Provisionist Mythology Refuted with Full Documentation

Well, greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line. We're coming to you from the big studio with the electrical cords and stuff in the back wall there. You probably want to zoom in a little bit on that.

We have rearranged everything in the big studio. We do have some things that, you know, I need to have Jason Wallace on to talk about Simon Licaris and I'm talking with some King James Only guys about possibly doing something.

And by the way, Dr. Tuggy heard about what I said on The Dividing Line a few, I don't know, last week sometime. And he's interested in doing the Prologue of John stuff, which would be really good. I think that especially would be an excellent debate to do in here.

Not that he'd be in here, but in other words, start getting some online debates done, utilizing the wonderful facilities that we have here that we'll be using today. Program today, I refuse to allow this program to, and I'm getting a feedback someplace.

I'm getting a echo. I'm not sure what that is. But I refuse to allow this program to become focused solely upon, you know, one little topic and one little group, no matter how loud they are. And boy, they can be loud.

And at the same time, you know, my goal always is to make things understandable, to try to clarify things, to take opportunities for teachable moments. And so I announced late last week that we'd be doing this program here in the revamped big studio with the new, you know, Rich started working on this stuff once I left.

It's a little bit like my wife at home. I get home, I can't find anything anymore. Almost all evidences of my existence are wiped out. It takes me months to find my stuff. And I leave and Rich just starts playing and starts going, and so you can see the, you know, the pretty cross back there he made and this, you know, he does all that stuff.

And I could show you, I have in boxes someplace, some of the stuff that I made back in, you know, junior high school in shop class or something like that. And it's pretty bad stuff. Let me tell you, I have had to learn to repair a few things.

And we may be talking a little bit in the future about making some changes in regards to how we're traveling a little bit, not flying, but just I've, you know, the RV life, you learn how to repair stuff as best you can.

It's a sort of necessary, but yeah, I don't do stuff like this, staining, dyeing, making, I would just be dyeing and different spelling of the word. So this setup we have here would be perfect for doing some, you know, have Jason on over there and we can talk about Simon Licaris and then set up some of these debates.

We can use the same material we have up there right now, which is my accordion setup. And so we'll see what comes of all that. But like I said, I refuse to allow the program to be hijacked by other topics.

And one of the reasons last night, I preached at Apologia Church. You know, you come home on Thursday and Sunday, you're preaching pretty quick turnaround. But I sort of had the feeling that Jeff could use the time.

He's just as busy, if not busier than I am. And so I got to church about half an hour early. A lot of people do. And I don't know, maybe 15 minutes before the service started, a woman came up to me with her mom and they're visiting.

Her mom at least is visiting from Minnesota. I don't know. And I'm just, I'm sorry, I've just plopped down on, there's this one little place that I sit over on the side. And so I'm like, hi, nice to meet you.

How you doing? And she tells me that her husband always listened to the dividing line. And then she says, when he was in hospice, he put his phone on his chest to be able to listen to the dividing line.

Obviously indicating to me that he had gone on to be with the Lord, not because he was listening to the dividing line. And so we recognize that we have a responsibility with this program to reach out to a wide audience.

And so we want to continue to do that. So we're not going to be talking about provisionism and latent flowers and all the rest of the stuff over and over and over again. What has happened since that debate about what, 11, 12 days ago is really a study in how to create fictional narratives.

I noticed over the weekend, the mainstream media was creating a fictional narrative about something that former President Trump said. And he had said something in one very clear, obvious context. He was talking about the auto industry.

He was talking about Mexico. He was talking about China. He was talking about moving materials through from China to Mexico and the United States, things like that. And he said, unless I am elected, there's going to be a bloodbath.

And he was talking about the auto industry. He was talking about where things can be coming from and the destruction of the American industry. And it was very obvious to anybody who cares to listen to what's being said.

Don't get me wrong. There are times when Trump does that to other people too. So I get it. But the collective creation of a completely false narrative that I can guarantee you, there are millions of people in the United States today that think that Donald Trump said, unless I'm elected, I'm calling for a bloodbath, a revolution.

I'm surprised there already hasn't been a Supreme Court justice someplace that's kicked Trump off of the ballot for leading a new insurrection based upon that very thing. That's the point. That's the issue that you can create fictional narratives.

And so the fictional narrative that is now being promoted by the rather desperate provisionist playground, as I call it, has to do with my errors about Greek in the debate. And so I first heard something about this as I was getting ready to leave Houston.

So it was after the Dale Tuggy debate, which I've heard next to nothing about. I finally, for the first time, saw today a video of a debate review with Dale Tuggy and somebody. And so it's been pretty quiet there, very quiet amongst the Catholics for the Trent Horn stuff.

But it's been the provisionists who, from the Jason Breda debate through the Layton Flowers debate, it's just been incessant. Even Phil Johnson has had to make reference to the silliness of what's going on.

So I heard about a review where a Greek scholar corrects my Greek. And so, as I said, on a previous edition of the Dividing Line, while we were still on the road, I downloaded... Now, I've used a number of downloading programs over the years, and they all seem to stop working.

Something new comes along and you have to buy it, and probably the same company just getting you one way or the other. Anyway, the one that I'm using now, which works the best for me, gives you an option of downloading video or downloading it and converting it to MP3 audio.

Well, I decided I was going to listen to this while driving, so better to do audio. I don't know, it sort of scared me to plop your phone up on the dashboard. I think I've seen some people do that, to be perfectly honest with you.

A little scary. Right now, I'm 51 feet long when I'm going down the road at about 17 ,000 pounds, grand total. So yeah, not good to be watching TV while doing something like that. So anyway, I downloaded it as audio, and I told the story on the Dividing Line.

I started listening to it, and I got 15, 16 minutes in, and I started hearing things that clearly demonstrated to me that the individuals doing this did not understand what the point of the debate was.

They misrepresented what I was saying, and I actually have that. I have taken the time to track these things down, and so we will do our first test. We're trying to make a bunch of stuff work here, and we'll do the best we can, but I could just see all of this crashing and burning badly.

What? Rich is going, hey, now, well, let's, if I were him, if I were him, I wouldn't be saying that until I hit a button, and we find out whether this works. That's what I would do, but here's, this is about 10 minutes, 42 seconds into this particular review.

Now, again, I didn't see this. I only heard it, and I was explaining on the Dividing Line why I just reached up and turned it off, and so here's around the time period where I eventually gave up, so let's, let's listen in.

Talking before, so I'm going to mention this now, and then I'll mention it again later on when it becomes apparent again, which is, James brings Greek into this debate a lot.

I don't doubt that. Real quickly, I listened to the entire debate Saturday morning just to double-check one thing, and that is, did the term aorist ever appear in the debate, and it didn't, and what surprised me was how little Greek there was.

Now, yes, I was, when I was cross-examining Leighton, I had the Greek in front of me, and that's what I was using, but there was, there was very little actual discussion of grammatical forms or syntax or anything like that.

The main discussion, and this does come up eventually, the main discussion was on the semantic domain of Akuo and Manthano to hear and to learn in light of being taught by God, and so I'm pretty sure I did mention the genitive form of Thayu, I think, you know, and in fact, if someone had wanted to criticize me, and nobody did, at least not that I've heard, I referred to, and we're going to put all this up on the screen, so I referred to when it says, they shall all be taught of God, Thayu, of God is a genitive, and I called it a genitive of means, as I recall, it's genitive agency.

Part of that was because I was taught the 8k system, I studied syntax in an 8 case grammar, and so you had instrumental of means was one of the, one of the categories, but this is a genitive, and the agency is a better term because it emphasizes the personal.

So you could have criticized me for that, it's not that it means anything of what I was saying, it doesn't change the meaning at all, but at least you would have had something of substance to say, which so far no one has been able to find anything of substance to say.

Anyway, so there is actually very little Greek in this debate, in comparison to what there could have been, if many of the standard ways around John 644 were used. So for example, I've talked to many provisionists, and this doesn't seem to be Flowers' position anymore, if it ever was, but I've talked to many, many people about John 644, where they have inserted a division, no one could come to me unless the Father sent me draws him, that's one him, and I will raise him up in the last day, is a totally different him.

They, somehow, in only two or three words, you completely change who's being referred to. And so if that had been presented, as many people have over the years to me, we could have had a discussion of Auton, and which Auton is going with what, we could have gotten it, we didn't.

So there is actually very little discussion of the original language, even though that was when I would do the rebuttals and things like that, basically I just had my Greek New Testament, but I didn't have to make note of that, I'm just going from that, and so it just wasn't nearly as much as I expected there to be, or as was just mentioned here.

James can read the New Testament to some degree in Greek.

Now, by the way, I have no idea who this man is. I don't know what gives him the capacity of somehow, because he admits when he's doing this initial review, he's not ever read a single book I've read.

I doubt he's ever heard a sermon that I ever preached. As far as I know, all he knows about me, he knows about listening to one, from one debate, and given the stuff he said about debate, he wasn't listening well.

So I don't, I'll be honest with you, I don't know how you come to conclusions about people on the basis of tiny little snippets. I don't get it. I hope that he doesn't get treated this way in the future, but something tells me what goes around comes around, and when it does, he's going to have no basis for complaining, because he's been willing to make these types of character assessments and scholarly assessments off the basis of almost nothing at all.

It's disturbing and troubling, and I hope he'll think about it, because he would not, this young man would not want to be treated by others the way that he chose to treat me,.

And why he did so, I don't know. I want to be really kind when I say this, but it is quite apparent that James appears to have a rather superficial knowledge of how language works, or particularly how Greek works, because he mentions things, and he'll say things, and here he talks about the present tense participles of looking on the sun and believing.

In him. So I guess, and I didn't even remember this, but when I went quickly past verse 40 in my running through the context in my opening statement, I mentioned in passing the one looking, the one believing, and for probably most of this young man's life, I have been preaching sermons where I have emphasized that, especially in the gospel of John, the emphasis upon the present tense participle, the one believing, every single time that's used, it's used of saving faith.

That's what brings eternal life, that's what brings you to resurrection by Jesus himself, and it's never in the gospel of John anyways, and in fact, it only appears, if I recall correctly, well, let's, let me see, I wonder if this will pop, I don't think it'll pop over it.

Oh, it did, look at that. I think I have this here, yeah, there you go, all right, good, the search is still up there. Let me, oops, let me, come on, there, it's a little bit easier to see. Here are all the places in the New Testament where the present tense participle, substantival participle, hapistumon.

So, now this did come up, I just remembered something, this did come up in the debate because Leighton accused me of redefining the word whosoever, and I corrected him because he was wrong, I wasn't redefining anything, I was talking about pas hapistumon, you can see that in John 3 .15, hinah pas hapistumon enauto, eke zoen ionion, in order that everyone believing in him might have eternal life, and so, and by the way, just, it's a subjunctive, that doesn't mean it's, well, might, we don't know, might fail, that's not what it's talking about, it's a hinah clause, and a lot of people don't understand hinah clauses, and I've explained them for years, but in as it may, pas hapistumon, the one believing in him, eternal life, okay, and then, of course, John 3 .16, the very next reference there, hinah pas hapistumon, eke zoen ionion, so the one believing in him should not perish, but have eternal life, probably one of the most best known verses in the New Testament, John 3 .18, the one believing in him is not judged, ha de me pistuon, the one not believing has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten son of God, now I suppose someone could, oh, there's, there's a, there's a use of hapistumon, it's not, it's false faith, no, it's not false faith, it's, it's negated, may negates it, it's the one not believing has been judged already, then John 3 .36, the one believing the son has eternal one, eternal life, the not believing in the son one shall not see life, so that's ha apithon, the not believing one, but the wrath of God abides upon him, John 6 .35, now we're into chapter 6, um, and this is now part of the context of the debate, uh, so ha er kamanos pros eme, the one coming to me will not hunger, ha pistuon is eme, the one believing me will never thirst, so now you have the two being put together, uh, yes, I like that, uh, the two being put together, hey, I can do that in the rig, so, you know, don't, don't sit there looking all, all, all fancy dancy back there, um, he's still looking fancy dancy back there, just not stop, gotta sort of go like this, so I can't see, you know, the smug look on the face is amazing, anyway, um, so again, the, the one believing will never thirst, this is true faith, present tense, so that was entitled participle, uh, John 6 .47, right in the middle of our context, amen, amen, lego, who mean, ha pistuon, acai, zewain, ionion, there's a textual variant there, in me, um, doesn't show it there, but we'll see it later on, we throw it up there, so these are, have eternal life, John 7 .31, the one believing in me, just as scriptures say, of his innermost being will flow with his living water, John 11 .25, uh, Jesus said to her, ego, I, me, hey, anastasis, I am the resurrection, cahe zewain, ha pistuon ais eme, kan apathane zesetai, the one believing in me, once again, true saving faith, using the substantival present tense participle, uh, John 12 .44, Jesus cried out and said, the one believing in me is not believing in me, but in the one who sent me, as if there's no, there could be no separation, uh, you can't believe in the son, but not believe in the father who sent him, uh, but it's again, true saving faith, uh, John 12 .46, uh, the light of the world has come, in order that pas ha pistuon, everyone believing in me will not remain in darkness, skatia, uh, saving faith, it's right there, John 14 .12, ha pistuon ais eme, ta erga, ha ego, poio, kakainos, poiosis, and kaim, this one actually came up, and this is another thing we need to discuss on the program, which I'll try to remember to get to it, uh, you know, maybe later this week or something like that, but this, uh, came up in the, uh, round table discussion, Justin Peters, Michael Brown, Sam Storms, and, uh, Jim, sorry, Jim, name escaping me at the moment, don't have all this in front of me, um, did, and I listened to on the drive back to Phoenix from, uh, from Houston, um, this came up, this verse came up there, and again, the one believing in me, this is true eternal life, um, then we go out of John, and it looks to me as I just look at his, this, um, this is the only use of ha pistuon outside of John that's not a scriptural citation, uh, everyone believing will be justified, um, from Acts 13 .39, because you'll notice Romans 9 .33, ha pistuon is in italics, which is the 28th edition, a way of indicating a citation of the old covenant scriptures, normally the Greek Septuagint, uh, so ha pistuon in 9 .33 and ha pistuon in 10 .11, 1 Peter 2 .6, uh, ha pistuon, the one believing in him shall not be, uh, confounded or put to disappointment, uh, which again, these are all Old Testament citations, and then we jump back into John, not the Gospel of John, but 1 John, uh, pas ha pistuon, everyone believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born from God, this is a rather important, now this one's an important one, because if we had time, and we don't, this program's going to go much longer than it needs to anyways, um, but if, if we were, and we have, you can look this up, um, everything I've taught for 25 years, okay, 20, yeah, 20, actually coming up on 26 years, uh, is, uh, pretty much available on our website now, um, so you can look up 1 John 5 .1, we have done entire discussions of, and explained the relationship of participles, such as ha pistuon, to controlling verbs, gegenetai, because participles, um, are controlled by the main verbs, and how you understand them, and how they relate syntactically to everything else in the sentence, it all has to do with the relationship of the main verb, um, and so, uh, there's a lot that can be said about 1 John 5 .1 but it's the one believing, it's, it's true faith, um, who is the one who overcomes verse, John, 1 John 5 .5, the world, I may ha pistuon hati yesus est in ha hui astutio, so who is the one who overcomes the world, but the one believing that Jesus is the son of God, that's how you overcome the world, and the last 1 John 5 .10, the one believing in the son of God has this testimony in himself, so here's, you know, what, what, how is all this relevant, well, it's all relevant, um, now here's going to be the real trick, can I bring the video back, oh, hey, that's working better than I expected it to, um, what happened when I commented on what we're looking at right now, was he's, he's, I don't think he really understands the language, and you know, all based upon his saying that it was strange that I would mention that the participles in verse 40, the one looking upon, believing in the son, are present tense participles, so there's an entire history behind that, I would challenge, uh, this gentleman, Dr. Kuritko, uh, to show me a single place in the Gospel of John where the present tense participle of bestio is not talking about true saving faith, and I'm well aware of that, and I have preached again for probably as long as the gentleman's been alive, that this is highly significant to the anti-lordship, I don't like the term free grace, I call it cheap grace, um, tip your hat toward God, and, um, you're, you're going to heaven, Wilkin coming out of the, of Dallas Theological Seminary, uh, perspective, I've opposed that stuff for a long, long time, I've preached against that stuff, and one of the clear evidences, and I'm sure if you go back to the debate I did with Wilkin, I undoubtedly talked about this, I didn't take the time to go back and look, but I'm sure that I did, um, that these descriptions of saving faith are ongoing.

In comparison, I should have left this, should have left this up, in comparison, and I didn't, I didn't grab these, uh, but, you know, we're doing this, let me give you a comparison, um, in Gospel of John chapter 2, verse 23, now, when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover during the feast, many believed Ishtar Anima 'atu in his name, now, Epistuson is an heiress, you see that sigma alpha, and you've got the epsilon reduplication at the beginning, um, Epistuson is heiress, many believed in his name, okay, uh, but then notice how it says, not because they knew who he was, not because they recognized their own need, not because they were looking to him for spiritual substance, um, theorontes, um, which again, um, is a participle, and so you'll notice it's translated in the LSB, when they saw his signs, or seeing his signs, but again, especially, and this is a, it's not a substantival participle, um, these types of participles are even more dependent for their translation on the main verb, uh, in the sentence, or at least if you have complex clauses, it can get even really messy, um, and so they saw the signs he was doing, but notice what happens, altos de Jesus, uc epistuen, now it's interesting, notice the LSB, but Jesus on his part was not entrusting himself to them, but it's the same, it's the same root word, and so they believe heiress in him, and the heiress is just the most basic, simple way of expressing an action, it can refer to a past action, but it can also just be the action taken as a whole, um, and, you know, present tense can emphasize ongoing action, if the context indicates that that's what is being communicated, but the reason you have, um, you know, uh, gnomic statements in the present, or, um, narrative historical presence, which are almost always translated as past tense, and in the gospels and stuff like that, is because that's not always what's going on, but here, but Jesus on his part was not entrusting, literally believing himself to them, so they've expressed a kind of faith toward him, because they've seen what he was doing, but he doesn't reciprocate, this isn't saving faith, and Jesus knows it, and he demonstrates it, he knows what's in man, and he knows that Epistuoson isn't saving faith, that's not, that's not hapisturon, there's another example, and it's a striking example, actually, uh, John chapter 8 verse 30, you know, you know the text, as he was speaking these things, poloi, and if I recall correctly, wasn't that what, yeah, that's what John 2 said too, so it's more of a, we're going with the crowd, poloi, Epistuoson eis auton, so there's your heiress, many believed in him, but what happened, what happens, you should know this one, therefore, Jesus was saying to those who had believed in him, the Jews who believed in him, if you remain in my word, you will truly be my disciples, and you shall know the truth, ouch, oops, Jesus wasn't trying to make friends, you will know the truth, and the truth will free you, and what's their immediate response, us, we don't need to be freed, man, does man become angry when you say he's enslaved, and by the end of the chapter, they're picking up stones to stone him, they believed, but that's a real fickle kind of belief, so here's, here's what I'm saying, um, you can find, you can demonstrate that the, especially HaPistuon is only referring to true faith in the Ohanian corpus, and then you can find key texts where the heiress is clearly referring to false faith, and so I have said, and they even at one point in the, late in flowers, put up a quote from a book, they didn't bother to say which book it was from, so I don't even know which one it was from, or when it was written, or what it was even talking about at that particular point in time, but in the quote, I said, is almost always placed in the present, or for false faith, almost always placed in the heiress, almost always is not a rule, I'm not saying there's something about the heiress, what I'm saying is, you can make a pretty strong case that John is trying to communicate something, and I've just given you the evidence for that.

Now, that never came up in the debate, it's irrelevant, completely irrelevant to any debate review, and anyone who brings it up as part of that is obfuscating the issue purposefully, but what happened was, Dr. Kuritko decided to say it was strange, and use it as a part of his coming to these amazing conclusions about my lack of understanding of the Greek language, that I would mention the present participles.

He admits that at this point in time, he had never read anything I had written, nothing, so he doesn't know that when he was a child, I was preaching on this passage, and emphasizing these very things against the idea of a tip-of-the-hat faith toward God being sufficient to actually bring about eternal life.

That's why I say, I do not understand why anyone would do what he would do. If you're a scholar, and someone comes to you, and they want to steal your scholarship, to obfuscate issues, you should say, no, that's not my place, I'm not going to do that, and I'm certainly not going to do it without doing the homework to be able to do it right.

So this was what we were talking about, right here, okay?

And so he's noting the grammatical forms, he doesn't really give you what he's trying to.

Mean by that. He's saying, I had, for decades, in print, and the man I'm debating, has written two books, stealing the titles of my books to change them around, and I explained it in both of them, so I didn't need to, sir.

I didn't need to. And you're literally going to tell people, this is something people do when they're trying to pretend there's secret messages, and the Greek, and all the rest of this stuff. How many times, how many times have I said, have you heard me say, people will come up to me, and they'll go, so what does this text say in the Greek?

And my response is, the same thing it says in English. How long have I been saying that? As long as you know me. Does Dr. Krikow know that? No. So why does he lie about me? I don't know! I don't know!

Don't get it. How can you be so brash as to do this kind of thing? I don't know. I don't get it. I don't get it. It's sad, but I don't get it.

Things about grammar, and he's never quite clear exactly his exegetical point he's making, and he's going to do this again at the end, but he's reading a lot into just basic forms of Greek. A participle doesn't really mean much in and of itself.

Okay, when I just went through all the uses of hapistion, did I explain what the significance was? And then when I contrasted it with John 2 and John 8, did I explain? Yeah. Had I done that 30 years ago?

Yeah. Could anyone who wanted to know that have found that information out for themselves? Yeah. Why doesn't he? Don't know. I don't know his motivations. I don't get it. I really don't. He's a former Calvinist.

Does that mean that that's the explanation? I don't know. I can't say. All I can do is provide you the evidence that his statements are just, there's no reason to accept them. In fact, there's every reason to reject them.

As having any validity at all. You can say things in multiple ways in Greek and mean the exact same thing. So unless you're going to explain what you mean by why a present tense participle is important here, I don't know who you're signaling, speaking to.

Are you just trying to signal that somehow you have this, you know the Greek, and there's some hidden meaning in the Greek or.

Something like that? Okay. Can you see why I'm like, you've got to be kidding me? Now, I actually need to play a little bit more of this. Don't want to, because we haven't even gotten to the stuff you do with Leighton Flowers yet.

But when he then talks about the 10 to 12 second statement in the middle of the Q &A section after the final statements of the debate, and this is the only thing people have focused on, one thing, not the arguments in the opening statement, not the arguments in the rebuttal, because they can't.

They can't deal with that, because that's where the debate took place. Instead, it's this other thing, and that's what we got to look at.

Yeah. And so I'm going to stop on this one, because he actually brings us up again right near the end. And it's pretty problematic, because he critiques Leighton, saying that Leighton's exegesis is faulty, because he didn't realize there were present tense participles and not finite verbs.

And anyone who knows Greek can read it. And so you didn't really introduce me that much, but I read Greek. So I'm a substituent scholar, kind of by trade, among other things that I work in. And so I read a lot of Greek all the time.

And so if someone said that, I'm kind of ahead of the game here, so we maybe can cover it a little less later. If someone says there's a huge exegetical weight that's between a participle, like I'm walking, and a finite verb, he walks, that almost never would happen in language, and especially in Greek, that there's somehow an argument fall apart based on that.

And so James doesn't explain it later on, nor here, what he means by citing Greek grammar. He doesn't explain it, because it was a 10 to 12.

Second statement in the Q &A, where I only had 30 seconds, okay? And I had explained it if you had listened to the debate. He didn't even represent what it was about. He didn't even get it right. We're gonna play it.

Let's go ahead and play it. Let me take this down.

I've got a lot of stuff up here. But if you know Greek, you're gonna go...

Okay, well, he goes on to, again, make some more insulting and condescending statements. Well, that's not it. Where did I put... oh, well, that can't be it. Oh, here it is. Okay, yeah, you know, by the way, this is the first time I have used the clip function.

Now, I didn't see a clip function, another thing. But I saw it said clip, and I'm like, might as well try. You can make little clips out of videos on YouTube. I didn't... it's probably been there for 10 years, and I didn't even know it.

No, I'm sure it hasn't. But here's what happened during the debate. But you need to know, you need to understand something. The first thing I'll show you is from Leighton Flower's closing statement. So this cannot be even slightly relevant to the main argumentation of the debate.

Because it's in a closing statement, and he's bringing up an assertion that he did not make during the debate. Now, that's technically a violation of the rules. You're not supposed to bring up stuff like that.

But, okay, I have theorized one of two things. It's just a theory. I'm allowed to theorize about things, okay? Here is my... this is what I've figured. He gets up there. He's talking really fast. He's getting really emotional.

And he decides to throw out a statement about the terms in John 645, the one hearing and the one learning. Now, one of two things. Either he opened up Logos or whatever it is he uses, Blue Letter Bible, I don't know.

And he clicked on the term, and he saw that it said active. And so he goes with this statement. Or, I think, more likely, someone in his group, probably from the seminary, sent him a text and said, hey, he's all wrong about what he's saying because those are active, not passive forms in John 645.

Now, what was it I was saying? And this is what... we're going to look at some other guy. I don't know what his name is. Someone sent me this brief little clip. This guy's talking 100 miles per hour. It must be being played at 1 .5 times or something.

No one ever talks this fast. But he's ripping along, and at least he knows what part of the argument was. One of the things that I said in the debate, and we're going to look at this when we go over to John 6 here.

Well, here, might as well make Rich start earning his pay over there. He's getting paid a ridiculous amount of money, sitting back there. I mean, union people, it's just ridiculous what they get paid.

So, where did my... disappeared again. There it is. All right. So, we're looking at 645. It is written in the prophets, and they shall all be taught of God. There's your genitive. Genitive of agency. This is an adjective.

So, God is doing... God is the one who is acting here, and they all are taught. They are made to be taught ones by God. God is the one doing this. Okay. Now, I'm going to argue. Well, let's, you know, I'll argue right now.

We'll go ahead and point out. What you have going on here is, in 644, no one is able to come to me unless the Father, and then, hapem sasme, the one who sent me, unless the Father draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day.

Okay. So, my presentation in the debate is just this simple. The act... now, by the way, as far as I can tell from what Leighton said, none of this is relevant today. Jesus isn't drawing anybody except maybe Jews to Jesus.

Now, it's Jesus doing all the drawing. So, this is all irrelevant. This is... and I don't know if Koritko believes that. I'm sure that Koritko would realize that there aren't very many people who do believe that, but anyway, this is all just at this time period because God's hardening Israel to bring about the crucifixion.

So, right now, the only way to believe is if the Father who sent him draws him, and I guess he only does that for 11 people or something like that during the ministry of Christ, but anyway. So, you have this action on God's part of drawing, and apart from that drawing, U'dais Dunatai.

No one is able, Elphine, to come to me. Now, please notice that term there. To come to me. To come to me. Why is that important? Because look at the end of verse 45. Erekatai pros eme. So, you want to say, here's come to me in English.