19

They've made it sound like it does, but it has nothing to do with it at all. They mentioned

01:24:25

Westcott and Hort, all the rest of this stuff. It's a translational issue, and you need to deal with it contextually.

01:24:32

The only thing they threw out was, well, the NIV says, but about the Son. As if there's a difference?

01:24:39

There's no difference. There's none whatsoever. In fact, you follow that.

01:24:45

And again, the text is the same. The Greek text is the same. You follow that down to verse 10, and there's your strongest text for the deity of Christ.

01:24:54

Because there you have Psalm 102, 25 to 27 being quoted and applied to the Son. But of the Son and, and then verse 10 is cited.

01:25:03

So, these guys stand up there and they tell stories about dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses. The fact is, they don't deal with the best

01:25:09

Jehovah's Witnesses at all. None of them have. And by promoting their King James -only -ism in the context of pretending to prepare their people to deal with Witnesses, they're actually crippling them.

01:25:21

They're crippling them. Because they're not giving them the truth. And the Witnesses are smart enough to catch that and to take them apart.

01:25:32

Take them down at the knees. Got room for one more. This is, again, every one of these addressed in the

01:25:41

King James -only controversy thoroughly refuted. Did they even mention it? No.

01:25:46

King James, you can't misunderstand it. But not only that, but they attack Christ's virgin birth.

01:25:52

Go to Luke chapter 233. The Bible says, and Joseph and his mother marveled at those things which were spoken of him.

01:25:59

The NIV, on the other hand, and the ESV, and the New Living Translation say, the child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him.

01:26:09

So right there, we see that the NIV and these... Now, let's, again, addressed clearly in the book.

01:26:20

But I want to point something out to you. He knows what the answer is here.

01:26:26

He knows what the answer is here. Joseph, notice you have...

01:26:38

Well, actually, I don't have this up right now, but don't worry about it. Verse 33, his father and his mother were amazed concerning the things spoken about him.

01:26:55

Later, I'm sorry, later translations put in the word

01:27:01

Joseph to later versions, such as Theta, Family 13, etc.,

01:27:09

etc. But pater is found in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, DW, Family 1.

01:27:18

It's basically in the Alexandrian text, so on and so forth. Now, what they say is, oh, this is denial of the virgin birth.

01:27:31

Later on, Mary will say, your father and I were searching for you, showing that obviously this is exactly how

01:27:44

Joseph functioned and it was appropriate to use this language. They know that this is the case.

01:27:53

And so what do they do? Listen to the manhandling of that text you're about to hear from Anderson.

01:28:00

Other modern versions are calling Joseph the father of Jesus Christ, something that the

01:28:05

King James Bible is careful to never do. Was Joseph the father of Jesus Christ?

01:28:11

No, he was not. He was a stepfather of Jesus Christ. I'll give you that. But he was not the father of Jesus Christ.

01:28:16

In fact, later in this same chapter, Mary refers to Joseph as Jesus' father, and he corrects her immediately.

01:28:26

It says, when they saw him, they were amazed. And his mother said to him, son, why hast thou thus dealt with us?

01:28:32

Behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. So didn't she just refer to Joseph as Jesus' father?

01:28:38

Watch how he immediately corrects her. And he said unto them, how is it that ye sought me? Wist ye not that I must be about my father's business?

01:28:46

He's saying, look, I'm about my father's business when I'm preaching the word of God, because Joseph is not my father.

01:28:53

God the father is my father. People who believe... Now, now, excuse me. That's not what the text is about.

01:28:59

Where did you get that from? Wow. When you can, when you can completely change what

01:29:06

Jesus is saying into a rebuke of Mary for having used pater, just to defend the

01:29:13

King James and its reliance upon later manuscripts at Luke 2 .33,

01:29:20

there's, there's nothing left that you don't, you're not going to change. There's nothing left. There's, there's, there's no rules left.

01:29:27

No rules left. Amazing. Again, every single one of these texts refuted 20 years ago in the

01:29:40

King James only controversy. It's sort of funny that I stopped it right there. Because I don't know if you've got that up, but that's a small room with a few people in it.

01:29:51

King James only -ism is dying. And you might say, well, then why talk about it? Well, because it can still confuse people.

01:29:59

And you need to keep telling the truth, be honest and responding to these, these things until it's gone.

01:30:08

Will it ever be gone? I don't know. I think so. I think so. I think so.

01:30:15

Anyways, there you go. From homosexuality through Eric and Cantor to Islam to New World Bible versions.

01:30:23

I'm not sure you can have enough room to put everything into the description on this particular one. But we managed to get through all of it.

01:30:30

Thanks for listening to the program today. Lord willing, we'll see you again on Thursday. We'll see you then. God bless.