Review of Today’s Totalitarian Nonsense, the Importance of History, Psalm 110, Psalm 12 and KJVOism

Alpha & Omega Ministries

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

Comments are disabled.

00:34

Greetings. Welcome to The Dividing Line. My name is James White. We're going to jump right into it here as we get ready for next week.

00:45

We will be, I'm not sure when we're going to be able to do a program after Tuesday or Wednesday, probably

00:53

Tuesday of next week, to be honest with you. We'll see. It'll be on the road, definitely.

00:59

Well, Lord willing, it'll be on the road. But it's going to be a really, really busy time for me this week and next week as we are getting ready to head out to St.

01:12

Charles, 21 years at Covenant of Grace Church there in St. Charles. Looking forward to seeing some of the old gang there that we have learned to love over the years.

01:24

And I might be doing a little more speaking there than normal. Might be doing a

01:29

Sunday night, not sure yet, because I don't have to, well, I can't grab a flight out because some people say, well, yes, you could.

01:40

Yes, if I wanted to subject myself to masked Nazis and that kind of stuff. No, I'm not doing that.

01:48

I've traveled enough in my life that it's like I'll travel when it's appropriate to do so.

01:55

And so far, you folks have been so generous in making it possible for us to do this. My goodness, I can't even imagine what the gas bill is going to be on this trip.

02:04

Just watching the prices around here, records every day. And just so you know, that is absolutely purposeful.

02:12

I saw an interview with the energy secretary and when she was asked when we could expect a return to previous gas prices, she laughed.

02:25

And the reason she laughed is because she knows that it is not their intention to ever see gas prices like we saw in 2019.

02:35

And that's purposeful. It's intentional on their part. They want to see us stop traveling.

02:43

They do not want us to have the freedom to move about in that way. People who can travel and move about are dangerous.

02:49

And so only the elite get to do that. And so these gas prices are purposeful.

02:55

And if it hurts the poor, they do not care. Please understand, leftists do not care about the poor.

03:01

They use the poor, but they do not care about the poor. And so if people starve, they don't care one little bit as long as the socialist utopia is one step closer.

03:12

And of course, they can never get there. Now, obviously right now, one of the things we're dealing with are not only the leaky

03:24

V mandates, but we've seen something that just took place in Austria.

03:34

If you are not vaccinated in Austria, you are now basically a political prisoner in your own home.

03:42

And you must realize that eventually what they will do with that is used as a mechanism of closing down your bank accounts, closing down your ability to buy food.

03:55

And they won't care what the result of that is. This is what global totalitarianism is about.

04:01

And the sooner you come to understand it, then maybe you can get on the right side of things and help out.

04:08

But what can I say? So if you'd like to hear another voice saying these things, this video sort of went viral yesterday.

04:17

And it's very calm and very measured, almost too much so for me, calm and measured.

04:24

But remember, you're not going to be able to verify these things much longer unless you've been downloading, saving to an external hard drive that you're hiding in a static proof bag someplace.

04:40

But we have the videos of the primary players in the preceding decade, laying all of this out, saying, hey, you know, vaccinating children, that could be the most effective global identification mechanism ever.

04:59

And so all these mandates now, they were planned, had been planned.

05:07

It's not like they rolled these things out last, hey, let's try this. No, people are actually saying, oh, they're just sort of rolling with it.

05:13

No, no, this is, this was, this was the plan from the start. And it's, that's why it's working so wonderfully.

05:21

Here's someone else to say things that the rest of us have been saying, but just, just, just listen in. This is not the first time in history that plague laws have been used to centralize control, control of transportation, control of labor, control of banking and bank accounts, control of all the different kinds of capital that make up human civilization.

05:41

But the COVID laws are particularly draconian in the history of plague laws, because not only do they control labor, transportation, banking, but now with advances in digital technology, we're looking at complete control through the banking system of 100 % of all assets, ultimately.

06:03

So what, what happens here? For many, many years, most of us have grown up in a world in the

06:12

Western democracies where we have a balance of power between the bankers and the people. The central bankers control monetary policy, and the people vote for an electorate that controls fiscal policy.

06:25

Now what we're watching with COVID laws all around the world is the central bankers moving in and exercising essentially a coup d 'etat, where they take control of fiscal policy as well.

06:38

And again, with the advances in digital technology, vaccine passports will not be about health.

06:46

Vaccine passports are part of a financial transaction control grid that will absolutely end human liberty in the

06:53

West. For many years, I have fought and written against central control of the financial system.

07:02

We've centralized more and more capital, more and more control. And we've done it with tactics called divide and conquer.

07:11

And we've all experienced many different divide and conquer tactics, men against women, black against white.

07:18

But now we have a new one called the vaccinated versus the non -vaccinated, because if you're going to centralize control of every aspect of people's lives, and literally strip them of their assets and their property rights, you need a new, more venal divide and conquer.

07:35

And we can't let that happen. Well, there you go. And that's well, well said.

07:42

And a lot of people struggle with recognizing that what we're dealing with here is absolute totalitarianism.

07:51

This is purposeful. Oh, it's just, you know, tinfoil hat stuff. I just don't know what it's gonna take before people start to understand that this has nothing to do with tinfoil hats.

08:03

Maybe watching this will help. I don't know. I can't see how it necessarily would.

08:11

But this is, as soon as I can get to the, there it is.

08:17

It's sort of hard to see these little teeny tiny spots. This is

08:23

Austria the day after locking down all non -vaccinated people.

08:31

Now remember, these are leaky vaccines. Everybody admits this now.

08:39

Well, okay. Anybody who's actually reading admits this now. These are not what we were promised.

08:46

This is not what we were told initially. These do not keep you from getting the disease.

08:52

They will not keep you alive from the disease. They will not keep you from giving the disease to anyone else. In fact, as far as we can tell, that does not have any, does not help at all in your distributing this disease to anyone else.

09:06

The only thing they're saying now is, well, you'll have slightly less severe symptoms, at least with the current variant.

09:14

I know we don't know what the 10, 5, 10, 15 year safety story is going to be, but we don't care.

09:21

So that's what we have. And so the idea that, well, we just saw that, was it

09:30

Gibraltar? I think it was Gibraltar. 100 % vaccination.

09:38

Now, of course, Britain just changed the definition of fully vaccinated. Did you catch that?

09:44

It's now three, now three shots. It was two last week. Now it's three. And when will it become four and then five and then six?

09:53

As we've been saying all along, it's like we wrote the script ourselves and they don't care. Once you step on this merry -go -round folks, there ain't no getting off because the next demand, then the next demand, then the next demand.

10:08

So fully vaccinated in Gibraltar. Also, I think, I think 100 % with two shots, 40 % with three shots.

10:17

So one of the most vaccinated places on the planet, they just canceled Christmas. They just canceled all

10:24

Christmas celebrations because of the massive spike in what? COVID -19 infections.

10:32

These things are dangerous. They're doing exactly what people said they would do. And I linked to a 2016 paper, 2016 paper on leaky vaccines, which means it's a, it's, it's a vaccine that doesn't actually do what it's supposed to do.

10:54

And the whole paper is how, how that results in greater damage to the population.

11:01

2016. Did the people that put this stuff out know this?

11:06

You better believe they did. Did they do it purposely? Well, there is a day when we will find out.

11:12

But politically, yes. Because this is their political dream. Because now they're, they've, they've got all these people in a state of panic and cases are going up and it's going to get worse.

11:25

And so you have to give us more and more power. Didn't these people watch Star Wars? Didn't, didn't they watch the first three?

11:32

Maybe these, I'll bet you all these people are Star Wars purists who didn't watch the prequel.

11:38

So they didn't see the rise of the empire and they didn't understand what emergency powers are.

11:43

That's what happened. There it is. There's the answer to it all. Anyways, here's a, let's, let's, let's watch something rather scary here.

11:51

Uh, here are, here are our, uh, our police with their masks walking through, uh,

12:01

Austrian department stores. Your papers, please.

12:09

Yep. Checking everybody's, you need to have your digital.

12:16

Oh, let's pull some people over. Let's make sure if you're out driving around where you can't spread the virus to anybody.

12:23

Anyways, that's, uh, can I, can I see your papers, please? Oh yeah, I got it. Yeah. So, so here we are,

12:34

Austria of all places, Austria doesn't have, uh, doesn't have a real good history on this one.

12:40

If you know what I mean, folks, uh, there are certain people from Austria that turned out to be rather bad people in, uh, in history, but there you go again.

12:48

There it is. We are, we are back at it. And, um, so you're going to, you can't, uh, you can't go, can't go buy clothes, go, go buy food.

13:00

Um, basically they're telling you, we want you to die. Um, you either get vaccinated or you, or you die.

13:07

One of the two. That's just all there is to it. Um, that's what totalitarianism is.

13:14

And, um, I, I feel, I feel foolish in one place because there were, there were times in the past when

13:24

I, when I thought foolishly, uh, that policemen just wouldn't, just wouldn't do this kind of stuff.

13:32

But, um, I was wrong. I was, uh, I was definitely wrong. Okay. Let's see here.

13:39

Um, did he, did he, did he, uh, got them, got them. All right. Let's, uh, let's dive into something that you never expected, um, expected today.

13:55

Um, how many people do you, how many

14:03

Roman Catholics do you think that that was a nice transition?

14:09

Notice I paused for a moment. So the dividing line highlights guys can get a nice clean break on that.

14:19

I don't know that. Uh, I was, I was just, just saying, we've got to, we've got to start following and, and linking to all, because I think a lot of people, if we linked to those shorter versions,

14:33

I think a lot of people would watch them. So I do appreciate the hard work that the, you guys, gals, whoever you are, um, you, you do a great job.

14:44

Notice the break again. So I wonder how many

14:50

Roman Catholics in the world today would know who

14:56

Pope Honorius was. Pope Honorius.

15:02

I actually had, um, a, uh, an image, but I decided not to pull it over here because obviously no one really has a meaningful image of Pope Honorius, but, uh,

15:19

Pope Honorius was Bishop of Rome in the seventh century.

15:27

And he had, um, a fair amount of communication and written correspondence with Sergius, who was,

15:39

I believe, uh, the Archbishop of Constantinople. So a, uh, meaningful, uh, leader in the, uh,

15:49

Eastern church. And there's a long history of correspondence. It sort of breaks down at 1054, but there, there's a lot of interaction that took place definitely over the, over the centuries, which is, uh, interesting in and of itself.

16:05

Anyways, Pope Honorius, I want you to, I want you to go back in history with me.

16:13

All right. Pope Honorius and Sergius have a written discussion over the difference between duothelitism and monothelitism.

16:31

Now, let's be honest. The vast majority of us were not thinking about monothelitism or duothelitism when we went to bed last night or when we got up this morning.

16:44

And in fact, the vast majority of us have not really thought much about that subject.

16:50

And in fact, the vast majority of us, if we were to honest, be honest, would say, I don't have a clue what that is about.

16:58

And 99 plus percent of all Christians have lived and died on this planet without having any idea what monothelitism is, whether it's true or false, what duothelitism is.

17:13

You can sort of tell, monoduo, okay, it's not the same thing. And fellitism, fellow means

17:21

I will. So it has something to do with the will. But most of us, this is not a part of what might be called practical theology.

17:32

It's not something that is going to impact almost any decision you make today.

17:40

And so if Honorius and Sergius were a little off base on that particular subject, well, does that really mean much of anything?

17:53

Does that, is that going to have any type of eternal consequence to it? Now, prior to the

18:03

Vatican council that met toward the end of the 19th century,

18:09

Vatican one, not Vatican two, which was in the 20th century, but prior to the first Vatican council, if you had raised the belief, if you raised the idea that the

18:25

Bishop of Rome in his specific person had a charism of infallibility to where he and he alone would not be able to lead the church into error, not that he himself might not have wrong ideas, but that he would not lead the church into error.

18:56

Now that was defined at the first Vatican council, doctrine of papal infallibility.

19:03

Prior to that time, there were all sorts of people who opposed that. They opposed it because for example, they could look at history and they could, well, demonstrate, for example, the papacy was incapable of healing itself of the

19:25

Babylonian captivity of the church in the 14th century and into the 15th century.

19:32

And that the popes had, the various popes had anathematized each other between Avignon and France, and Rome, sorry,

19:41

Avignon and Rome. And that there had even ended up being a third pope briefly as well.

19:51

But some people would say, well, it wasn't necessarily teaching or doctrine, but I would personally think that it's pretty obvious if you anathematize somebody, you have to have a doctrinal basis for doing them.

20:03

And there were other arguments to be made, but the strongest argument that anyone could come up with was the story of Honorius.

20:15

The story of Honorius. Now, I won't have time today to go overly deeply into it.

20:21

If you wish to read about it, you can take about seven, eight pages from Schaff's History of the

20:28

Church, volume four, pages 500 to 507, if you would like to look them up.

20:34

But let me just run through an outline of the history and then let's think, well, let's put ourselves in history, all right?

20:45

This is a dispute about whether Christ has one or two wills.

20:54

You might say it's a dispute over whether you can have a true human person who does not have a will or whether a will is properly definitional of any human person.

21:15

So did Jesus, who is one person with two natures, is a will definitional of each of the natures and therefore he has two wills?

21:31

A divine, the divine will of the son and the human will of the human nature that is taken in the incarnation.

21:42

Or there is only one will. So duothelitism, monothelitism. Now, if you wanted to know what was true on this subject during the papacy of Honorius, how could you have known the truth?

22:07

Because let's be honest, sit down here a second, let's be honest, you're not going to be able, there we go, you're not going to be able to go to the writings of the second, third, fourth century because they're really not discussing this.

22:33

They're really not, they're really not talking about this particular subject. And so it's also not a, if you want to come up with biblical texts, there aren't many.

22:52

There aren't many. So how would you know? Well Roman Catholics tell us, well we have the teaching magisterium of the church.

23:02

Okay. So if you picked up Honorius's letters written as the

23:12

Bishop of Rome to Sergius and you discover that he is amenable to Sergius's view on this subject and that is that he holds to monothelitism.

23:28

Would it be safe for you to follow the theological perspectives expressed by the

23:38

Bishop of Rome when he's writing as the Bishop of Rome to the Patriarch of Constantinople or to any other religious leader?

23:49

Would that be a safe thing for you to do? You can see the relevance today.

23:57

You can see the relevance today because if you ask the question, what does the Roman Catholic Church teach today?

24:07

You can't just simply say, well look at the Universal Catholic Catechism because it's painfully obvious that Francis introduces a new context that was not there with John Paul II, was not there with Benedict XVI, Ratzinger.

24:27

And so obviously those written documents in the Roman Catholic system now take on a different hue, a different cast than they had before.

24:38

So you're in a similar situation. So in the 7th century, if you had followed

24:49

Honorius, would that have been a safe thing to do? Could papal infallibility function in any meaningful fashion in helping you in making a decision on this doctrine?

25:11

Well, Honorius taught as the

25:17

Bishop of Rome, speaking on a matter of doctrine, in two letters to Sergius, the

25:23

Monothelite heresy, which was condemned by the 6th Ecumenical Council. That comes afterwards.

25:30

Let's say you die before the 6th Ecumenical Council takes place and you follow

25:37

Honorius' lead. Then you follow his lead into heresy.

25:45

An Ecumenical Council, that of Constantinople, held in AD 680, condemned and excommunicated

25:52

Honorius, quote, the former Pope of Old Rome, end quote, as a heretic.

26:04

This condemnation was repeated by the 7th and 8th Ecumenical Councils. Now listen to this.

26:16

This is what the following popes, all the way down to the 11th century, in a solemn oath taken at their succession to the papal chair.

26:30

So in other words, when they're being sworn in as the

26:36

Vicar of Christ on earth, the Bishop of Rome, they endorsed the 6th

26:42

Ecumenical Council's condemnation of Honorius. These popes had to pronounce an eternal anathema.

26:51

Not a, well, we disagree with his conclusions, or who am I to say? No, an eternal anathema on the authors of the

27:00

Monothelite heresy, together with Pope Honorius, because he had given aid and comfort to the perverse doctrines of the heretics.

27:14

Every pope, all the way down the 11th century, for hundreds of years, had to anathematize one of their successors as a heretic.

27:31

So, three centuries, publicly and publicly, a pope for heresy.

27:43

You catching this? How many Roman Catholics who would profess belief in papal infallibility are even aware of this?

27:56

Even know about it? Now remember, we've done debates on this, and if I recall correctly, the two debates we did on this were within one year of each other.

28:07

I think they were. One with Tim Staples, and one with Roberts and Sagenas, and they defended

28:13

Honorius in two completely different ways. Tim Staples tried to come up with excuses for Honorius, and Bob Sagenas said, yep, even heretics can be popes.

28:27

So, there you go. Also, popes for three centuries admitted that the sixth ecumenical council had rightly condemned

28:40

Pope Honorius for heresy. This is important, for some have attempted to defend

28:45

Honorius by saying he was wrongly accused or condemned, which is what Staples did, which does the modern

28:52

Roman Catholic position a little good, for it then makes the popes of the next three centuries guilty of error in their very owes of succession to the chair of Peter.

29:01

So, who are you going to defend? Who was right? Who was wrong? This is why so many people simply did not believe that papal infallibility would ever be seriously considered, because of the history of the church itself.

29:25

Pope Leo II confirmed the acts of the sixth council and said in a letter that Honorius was one who, quote, endeavored by profane treason to overthrow the immaculate faith of the

29:39

Roman church, end quote. The same pope wrote to the Spanish bishops and said, quote, with eternal damnation have we have punished

29:49

Theodorus, Cyrus, Sergius, together with Honorius, who did not extinguish at the very beginning the flame of heretical doctrine, as was becoming his apostolic authority, but nursed it by his carelessness.

30:07

As one writer concluded, quote, yet in every case the decisive fact remains that both councils and popes for several hundred years believed in the fallibility of the pope in flat contradiction to the

30:19

Vatican council. Such acts of violence upon history remind one of King James' short method with dissenters only hang them, that's all, end quote.

30:32

So, here's the point in making modern application of this historical reality.

30:46

Most of us are not debating monothelicism today. You can see why it's problematic in the sense that it would seemingly inevitably lead to a

31:01

Apollinarianism because the human nature of Christ would have no will.

31:09

And so, if you remember Apollinarianism, you have the two natures, but there's a part of the human nature that is replaced by the logos.

31:20

So, you have sort of a zombie Jesus taken over by a part of the logos instead of two complete natures in a hypostatic union.

31:33

And so, would Honorius have gone that far? I don't know, probably not, but the fact is he was condemned with an eternal anathema by popes and councils.

31:53

And so, the idea of papal infallibility, which by the way is the most worthless dogma that has ever been defined.

32:03

Why do I say that? Because any error a pope makes can simply be dismissed as being his personal opinion.

32:14

So, you name anything a pope ever says that you can test for theological soundness and find it wanting, he wasn't acting as the pope.

32:28

That's all there is to it. So, the current pope can say and do all sorts of amazing things and get away with it, and people still just blithely go on, oh yeah, papal infallibility, isn't it great?

32:45

What does it mean? If it could not have told, if it could not have given you an a theological answer on monothelitism during the lifetime of Honorius, evidently today it can't give you answers concerning homosexuality or all sorts of, or heaven and hell, whether atheists go to heaven for baptizing their children.

33:11

Who knows? The pope doesn't seem to know. Well, those are just public comments, they're not written letters, and okay, fine.

33:24

So, doesn't that further demonstrate the uselessness of this doctrine? Because it is clear what

33:32

Francis believes, and no fair -minded, sane person can say that Francis, and even

33:44

Benedict, his predecessor, believed the same things, let alone any pope from the 18th century.

33:54

The contrasts are too large, the contradictions are too big.

34:02

So, like I said, it is the most worthless doctrine, because you basically, if you had followed

34:09

Honorius during his lifetime, you'd be condemned by a later council. So, how long after a pope dies can he be trusted?

34:17

How long after Francis resigns can his words be trusted?

34:25

What if Francis resigns and then starts writing? I wouldn't want to be his successor, first of all, but can you imagine if Ratzinger keeps putzing along and you end up with three popes?

34:46

And I know, Ratzinger's not pope, but what happens to the charism of infallibility?

34:53

Is it only for the office and not the person? What if the person keeps saying the things he was saying in his office?

35:00

I mean, you're just playing shell games here, and what if you end up with a third pope, and Francis decides to take up the pen and start writing, and actually expressing what he wanted to say all along when he was pope?

35:20

Well, what? Yeah, that's right, that's right.

35:25

Don't ever sit in that chair over there. That's Peter's. Yeah, that's right. Yeah, so, just some thoughts.

35:35

When I hear of people converting to Roman Catholicism, I just go, why?

35:45

Have you looked at the pope? Have you read the papal syllabus of errors? Go look it up.

35:52

It's all over the place. Read the papal syllabus of errors, and ask yourself a simple question.

35:58

Is this what Francis would believe? And the answer is no. And if that's the case, then why?

36:08

Yeah, it's important. Okay, all right, let's look at a couple texts here, and we have looked at this text before, and so I apologize for that, but we're making another application here, and it went and got small again on me.

36:28

That's doing, doing, doing. Fonts do not like moving from one screen to another screen very often, and trying to find the little font thingies all the way over there once they get that small is not easy to do.

36:47

Um, you all know this text. We, when we went through Isaiah 40 a little while ago, we, we talked about it a bit.

36:55

Present your case, Yahweh says. This is Isaiah 41, 21. Bring forward your strong arguments, the

37:01

King of Jacob says. Let them bring forth and declare to us what is going to take place, as for the former events, declare what they were, that we may consider them another outcome, or announce to us what is coming.

37:11

Declare the things that are coming, going to come afterwards, that we may know that you are gods indeed, do good or evil, that we may anxiously look about us and fear all to go.

37:19

This is a part of the trial of the false gods. This is where sarcasm is being used by God, mocking the false gods.

37:26

They're being put in the witness chair and says, hey, tell us what the future is going to be, but most importantly, what we have pointed out in, oh, in the past is this section right here.

37:44

So as for the former events, declare what they were, that we may know their outcome, that we may consider them and know their outcome.

38:00

And so what we have emphasized here is the fact that you not only have at the and the end of the verse, the challenge to declare the future, that's key, but you have in the middle, as for the former events, declare what they were, that we may consider them and know their outcome.

38:19

This is not just simply a challenge to give a brief history lesson, but it is a challenge to tell us what the former events were and to recognize they had an outcome.

38:35

This is a part of God's decree. Things that happened in the past had a reason.

38:44

They had a purpose. They are a part of God's decree unfolding in time.

38:53

Why bring this up? I'm not going to be doing a middle knowledge thing today.

39:02

We'll get back to Dr. Craig, I think, next program. But I do have a modern application to make of this particular text.

39:17

You may have seen the story in the news that the

39:23

Chinese Communist Party is preparing to enshrine Xi Jinping basically as dictator for life.

39:32

To make that work, they have published a new history of the

39:42

Chinese Communist Party in China and the glorious revolution and Xi Jinping's part in all of this.

39:51

What we need to understand is they're changing history. They are removing uncomfortable realities of their own history to weave a narrative that never happened.

40:11

Now, anyone who reads on especially

40:18

Soviet history is aware of the fact that when

40:29

Orwell started talking about the ministry of truth, and he has

40:36

Winston working there editing news stories from the past.

40:43

And so you'd have people who, well only last year, were heroes of the battle with East Asia.

40:54

Well now we're fighting Eurasia. And now we have to change everything because we've always been fighting them, but they weren't actually our enemies before.

41:04

So we have to change history. And so you've got somebody who has now fallen out of favor with the party.

41:09

In fact, maybe that somebody has now disappeared. They don't even exist. So they have to be removed.

41:16

And the Chinese have been doing this. There was a pop star in China that fell afoul of the leadership and she's now been deleted.

41:27

It's like she never existed. All the awards she got, somebody else got them now.

41:36

And now we can, the scary part is we can do this really well now. You've heard of deep fakes.

41:42

We can now put people's, you know, those apps that people love putting my face or somebody else's face on somebody else and singers and stuff like that.

41:51

And it's really funny and haha. But that technology is advancing to the point where you and I with the naked eye will not be able to detect fraudulent video in the not too distant future.

42:07

And it's already difficult to detect, uh, audio in that way. And so the

42:16

Soviets were clumsy at this. And there's a number of books that highlight some of these, but, uh, we have

42:24

Photoshop. Okay. Now Photoshop's too much for me, but there are all sorts of lesser programs that you can do an amazing amount of stuff with it and put things into different backgrounds.

42:36

And I have one, I hate these new photo programs. Not only do you have to pay for them year by year, but they come up with a new one every year.

42:45

And the old one stops working and it gets less friendly. Then you finally learn how to use one.

42:50

They changed the whole thing and they stopped supporting the old. It's just so frustrating, but I had one that I could actually use to put some neat backgrounds in.

43:00

I bought some neat backgrounds. I can't even use it anymore. Just worthless, a wasted money. Anyway, um, that had nothing to do with our subject.

43:08

That just really makes me angry that people do things like that. Used to be able to buy a program and use it for a few years.

43:14

And now it doesn't work that way. Anyway, uh, the Soviets back in the olden days and, and the way

43:21

Orwell, you had an exacto knife. And if you needed to take somebody out, you just, you just cut their face out and put a different face in.

43:28

And it looked hokey and anybody who wanted to recognize it was a fake could.

43:35

And sometimes you'd end up with more arms and legs than you were supposed to have in a, in a picture.

43:41

Um, but that was just the best that you can do. And what it illustrated is the fact that totalitarian governments,

43:54

Francis Schaeffer, Rush Dooney, all these people back in the seventies were telling us a state that is not under the authority of God becomes

44:09

God. They're, they're saying, look, history shows this, this is where this is going as secularism takes root.

44:20

This is where they saw this long before any of us today did. And a state that does not recognize that it is under God's authority and that every person in it will be judged by God will seek to become

44:41

God for the people that it now rules. And if you're a state that thinks you're

44:49

God, then that state will do everything it can to suppress the worship of anything but itself.

44:59

Now the Christian worldview says that history is real.

45:08

Declare the former events, declare what they were that we may consider them and know their outcome.

45:17

There is no room for changing the former events. There is no room for exacto knifing out someone's face.

45:26

There is no room for using Photoshop to put in someone else's face. Why? Because that's outside of our capacities.

45:37

You see, if you believe that you will be judged on the final day, then you can't play with history because that's not yours.

45:49

And you recognize it's sinful for you to play with history. Xi Jinping doesn't recognize there is anything sinful.

45:59

The only thing is sinful is anything that keeps him from accomplishing his ultimate desires. And so history itself can be changed.

46:09

And that's exactly what they're doing. And one of the reasons that you and I need to have paper books and we need to study history and we need to pass that knowledge on to our children and our children's children is because we are getting to the point, technologically speaking, where what

46:38

Winston was doing in 1984 can be done globally. Now, none of that changes real history, but it can very much change the accessibility that people have to real history and the fact that they will then be deceived by falsehoods about what has taken place in the past.

47:05

You see all those battles going on right now around school boards.

47:11

That's because the high priests of the secular temple believe that's their inner sanctum.

47:19

And this is how they create secular minds is through the educational system.

47:24

And so they get to control whatever is said. And there's a pushback right now.

47:30

Great. But that pushback will be empty and worthless if it is built on the same worldview as the other side.

47:43

That's why I say a conservatism that does not have the worldview that is based upon the light that comes forth from the open tomb will be worthless.

48:02

And it will not stand. It cannot stand against secularism. We honor history because we know the

48:10

God of history and we know that history will demonstrate his glory.

48:16

And that's what's important is the demonstration of God's glory in every land, in every century, every millennium.

48:25

It's all about him. Secularists can view history as something completely malleable because it has no meaning.

48:34

It only has meaning that's assigned to it by the state. Completely different worldview.

48:40

And so if you have a quote -unquote conservative republican, that conservative republican, if he does not have the worldview that comes from the

48:52

Christian worldview, has nothing to actually offer in place of the secularism.

48:57

He's just simply a slower moving version of that. Slower moving version of that.

49:04

So just a reminder of, I think, the importance of that aspect of things.

49:11

Now, next, what I want to do after I get rich to stop tapping his foot back there.

49:17

It's driving me nuts. Thank you. Well, it sounds like you're, sounds like something's dripping back there.

49:27

I suppose I, it is sort of funny to see what the thing looks like when you take that down.

49:33

It's not there anymore. Now, which one do

49:43

I do first? On Sunday, I'm not going to have time to go into this depth.

49:53

Oh, that's not looking good. I'm not going to have time to really to go into this during my sermon on Sunday.

50:00

I will be preaching at Apologia and I'll be preaching on Psalm 12. But this is, again, primarily for the dividing line highlights, guys and gals.

50:24

Every, almost every single um,

50:29

King James only and a number of TR only advocates will go to Psalm 12 as their gotcha text.

50:39

It is there. They repeat it. They have it memorized over and over and over again.

50:47

It's a little bit like James 2 20 for, uh, for Mormons. They may not know who wrote it. They may not know what context is, but they know that faith that works is dead.

50:57

Now, this text, drag that out of the way there.

51:05

This text, uh, like I said, on Sunday, I will go through the whole

51:10

Psalm. It is a, it's consistent. It's really relevant to us today. Um, I mean, look, look at, look at 12, four, uh, who have said with our tongue, we will prevail with our, our lips are our own.

51:27

Who is Lord over us? Who is Lord over us? Um, talk about being relevant to our modern situation, but here's the key.

51:39

Here's what I want. I want to point out to Psalm 12, five says, because of the devastation of the afflicted, because the groaning of the needy.

51:53

So here's, here's who is being spoken of here.

51:58

The afflicted, the needy. Now I will arise says

52:04

Yahweh. I will set him in the safety for which he longs.

52:12

Who is the him and the he? It's the needy. It's the afflicted. So what is

52:19

Yahweh promising to do? He says, now I will arise says the

52:27

Lord. Now I will arise says the

52:33

Lord says Yahweh. Okay.

52:42

So this is verse six in, uh, the

52:50

Hebrew. So it's Yomer Yahweh. Okay.

52:57

Now I will arise, Yomer Yahweh says Yahweh. All right.

53:03

So he uses the term Amar. I want you to notice this here. Amar. This is the promise of Yahweh says

53:13

Yahweh. Now I will arise. I will set him in the safety for which he longs.

53:18

Then notice verse six in the English for seven in, uh, here in the

53:28

Hebrew. Amaroth Yahweh. The words of Yahweh.

53:36

The words of Yahweh are true.

53:42

They are pure, pure words.

53:50

Now in context. So the words of Yahweh right here are pure words.

53:58

What words are being referred to? Well, it's funny. I didn't mean to, I wasn't trying to make it work that way, but the, the drawing

54:07

I did, he uses Amar. Here's the root same

54:12

Amar, the words of Yahweh says Yahweh. This is what he's talking about.

54:19

He's talking about the promise where Yahweh says, says the

54:25

Lord. Now I will arise. I will set him the safety for which he belongs, for which he longs. It is a deliverance promise that is spoken about in verse six.

54:38

The words of Yahweh are pure words. The silver trident furnace on earth refined seven times.

54:45

All right. Now you may be saying, well, duh, you're being somewhat pedantic here.

54:51

We all follow that. Hold on and you'll see why. Verse seven, thou oh

54:58

Yahweh will keep them, thou will preserve him from this generation forever.

55:07

Now here's where one of the problems comes up.

55:15

So there are a small number of textual variants in the

55:22

Hebrew because notice what happens. You will keep them, you will preserve him from this generation forever.

55:35

And so there are some scribes that wanted to, you will keep him, you will preserve them, try to get the two things to match.

55:47

But in reality, there's no reason to do that. There is, there is no reason to, to do that.

55:53

Uh, because you will keep him, verse eight, you will keep him.

56:05

This is your fulfillment of the promise of verse five.

56:11

You oh Yahweh will keep them. Now either the plural them, keep them, either that is referring to all of those, all the afflicted as a group, all the needy as a group, and hence the preserve him is the him of here.

56:38

I will set him in the safety for which he longs.

56:43

That makes perfect sense. That would cover both of them. You could possibly say thou oh

56:52

Lord will keep them as in the words, this is plural here, the words of Yahweh, which are the promise to deliver the needy.

57:04

That's possible, but I think that extends it just a little bit too much.

57:10

Um, because the next is thou will preserve. If there is a parallel between these two portions of verse seven, um, then the keeping them would be parallel to what?

57:26

Preserving him, which is right here, setting him in the safety for which he longs, delivering the afflicted, hearing the groaning of the needy.

57:40

So in all probability, uh, the thou oh Lord will keep them is the afflicted and the needy as a group.

57:49

Thou will preserve him, the singular to which the promise is made from this generation forever.

57:58

Okay. Aside from getting to, uh, draw all over the board and do fun stuff like that, why in the world are we talking about singulars and plurals and stuff like that?

58:15

Well, there is a good reason. And if you are IFB, if you are a former

58:25

IFB, King James onlyest, maybe even a TR onlyest that uses this text, you know how dangerous what

58:36

I just said is because verses six and seven, um, are the key preservation text for King James onlyest specifically of the

58:52

King James version of the Bible. The words of Yahweh are pure words as silver tried in a furnace on earth, refined seven times.

59:00

And that's the 1611 King James version of the Bible. We've played people saying it.

59:07

We've listened to people say it. Uh, when we had Nathan on, we played portions from his debate where, uh, brother

59:17

Mitch quoted from this and made the same application and they, they're not the only people who have looked at this and said, well, the words of Yahweh are pure words.

59:29

That's about scripture as a whole. And of course, anybody can say, well, you'll read the 119th

59:37

Psalm and you'll see all sorts of statements similar to that. God's promises,

59:43

God's law, God's commandments are pure and upright and beautiful. And you've got the longest, uh, acrostic poem in the

59:51

Bible on that subject, all of which is true, but that has nothing to do with the

59:57

King James version of the Bible. It is sheer lunacy to think that the author of Psalm 12 was thinking about a 17th century

01:00:08

Anglican translation of the Bible when he wrote these words. But the reality is just interpreting the words meaningfully as they are found in the text of scripture or in the original language tells you that the words of Yahweh are in this context, his words of promising to deliver the needy and the afflicted.

01:00:37

That's what's being talked about. And to stretch it beyond what the author intended it to be might say that your doctrine of preservation is really, really thin if you have to grab texts like this and force them into a context that isn't their own.

01:01:04

So what I would say to any, um, King James only us jumping to Psalm 12.

01:01:10

Let me ask you a question first. Have you ever read Psalm 12? I mean the whole thing in context, honestly seeking to follow it from beginning end, because it is consistent with itself from first to last it's, it's only eight verses long from first to last.

01:01:28

It has a consistent theme that has nothing to do with the King James version of the Bible, nothing at all.

01:01:36

So why are you twisting the scripture? Why do you have to, if what you believe is true, you shouldn't have to twist scripture to make it true.

01:01:46

So my first question is, have you ever actually read the whole thing, seriously engaged with what it says?

01:01:55

That's first question. Secondly, can you refute this? Can you refute this reading?

01:02:05

What, what is going to be your argument? All right, let me, let me, let me here, let me, let me help you out in knowing what you're going to have to do.

01:02:12

Okay. What you're going to have to do is you're going to have to find a way to break that right there.

01:02:23

So when Yahweh says in verse five, now

01:02:30

I will arise, says Yahweh, I will set him the safety of which he longs.

01:02:37

You've got to somehow build a wall here. All right. So that when verse seven comes along, you can come up with a whole new context, whole new subject.

01:02:49

Oh, and by the way, you need to build another wall down here before verse eight.

01:02:55

It's verse nine in the Hebrew because verse eight continues the same subject that we had up here.

01:03:03

So you got to, okay, are you up to that? If you've actually never read it before, you're not up to that.

01:03:11

You're not even, no, no, that's what you have to do. So yeah.

01:03:22

I just wonder how many King James only us out there have taken the time to actually look at it because you, you depend on it all the time.

01:03:32

You use it all the time. Don't you? You do.

01:03:39

Okay. Um, I do actually have one more and I'm just making sure that someone's not sending me some type of a strange thing about this.

01:03:53

All right, let's do one more thing and we'll wrap it up. That sounds a little bit like what

01:03:59

Jeff Durbin does and that means we'd have another half an hour, but I will seek to avoid doing that in this context.

01:04:09

Now I can't see how I can even get to a verse there. So, oh goodness, look how small it is.

01:04:22

Let's hope I do not have a typo here and go, yes, blind typing.

01:04:33

Yay. It worked. Okay. We're sorry.

01:04:38

I decided, you know, we normally delve into new Testament stuff. Uh, and I decided, you know, let's jump into some old

01:04:48

Testament tech stuff today. Um, it's, it's glorious. It's wonderful. It's the word of God.

01:04:53

Uh, we all know this one, right? Yahweh says to my

01:04:59

Lord, sit in my right hand until I make thine enemies a footstool for thy feet. Um, that was pretty much all of Psalm 110.

01:05:06

I knew, then I skipped down to, uh, verse four. And, uh, now that I've gotten my eschatology straight,

01:05:12

I found verses two and three. Anyway, uh, we are not getting into that today.

01:05:18

Anyways, so here you have Nahum Yahweh La 'adoni.

01:05:25

Um, you know what? Let me see if, let me see what happens if I, first of all, let's get rid of, uh, well, no,

01:05:35

I'm gonna leave that there. Let's see if I can. Oh, look at that.

01:05:42

I have reached maximum font size. Bummer. Okay. Well, at least we know what it is. Here is

01:05:49

La 'adoni. Now, where else, um, down here in verse, uh, five, you have a different form,

01:06:06

Adonai. And that's the normal, uh, form that's used for references to God, Yahweh.

01:06:17

Um, and what's important is that in the

01:06:23

Hebrew you have Yahweh, there's the Tetragrammaton, speaking

01:06:30

Nahum La 'adoni. And notice the

01:06:35

E at the end of that word.

01:06:44

Why do I point this out? Well, because Unitarians, uh,

01:06:50

Jewish apologists will, um, argue, and we need to know why they're making this argument.

01:07:01

And, and, and, and we need to have, need to have an answer for it. They will point out that this is an interpretation.

01:07:10

This is a 77 NASB I have up here right now. Yahweh says to my

01:07:15

Lord, but what is Lord? Lord's capitalized. But what they will point out is every single time

01:07:23

Adonai is used in the Hebrew Old Testament, it is in reference to a human person.

01:07:35

Um, very frequently of a servant to his master, um, someone speaking to a king, but it's a human

01:07:44

Adonai. And so what they'll say is, well, if you, if, if this is about Christ and Christ says it's about him,

01:07:55

I mean, Jesus, he quotes this and then asks the scribes and Pharisees, how can, why does

01:08:04

David call his descendant Lord? Should be the other way around, right?

01:08:11

But they'll say, yes, he calls him Lord, but it's Adonai. It's not Adonai. It's certainly not

01:08:18

Yahweh. So doesn't that make Jesus merely a human being?

01:08:23

Well, Jesus is truly a human being. The word became flesh. But is it an appropriate argument to say that since Adonai is used every time in the

01:08:40

Hebrew text of a human, then that would mean that Jesus can't truly be

01:08:49

God. He would be being placed in the human category by Psalm 110 .1. I'll let you think about that for a second.

01:08:58

We've addressed this many times, but I want to show it to you this time. I want to use our tech here to, so that you can see how this actually works because I want to, let me erase.

01:09:14

Is there a way to just erase? Well, I know, but I mean, is there a way to just, okay.

01:09:22

I guess that does more than just a little bit. Okay. Please look at these four

01:09:32

Hebrew letters and then come down here and I will outline

01:09:42

Adonai. I'm sorry, Adonai. It's right down here where it says verse five, the

01:09:49

Lord is at thy right hand. Now it's not Lord capitalized. So it's not

01:09:54

Yahweh. It's not Yahweh. It's right here.

01:10:01

And here are the same four. Now look, now take the vowel pointing out.

01:10:13

So let me see if I can do this here. Yeah, I think I can take the vowel pointing out.

01:10:19

Just do that sort of got too close. Okay.

01:10:31

Not real pretty, but what you should see is they are identical. They're the same four letters.

01:10:40

Yeah, but you had to take the vowel pointing out. Well, here's, here's the issue.

01:10:45

I took a few moments yesterday. Hopefully be able to show this to you real quick.

01:10:55

Oh, yes. Well, we scribble on it. Psalm 110, the

01:11:05

Masoretic commentary. Notice I have it here. Adonai versus Adonai.

01:11:14

Let me show you what the Hebrew texts look like in the days of Jesus.

01:11:21

All right. Hebrew texts in the first century. This is the famous, let's give thanks to God for having preserved for us for all these years, the

01:11:34

Dead Sea Scrolls. I'm very thankful to God that I got to lead a

01:11:39

Bible study outside the mouth of the cave where that was found.

01:11:46

I only went there once, but that's a bucket list thing right there.

01:11:52

This is the famous Isaiah Scroll. This is actually from Isaiah chapter nine.

01:11:59

Why not Psalm? Because they don't have the Psalter in that, but let me show you, let's zoom it in a little bit.

01:12:06

There we go. What do you see as we look at the

01:12:18

Hebrew text? Let's look at a word like right here. What do you not see anywhere in this?

01:12:31

There are no vowel points. The Mazarites developed an ingenious, not just vowel pointing system, but the

01:12:44

Mazorah cross -references, it's ingenious. And in fact,

01:12:51

I'll show you a picture in a moment of what they came up with. But they developed this system long after the last apostle had died.

01:13:05

So when Jesus is in the synagogue reading from a scroll that would have looked much like this, wouldn't it be interesting if it was the same one?

01:13:14

Why not? I mean, wouldn't it be sort of cool to get to heaven and go, by the way, the scroll that Jesus read from,

01:13:21

I decided to keep that one around. And you all were looking at it all the time, didn't even know. That'd be sort of fun. Anyways, this is what it would have looked like.

01:13:29

Now, what that means is when you don't have vowel pointing, you have to, as the reader, and this is the case with early

01:13:39

Arabic as well, the early Arabic copies of the Quran, they don't have the later vowel pointing that you utilize.

01:13:49

In modern Arabic, these things develop at a later point in time. And so that means the reader has to be doing a certain level of interpretation as you are reading along based upon context.

01:14:05

And that might mean that you might disagree with someone else as to what the context is.

01:14:12

But the point is, when the New Testament writers quote from Psalm 110, it's just those four letters.

01:14:22

It's not Adonai versus Adoni, because the difference in pronunciation there is due to vowel pointing.

01:14:28

And there was none in the first century. So what happens is over time, this is the

01:14:42

Leningrad Codex from AD 1008. And this is the great example, the best example of the work of the

01:14:51

Masoretes. And so you can see, you've now got your vowel pointing in place. In fact, there's

01:14:58

Naum, Yahweh, La Adoni, just like we have in Hebrew text today.

01:15:06

Where'd that come from? It came from a Jewish scribe. And by 1008

01:15:13

AD, the Jews knew by the middle of the second century that that text was used by Christians in their scriptures.

01:15:24

And so when you put Adoni, you are making a commentary.

01:15:30

That's not what was in the text. That's not what I, that's not what was written by the Psalmist. You are making a commentary, and it would be a commentary written long after the

01:15:42

Jewish people have come to understood, understand the centrality of this text to the

01:15:48

New Testament presentation of who Jesus is. So you see that whole argument, the

01:15:54

Unitarians and the Jewish apologists, it's all based on Jewish commentary on Psalm 1101 written many centuries, not only after the writing of Psalm 110, but after the writing of the

01:16:09

New Testament as well. So that's all it is. It's just commentary. And so what was written was those four letters, well, five with the prefix, and you have to interpret what that means.

01:16:33

Putting the E there and saying, ah, this is with all the references merely to human beings, and therefore Jesus is only a human being is pure commentary.

01:16:40

It's not being derived from the text itself. Okay? So keep that in mind as you encounter those who would point you to these things and would make those arguments to you.

01:16:58

All right, well, there you go. That was a lot of different topics.

01:17:03

We went from leaky vaccines to Masoretic commentary using vowel points in the year 1008.

01:17:13

Not too many people can really cover that many topics in one program, except for Joe Biden, and he just does it because he's not sure what day of the week it is.

01:17:23

So thanks for watching the program. Lord willing, we'll see you on Thursday.

01:17:30

Talk about leaky vaccines though. They're going to get us eventually. Well, see you later. God bless.