Mega DL! Lots of Topics, Including P&P, Proud of Multiple Abortions, Muslim Arguments, KJVOnlyism

Greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line, one of those programs where we're still working with our internet service provider.

Well, we're just trying to find people at the internet service provider who actually know something about the internet. That's the tough part these days.

So anyway, just recording the program, so we're not going to be talking about the channel or anything going on on Twitter, though I will be showing you some tweets and things like that.

We've got, I don't know, half a dozen different topics to look at today.

So we're not going to spend a whole lot of time on any one of them, but that means we'll have a little bit of something for everybody at some point along the line.

If I start off with some of the silly stuff, I don't understand what this was.

I saw this last night. It's a tweet from those wonderful purveyors of peace and unity and edification on the net called

Pulpit and Pen. And it says, if James White can't handle inner faith dialogue without acting like a child, he needn't engage in interfaith dialogue.

What does inner faith dialogue mean? Does that, I guess,

I guess that means, uh, I think he means intra faith, maybe.

I don't know. But I guess it's when

I'm talking to myself. So sometimes I use a childish voice when talking to myself. Okay.

I think this was about the fact that on the last program, we were talking about the news division wink wink.

It was the wink wink of the news division, which I wouldn't have to go wink wink if they just actually use the right names.

Bill O 'Reilly has not gone to work for Pulpit and Pen. No, no, that's, there's no connection there at all. No. Um, so, but my, my, my main reason for showing this, aside from the fact that I hadn't seen it until somebody else retweeted it, were the comments.

The comments were great. Toby Logston, I like you guys, but it's childish to post stuff like this.

Seriously. You just made yourselves the pot calling the kettle black. Eternity Matters, unfollowing. You guys post some good stuff, but get petty and stupid, not to mention hypocritical with things like this.

Um, Darren, incoherent. So it's like, yeah,

I didn't even have to, you know, even respond is to say like, yeah, fine, whatever. There you go.

Uh, speaking of interesting, weird things, um, anyone remember

Pete Enns? We used to, we used to talk a little bit about Pete Enns, uh, years ago, uh, when, um,

Westminster very wisely, appropriately, properly got rid of Pete Enns because Pete Enns was so plainly and clearly to all of us that we're observing anyways, um, departing from the once for all delivered to the saints faith and heading off into the, into the woods of modern day leftism, theologically speaking, well, he's, he's continued going that direction and he decided to post a, uh, satirical response to the

Nashville statement. And of course I, you know,

I, I look at something like this and what I see is so sad because Pete Enns started off well and isn't finishing well, uh, as far as what he's trying to do is to, in essence, um, make the word of God incomprehensible, like it, it cannot actually communicate something with clarity to the modern situation or, or context like that.

It's, it's sad to see, but just a couple of the things he has here, and this is all, it's just all from him.

His website's called Pete Enns, the Bible for normal people. Um, you can always tell when someone has left the building because they always want to, you know, throw rocks back backwards at, at where they once were.

We affirm the God having given us minds rejoices when we use them. We deny the God intended scripture to relieve us of this responsibility.

As if there was, that's the amazing thing is as if someone was actually suggesting this in the

Nashville statement, which is, you know, no matter what you else you say about it, evidence is, um, clear thought and consideration and, and things like that.

We affirm the scripture by God's wisdom was written by actual people in actual historical context for actual contextual reasons, and that such contexts are central to the proper biblical understanding and application, which of course everybody believes.

We deny a scripture which reflects the wisdom of the creator is simply sitting there waiting to be used irrespective of its various contexts.

Don't know anybody, don't know anybody, um, that, that would say otherwise.

Certainly no one in the Nashville statement would say anything even close to that.

So you just sort of wonder, is that just taking up space? So you have a certain number of articles.

We affirm the humans who are creating a God's image who are endowed with powers of reason analysis and an irrepressible curiosity have thereby made enormous strides in understanding the cosmos, the nature of humanity, and the wonders of the world around us, and that many who have contributed to these strides are fellow believers in Jesus.

Not sure really what that means. We deny the scripture when handled in willful isolation from or dismissal of such strides is faithful or pleasing to the creator.

Um, I wonder where the part about sin, rebellion, that stuff, sort of, sort of missed that.

It doesn't seem to find really much of a place in most leftist understanding of things.

We affirm the Christian faith, though a broadly unified and distinct tradition, is both historically and globally not monolithic in its expression, and that therefore truly

God, true godly wisdom is found in humility and dialogue among the manifold voices of the Christian faith.

I wonder if you would say that about monotheism, trinity, deity of Christ, resurrection, wonder where the line is drawn.

We deny that though it's a free country, I guess this is just a statement for folks in the

U .S., a small number of largely white males, what does that have to do with anything, living in one moment of the human drama are in a place to make statements that claim abiding normativity for all

Christians for all time. Well, here you really see it from P. Dan's perspective. We can't make any type of statement that is binding for all of humanity.

God's word is not sufficient to do that. So the Bible for normal people is basically don't worry about what the Bible says anyways because it doesn't really matter.

We can't really know. It's just this hyper skepticism stuff because he's become a hyper skeptic. It's sad to watch, but there you go.

We affirm that all our theological utterances because we are not God but mere humans are contextually generated and bounded.

So the word of God is insufficient. We can't know it well enough. We can't apply it in the modern situation.

We've been left just to sort of mumble along just like all the other religions of the world. We deny that any of our theological utterances can claim plain fact neutrality and therefore reflect unfiltered the divine mind.

So, you know, if God says that he created all things, well, that has to be contextualized.

We don't really know exactly what that means, you know, and you're left with this religiosity that is that has no there's no revelation.

There's no authority. There's no message. It's it's sad to see. We affirm the human experience is rich and complex presents us with numerous ambiguities and therefore defies simple categorization.

We deny it. The creator has assigned to us the task of sorting out and simplifying the richness and complexities of the human drama, which

I guess is the way of saying we deny the Bible actually addresses God's purpose in the creation of men and women, gender roles, marriage.

Yeah, it's addressed all over the Bible, but, you know, we don't we don't really know what the Bible says. You know, we just we just we have to be very skeptical.

Then this this is where it gets really weird. We affirm that the binaries of Genesis 1, which includes animals restricted to living on land in the sea or in the air, reflect, by the will and wisdom of God, ancient ideal conceptions of cosmic order.

We deny the binaries of Genesis 1 teach that amphibians, mammals that fly, live in the ocean or lay eggs or any other creatures of God's creation that do not fit the

Genesis 1 binary are outside of God's wise design. I guess it's this you can understand when people fall off into liberalism, they forget what they once believed and they they they they mischaracterize what people once believed.

Any conservative Christian understands that there is a difference between the the books

I have on my shelf in my office that describe all sorts of aspects of biology and the categorization of life, you know, into families and classes and species and genuses and so on and so forth.

We all those of us who actually, you know, believe the word of God, continue to believe the word of God, believe in words like inerrancy and things like that, that Pete Enns does not believe in anymore.

We know all about that and and we're not looking to Genesis 1 to give us specific stuff like that.

And we recognize that it wasn't the intention of the writer of Genesis to utilize modern concepts like that.

But it's much easier once you've jumped ship to, you know, just make it look like what you jumped ship from was silly.

We affirm that God is the infinite and inscrutable creator, which is itself affirmed in Scripture.

I'm not sure how you'd know that, given your viewpoints. And therefore, we should be careful to claim to be speaking for God as if nothing could be more obvious.

And, of course, the problem being, but if are you saying that the God who made us capable of being clear in what we're saying himself can't be clear in what he's saying?

We deny that God's voice is easily replicated in our own. Nobody, nobody at the

National Statement was talking about easy replication. We affirm that public statements are largely written for the already convinced, are therefore belligerent by design, too often passive -aggressive in tone, and therefore are a colossal waste of time, not to mention make it that much more difficult for others to bear witness to Jesus.

We deny that Jesus is rooting for us to write more statements signed Pete Enns, white male, my dogs

Gizmo, Miley, and Stassi, my cats Snowy, Marmalade, and Baron, my rabbit Thumper, and I'm sure a lot of other people.

Well, thank you, Pete Enns, for your deep contribution to the subject of things.

Go to something a little bit more uplifting. A couple days ago,

I heard Al Mohler mention this, and it just sort of struck me.

I wanted to mention it. I wanted to say something about it. Last night, I was actually—was it last night?

Yes, I was. I spoke from 1 Corinthians 15 at church last night. Didn't record it, but anyway.

And there's a section there that is quoted verbatim in Handel's Messiah.

And I couldn't help but sort of hear the music in the background as I was reading that particular section.

And you may have heard the news that China has banned Handel's Messiah.

I guess up until now, private orchestras or things like that could have holiday music and could play the

Messiah. But now the official Chinese stance is that the

Messiah is to be banned and cannot be played in China, which, of course, will mean it'll be played more often in China than it's ever been played before and with more interest.

But what it made me think of is you might go, well, why would they do that? Well, it's obvious.

And it made me think of this. This is from back in 2010, so wow, it's been seven years.

Well, that's when this was posted. It may have—yeah, it probably happened right around 2010. And this is a random act of culture.

It's one of those things where—remember, it was popular for a while where you'd have people sort of show up in a shopping mall or something like that, and then all of a sudden everybody would get together and do this.

Remember this one? There we go.

Sorry about that. I'm sending it.

Oh, well, you said no, so I said no. Wait, hold on a second.

My system says it's doing it. Now, as you watch this,

I'm well aware of the fact that many of the people in this choir are not

Christians. They may not be thinking about the meaning of the words. But the reason the

Chinese will not allow this to be sung in China is because of what it's saying.

And he shall reign forever and ever. And it doesn't have any borders.

There are no limits here. Anything like that at all. And that's why they're banning it.

Because it doesn't, you know, as long as the human voice is singing it, I'm awful glad to hear it.

And I'm sure it's just as beautiful in Chinese, though I bet you it's quickly a pain to translate into Chinese and make it fit the music.

But it's the message of the Lordship of Christ, Messiahship of Christ, communicated in some of the most beautiful music that's ever been penned by man.

It truly, truly, truly is an amazing thing. But you can't do it in China anymore.

So I would imagine that some of our Chinese brethren this

Christmas season will be singing it quietly in the corner of their home.

Or maybe listening to a MP3 recording they have hidden on a thumb drive in the top of a closet someplace or something.

I don't know. But it is beautiful, beautiful, beautiful music. So, yeah, it just reminded me of that.

And just the fact that, you know, when a government says you can't sing that, that's a government in fear, a government in fear right there.

It really, really, really is. I had said

I was going to play this a while back, and I didn't because we got involved with a bunch of other stuff.

So I need to try to fix that. Unfortunately, I've got to go all through this thing all over again to get it to find the right thing.

And there we go. I was directed to a comment from the

Worldview Apologetics Conference 2017. Now, to be perfectly honest with you, looking at the picture here, the screenshot, other than William Lane Craig, I don't recognize anybody.

I really don't. I have no idea who anybody else here is. But it's the audience question and the response that is offered, which, once again, makes us all sit here and go, eh?

What's the problem here? William Lane Craig asked a question from the audience.

Let's listen in and see what happened. My question is for William Lane Craig.

When you're talking about the problem of evil and suffering, if you make the assumption that free will does not exist, how would you go about approaching that problem?

If we make what assumption? That free will does not exist. Oh. I'll leave that up to the

Calvinists. OK, so remember when

Craig was having that debate with Christopher Hitchens, the late

Christopher Hitchens, and Hitchens was hitting him up about false Christian faiths and things like that.

And the only thing that Craig could come up with was Calvinists. And we were told after that, well, he was just, come on.

He was just sort of kidding. Or it was just all I could think of at the moment. Or, you know, various excuses were offered.

Well, this is 2017. And if you don't understand that Calvinists, first of all, believe that God has free will, that God has autonomous will.

And if in 2017, by now you don't seem to understand that, for example, if you look back there at those two brown and red volumes, the works of Jonathan Edwards, which

I can no longer read because the print is too small. But if you've not read

Edwards on that subject and his rather in -depth discussion of the nature of the will and what freedom of the will means as a creature, the difference between creaturely free will and divine free will between an autonomous will and a creaturely will, what the bondage of the will means historically going back to the time of the

Reformation itself, if you can't do all of that in 2017, well, what can

I say? And there are all sorts of works on theodicy, the justification of God's existence in the light of evil from the

Reformed perspective that are in -depth. But unfortunately, as we saw in our review of his comments on the

Saiten -Brugenkait radio discussion of presuppositional apologetics, doesn't seem that he has any interest whatsoever in even investing the time to hear what

Calvinists have to say, let alone to interact with it meaningfully. And as a result, by definition,

I understand now he's looking at the Doctrine of Atonement. By definition, you're going to have an extremely limited perspective expressed there because there's just no interest in listening to the entirety of the perspective.

Listen to a little bit more of the comment here. That's a huge problem.

It seems to me that in the absence of free will, it's almost inevitable that you make

God the author of sin and the author of evil.

Now, what does that mean? Think about what Dr. Craig has just said.

What he's saying, therefore, is that in his worldview, he explains the existence of evil solely on the basis of the existence of man's ability to bring evil into existence.

So in other words, there is something that God didn't bring into existence that's outside of God's creative activity, and it finds its origins solely in the creature.

Which again, then we start asking questions about Molinism and going, how does exactly that work?

I mean, obviously, the Molinistic perspective is that God's range of choices in creation are limited by his middle knowledge, by the will of...

Well, middle knowledge, we don't know where middle knowledge gets its knowledge of what men will do.

It's that vague, shadowy card dealer back in the background that somehow determines who is going to do what without actually there being a decree of creation or the creation of those things.

It's such a mess that it's hard to even try to coherently interact with it.

But what you're hearing here is his theodicy is not primary and secondary actions.

It's not anything like that. It really is. God is... God is...

There wasn't much that God could do about it. It's man, man's free will that is the origin of these things.

Whether God knew about it, the idea of a creative decree on God's part, and the complexities that introduces, but also the questions and answers, is just not a part of his theology.

I regard as unconscionable and unacceptable. So for me, free will...

Unconscionable. Absolutely unconscionable. That's why I think he doesn't even try to listen to what the other side has to say, because it's unconscionable.

It's just beneath consideration. Folks, I've seen that so many times.

I've told you the story of talking with Norman Geisler at lunch in Dallas once, and the instant you brought up something from Reformed theology, presuppositional apology, something that was based upon the idea of the sovereignty of God, you just...

It's like the curtain just falls, and there's just no desire for interaction beyond that point.

Can't possibly be anything to that. I've been there, done that, got the t -shirt, not interested in anything more.

I've seen it happen over and over and over again, and it seems to be the case here as well.

Free will is non -negotiable, and I think the Reformed thinkers are going to be very, very hard -pressed to have any kind of acceptable solution to the problem of evil.

So you haven't read any of them? I mean, there are extensive works on the subject, and it almost says, well, they are going to have a problem?

We've been dealing with this for 400 years? I'm sorry, folks, I could be completely wrong, but if I am, it's because I've been misled.

But it just seems to me that the more Dr. Craig addresses these things, the more he demonstrates, that's just beneath my time frame.

I'm just not going to address anything like that. It's just not worthwhile.

Okay, so there's that. I was pointed to that, and I just wanted to look at it and go, hmm, okay.

I almost hesitate at this point to even play this, but everybody else has been looking at it, and I suppose

I should at least comment on it. You all have heard about the

Plimpton video, and this is in regards to Martha Plimpton.

And her comments at the beginning of an interview with Parker, the alleged

Christian abortion doctor. If you just want to see what paradidomy means, to be given over, to be given over to the your fundamental humanity is eclipsed by evil.

That's what we have here. To hear the joyous applause of the audience for this, likewise, is truly amazing.

Here you have a woman honestly confessing her utter sexual promiscuity in our world today.

That's a good thing. The ultimate human good is sexual satisfaction.

That's the ultimate human good now. And so anyway, with anybody, anywhere, that's the ultimate human good.

No society can long survive that, but that's the ultimate good.

And that's what's being celebrated here. So just as troubling and repulsive as it is, maybe you haven't heard this, sort of hard to believe,

I've heard it a number of times just driving in the car, but here's just a moment or two.

Significance for me for lots of reasons. I've got a lot of family here, some of whom are here in the audience tonight.

I also had my first abortion at the Seattle Planned Parenthood. Yay! Notice I said first.

I said first, and I don't want Seattle, I don't want you guys to feel insecure. It was my best one.

Heads and tails above the rest. If I could Yelp review it, I totally would.

And if that doctor's here tonight, I don't remember you at all.

I was 19. I was 19, but I thank you nonetheless. You probably won't remember because I wasn't that famous then.

It's a little warm in here. Yeah, it's a little warm in here. It could be a whole lot warmer in the future,

I assure you. What do you say?

Depravity on parade? Rejoicing? Romans 1 all over again.

It's not like we need to have Romans 1 proven correct, but you listen to that whole audience applauding, and you now understand what happened in Germany.

When people are saluting Hitler, how could that have ever happened?

Well, they're applauding at the murder of unborn children, and they think it's cool. So, what's the difference?

Well, they're both culturally acceptable. If you don't have an objective revelation of morality, none of this makes any sense at all.

A couple other things. Yeah, let's do it in this order.

This will be audio only. I haven't listened to all of this, but I started seeing a bunch of stuff on Twitter this morning, or maybe last evening, about some guy named

Jason Pratt on Brandon House's network or something. And I ignored it until earlier today

I saw that Phil Johnson had responded to it. Which is what told me that it was about what it's about, and that as with so many other things, what has happened is an attempt to bring together some attack upon me and upon Phil.

And so, here's just a portion of it. Let's just play it and see what it says.

So again, from my military background, I appreciate what's being said here. And when you have somebody that sounds the alarm and says,

Hey, there's a problem here, you don't go attacking them. And what we have here is kind of a civil war where the interfaith dialogue with James White was called out.

And I think, again, this is a very significant event because it was wrong. There was no scriptural support for an interfaith dialogue.

Now, we just have to point out, we have provided written, video, and audio refutation of these accusations.

I have discussed the meaning of various terms, I've gone into various texts, and there has been no response.

We played the one time when House had that Dr.

Jimmy somebody, whoever it was, some Bible prophecy guys. What?

Jimmy DeYoung, whatever. Never heard of the guy before. I'm sorry, I'm not into Bible prophecy guys. Haven't been since I put down the late great planet

Earth in high school. It's not really too interesting what they have to say.

But anyway, you may remember that House asked what they thought about what I said about 2

John 9, where I had gone into the text. And the responses were so childish, no one has even tried to interact with the text in a meaningful fashion.

Steve Camp hasn't done it, Janet Mefford hasn't, anybody that's done it, Brandon House can't do it.

And so they just ignore it, like it's not there, like it doesn't exist. And it's like, how do you do that?

How do you get on the air and record stuff when you know in the back of your mind, well, you know, they've actually responded to us.

Maybe they just don't know. Maybe this guy just might have been told, he hasn't ever responded to any of this.

Okay, all right, I believe you. So I'll go ahead and attack him. I won't check for myself. Is that how it works?

I don't know how, I don't know. I don't know how people do stuff like that. But anyway, when you come together again, a dialogue is talking about and trying to reach, you know, consensus agreement.

Again, these and we all know that that's not actually what happened. It honestly makes me wonder, did

Jason Pratt actually listen to the dialogues? Because when you start off the dialogue saying this is what our purpose is here and then you say it's actually here.

How do you where's where's the where's the honesty thing? Be nice to find the honesty thing and the types of things are known to be tactics of communism, socialism and and as well of the

Muslims. The communist socialist Muslims. So, again, it's just vague interfaith dialogue.

We won't, you know, we'll just do the peanut butter thing. We won't, you know, we're just not going to worry ourselves about the specifics and the purposes and the intentions.

You know that that takes too much work. And if we do that, then actually our whole our whole position falls apart.

So we're just going to sort of throw it all out there. And if you really want to get certain people, the communists, the socialists and the

Muslims, that's that'll that'll do it. And it's not that we don't have communists.

We do. So I was listening. Dennis Prager had a professor on today.

Who did not participate in a white absence day where basically

I don't know if you've noticed this, but have you noticed that there is a movement on campuses now to reintroduce segregation?

But it's reverse segregation. You guys get out of here. No white people allowed.

Right. And it is rather odd that I read an article from a rather well -known reformed

African -American talking about the need for folks in the church to be able to do black things separate from white folks.

Sounds similar to what's going on on these college campuses. Well, this white professor didn't go home.

He didn't participate. And he had him on today to talk about his experience.

Look, the communists are back. I'm not arguing that they're they're in charge of our our college campuses, universities.

No question about it. But what that has to do with me or Yasir Qadhi and honest dialogue about what we believe.

I have no earthly idea because it isn't meant to bring about Chris slum or a compromise or anything else.

You have to misrepresent stuff to be able to come up with that. But anyway, we digress. We have stated exactly what their intent is and that they want to do interfaith dialogues, particularly with the two largest groups being

Muslims and Christians in the world. They really were the enemy and they're in there, an antichrist religion.

Something, by the way, that James White refuses to acknowledge. Really, I'm going to be talking about some particularly bad arguments that we posted just today on on Twitter.

But in case you haven't noticed, Dr. Pratt, I don't know who you are. Sorry, but Jason Pratt, in case you haven't noticed,

I defend the Christian faith against the claims of Islam.

I've defended the deity of Christ in mosques and in other places, in churches, mosques, rented auditoriums, whatever else it might be, the

Trinity, the scriptures. I am fully aware of the fact that the

Muslim Jesus is not the true Jesus. I have taught that for years long before you ever got involved with any of this stuff.

So, Mr. Pratt, as a Christian believer, may I just exhort you to expand your efforts to be truthful?

Because right now you're failing at them rather, rather poorly, in fact. So you might want to pick up on those things.

And I find that very, very telling. Now, again, Paul said that these things. Now, by the way, the only way he could make a statement like that is if he would have some type of extensive exposure to me and to my writings, which would make him only doubly responsible and guilty for the misrepresentations he's already given.

So which which is it going to be? Must happen. These schisms must happen so we can know who's approved, whose side is who on.

And when I look out there and I see certain people employing tactics of propaganda, logical fallacy, you know,

I covered logical fallacy for several weeks and will continue so that, you know,

Christians, we need to avoid logical fallacies on our own because we have scripture.

We have God's word. We come from a position of strength, of truth. We do not need to rely on logical fallacy to try to win an argument.

Besides, we're not out to win arguments. We're out to win souls. But generally the two go together since God uses truth to.

We are to give, you know, examples of reasons, defense for the reason for the hope that we have, why the scriptures are true, why we can trust them, why the gospel is significant.

What is the gospel? But we're not doing that in order to try to either win an argument or to reach a consensus, some sort of agreement or middle ground.

We're there to proclaim the truth. Now, did you catch that? Again, the middle ground fallacy that that's what anyone's trying to do, at least that's what we were trying to do.

Refuted a thousand times already. Just after a while you hear them repeating it. It's like, yeah, and we are to love people and love them enough to proclaim the truth.

And that's something, but not enough to actually respect them and invest time in getting to know them or stuff like that.

That we don't see when we see the people that are defending James White, defending him. They're not using scripture again.

They're using not using scripture. No one's ever no one's ever done that. No, not found anywhere. All kinds of other rhetoric and some examples, you know, to a couple of people that have kind of defended it.

One is Phil Johnson. Now, you know, the people that are involved here are people that I've respected for a long time, but I've even used some of them as examples in my own

Sunday schools for years that even if so and so, uh, were to come out and violate the scripture,

I would call them out on it. And if their ministry, if they were, if their theology were to take a wrong turn and go down the direction of heresy,

I would call them out on it and I would not play favorites. So to this point is Phil Johnson. He's very significant at grace to you.

He's editor, very close to John MacArthur, edits many of his books. Phil Johnson is a regular speaker at Shepherd's conference.

I love attending. I love Phil's talks. Uh, he usually gives a very excellent sermon. Um, but in reality, talk is cheap.

We're to, to live our faith. And, um, another individuals, uh,

Justin Peter, someone who I, you know, again, greatly respect for calling out the word faith, uh, theology and heresies.

And yeah, don't, don't tell me he wasn't given a list here. We, we know, we know who's actually speaking here.

This is, this is one of Brandon's mouthpieces. Uh, once, once again, no question about it.

Uh, his boldness in that, but then his kind of twisting of scripture saying, well, it doesn't really apply when we want to use the scriptures to say that, you know, what fellowship has light with darkness or that we're not to engage in these types of things.

He's like, well, that doesn't really apply here. Well, that's, that's just simply nonsense. And he goes, that's just simply nonsense.

That's the level of response you get from the Brandon house group. When you demonstrate that not only have they misrepresented the intentions, that misrepresented the reality of what was going on, et cetera, et cetera.

But then when you go into, whether it's first Corinthians six or second,

John nine or whatever they've brought up, we've gone into every single one of them. And their responses have not been meaningful.

They're not exegetical. Um, I'm sorry. I don't get the feeling that Brandon house knows the original languages.

I don't get the feeling Jason Pratt does, uh, Dr. DeYoung. I'm sure it would claim to, but I didn't get much evidence that he did either.

Um, we don't get anything. All we get is, well, that's just, that's just silly. Well, we've laid out our case and Phil Johnson is not, has not been doing this.

I've done this. Uh, Phil Johnson has just simply said that the arguments people were using against me were unhinged.

He's, he's actually not on my side in defending what I did with Yasir Qadhi and what

I will do again with Yasir Qadhi. Um, they haven't defended that.

Uh, they're just simply saying these folks are off their rockers in, in the methodology and the argumentation that they're using.

That's, that's all they've been presenting. So, um, yeah. Oh, by the way, you know,

James White's one of the good guys. So we got to give them a little more grace. Yeah. If, if someone like, uh,

Rick Warren would have done this, well, he's already got a track record. So we go after him. Well, I don't know what Bible he's reading, but let me give you a couple of things.

One, I believe that we have to one have orthodoxy, right? Orthodoxy straight teaching.

And we see that in scripture. We have to teach the scripture straightly. And these gentlemen generally seem to have a good orthodoxy, but not only that were to have an orthopraxy.

Now, the book of James was written to Christians where there was a lot of infighting in Jerusalem.

And there were a lot of false teachers, uh, false believers. And there was, um, Judaizers, uh, involved and, uh, kind of teaching that we had to follow all the

Jewish, um, old Testament laws. And, uh, there was a lot of problem there. And so James wrote his letter.

How did, how'd he find out that's, that's, that's quite the interesting theory is to background and audience.

And I've done a lot of reading on James and, uh, there's, there's seems to be a whole lot wider realm of possibilities.

It's interesting how you get it. Well, this is what the background was and therefore the lesson from that is this to these folks to kind of say,

Hey, knock it off. Um, and, and not only that, but not to just have a theology, but to have a life that demonstrates that theology practical application is significant.

In fact, grace to you has come out and said that they don't teach practical application on purpose because they think that if they just teach, um, uh, ortho, uh, or a good orthodoxy that, uh, believers will just get it.

Well, that's kind of ironic because John MacArthur in the preface to his new Testament commentaries, uh, and I'm actually reading the one on James right now.

It says, uh, he says this, this new Testament commentary series reflects the objective of explaining and applying scripture.

Well, what is that applying scripture? That's practical application. I think that's what we do on this program all the time.

Just, just constantly. Yeah. Okay. So, so we got another person who hasn't bothered to do their homework.

Um, and is, uh, well, I guess they had lots of, of open time, uh, on, uh,

Brandon's network, given that they booted off people who were doing serious stuff. Um, so two more things.

Um, that's going to take a little while, but two more things, switching gears completely, though it's related to what

I just said in regards to respond to Islam. Um, I don't know how many months ago it was.

Someone said, boy, it sure would be nice if you could review, uh, this, uh, young woman who is now in charge of the biblical studies department at Exeter university,

Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou, uh, early forties, just brimming over with disdain for anyone who could ever believe in the

Bible has to say, it just gives you an idea of the, the state of the academy.

If you, if you didn't already understand this, um, the, the academy is now thoroughly, uh, sold out to the left, to totalitarianism and to naturalism and materialism, and therefore is inalterably opposed to the

Christian faith. And if you're expecting to get any kind of meaningful fairness out of that place in regards to scripture or the

Christian faith or anything like that, you're going to be missing it. You're not, it's, it ain't going to happen.

It ain't going to happen. And just to give you an idea here is, um, well, what, what, what happened is, uh, this morning on, on Twitter, uh, simply

Syrah posted the following tweet. It's interesting how

Christians scoff at North Koreans who worship Kim Jung Un as a God man.

Hello, you worship Jesus. Now, was it last night?

Is it last night or this morning? Ijaz Ahmed had reposted something from Yaya Snow, where Yaya Snow had posted this clip.

And the title with all of 644 views this point, but the title was Bible scholar.

There's no evidence for the resurrection Bible scholar. Ah, love that term

Bible scholar. Um, if of course you had

Quran scholar, there's no evidence Muhammad existed. These guys would go nuts.

But Bible scholar, there's no evidence for the resurrection. And so I, I clicked on it and I need to give you the, and as normally you have to jump through hoops and spin around and go upside down and do stuff like that, uh, with this thing.

And so I clicked on it. And of course it's in the

BBC and it's funny. I, I, I often see, uh, Muslims from especially

England complaining about the mistreatment they get on the BBC and, and just how horrible the media is, except when it's attacking the

Bible, then it's okay. Um, so here's this, this

BBC program and they've, they've got this guy and he made the mistake of going on Skype.

Cause again, I've been there, done that, got the t -shirt. you can get a few things in, but you're, you're just at such a distinct disadvantage.

Um, and he's, he's a Christian, it's

Christian scholar, uh, teaching in Durham, University of Durham. And I just want you to, this young lady, uh, is one of the people, you know, she's one of the go -to people there in England.

If you want a skeptic, if you want somebody to, to say, Oh, the Bible doesn't say anything like that. You go to her these days.

Um, but, uh, just check this out. Uh, they've basically been saying that he's this, this poor

Christian guy is self -deceived, uh, in regards to the resurrection. Uh, well, you know what?

I'm going to back it up here. Cause it's only two minutes. This is just as giving idea of the level of bias and bigotry that you have in, um, in the

British media, which I see all the time. And I'm over there, but most people over here don't watch the BBC. So mainly because it's hard to stay awake, but okay.

Uh, here's, uh, here's, here's the section. And you have to look at it. Uh, although they look at the universe in different ways, they share an interest in evidence.

So for instance, I was drawn to the Christian faith at the age of 17, as it happens because of its emphasis upon evidence, religious experience, and lots of different people.

The fact that the universe itself poses questions, which science itself can't answer, such as where did the beauty and intelligibility of the physical laws come from?

And most importantly for me, the evidence of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, the claim.

There's no evidence for that. There's no evidence for that. Professor Wilkins said, I want Andrew to come in.

Go on. What did you just say? There's no evidence for that. I mean, Francesca will know more about this than I do as a scholar of the

Bible, but of course there's substantial evidence that most of the Bible, well, there's a lack of evidence that most of the

Bible is true. I think this is actually just the sort of self -deception that is a worry when science and religion do co -mingle, is that,

I mean, I can't see, for example, why historical claims, claims about things that happen in the Bible, for example, shouldn't be subject to exactly the same tests of evidence as anything else.

That's the scientific method at work in every area of our life. Yes. And I feel that some... Just let him finish, Professor Wilkins, and I'll bring it back in.

Sometimes people who say things like that are the victims of self -deception. As I say, Francesca is the biblical scholar, so she'll have more to say about it than I do.

But do you think Professor Wilkinson's a victim of self -deception? It sounded like that from what he was saying then, I think so, and Francesca's nodding, which means, gives me support for that.

Sounds a bit backing. Professor Wilkinson, your response? I think the historical evidence does need to be sifted.

I'm not arguing against that, and I really take exception to being called self -deceived on this.

I teach theology. I'm part of a university at Durham which takes theology and historical evidence within the

Bible extremely seriously, and takes the academic component of that extremely seriously. But you do teach theology, which is about religious belief, whereas I teach biblical studies, which is about the examination of ancient literature.

So I do think we're approaching the evidence, as it were, from quite different perspectives. There's no evidence for a resurrection.

There's no evidence for a resurrection. And you have to... So... So... I don't know, the arrogance meter exploded when she starts rolling her eyes.

It's not that we're not used to this. You know, we have our own versions of this here in the

United States. But... And when we examine, you know, the debates these people do, things like that, we find them to be completely non -reflective on epistemological issues, the whole worldview interaction, you know, the whole nine yards.

We've gone over this over and over again. But what I find just amazing is when

Muslims are throwing this out there, like going, Hey, look at this! Because it's plain as day.

Now, some of them may be afraid to do this for politically correct reasons, but it's plain as day.

You apply the same methodology of religious and supernatural skepticism that she's basing her comments on to anything in the

Quran, to the Israel Mirage. How about the Israel Mirage? Can you believe there'd be a Muslim without the

Israel Mirage? The night flight of Muhammad? Do you think she'd go,

Oh, yeah, there's good, solid evidence. No, she'd say it's a complete fable and a myth. Complete fable and a myth.

So what in the world are you doing? Going... It's this level of inconsistency that basically tells me you guys cannot mount a meaningful critique of Christianity that is not fatal to your own religious belief.

The only approach you have is to become a religious skeptic.

That's why I've yet to meet the consistent Muslim. If you think the moon was split, and I know there's some of you going,

No, no, no, no. But there's some of you that actually believe that. If you really think that Muhammad rode on a winged little donkey with the beast, the

Barakah, to Jerusalem and up into the levels of heaven and comes down and has this conversation with Moses about the number of prayers and all the rest of it, sees the caravan, tells people...

That kind of stuff. How can you turn around and look at the documentary evidence in regards to the resurrection, the life of the people who were involved, all the questions that revolve around these things, and roll your eyes in enjoyment with this radical skeptic chick who's going to be just as radically skeptical about anything you believe that has any supernatural element to it at all?

What do you think she'd say about Muhammad having a mole on his back as demonstration of his prophethood?

Hmm. I mean, apply the same standards, folks. I see this stuff and I just go, unbelievable.

And so when Simply Sarah goes, well, you know, you worship

Jesus. Kim Jong -un is a violent man who has killed political opponents with anti -aircraft guns.

There is absolutely, positively no parallel between the prophesied coming...

And by the way, your book happens to say he was the Messiah, and it evidently assumes that people could have known.

Oh, and by the way, that Francesca lady, every single story, every single story, that the...

If you're going to run over there, why don't we switch, and then you can go. I don't think...

Okay, go ahead. I'll just sort of have to wait for you to come back so I can play another video, but I'll make some comments between now and then.

Got stuff going on. Maybe we might get the connection fixed. That'd be so nice. The folks from Cox are here, and so we'd like to do this live again someday.

Maybe take a phone call. That'd be fun. So hope you don't mind that we go ahead and do things like that. Anyway, every single story that the

Quran relies upon that's actually in the Old Testament, I'm not talking about the stories that it thought was in the

Old Testament, really aren't. Old Testament really aren't. But the ones that actually are in the Old Testament, she would reject as having any historical foundation, which means if you accept her eye roll, she's eye rolling at you, and you didn't seem to understand that.

This is that, I know you're all tired of hearing about it, but this is that consistency thing, that even scales, that, you know, let's not use arguments against the other side that actually refute our side thing.

Yeah, and we're back to it again. And once you stop, once you recognize the necessity of this, it will help out a lot.

So, this whole idea, Jesus prophesied the character of Christ 700 years before Christ comes.

We have prophecies concerning his ministry, who he's going to be. The Quran assumes these things.

How else could anyone have understood that he was Al -Masih, if there were not prophetic testimonies to his coming?

Does this woman believe there's anything such as prophecy in your testimony? Of course not. So, there's the first inconsistency.

Secondly, the character of Jesus, you would actually compare him with Kim Jong -un?

It's just astounding to me that you would take a political maniac who is willing to kill millions and parallel that with Jesus when you claim to love him, when you actually claim to love him.

And don't give me the, well, isn't he going to judge the world someday? What about your eschatology? Where is the consistency here?

And what's the basis of his judgment of the world someday? Same as Kim Jong -un? No. So, I was really disappointed.

I thought maybe there had been a little bit of advancement, maybe some self -reflection, that yeah, you know, it probably would be good if we used the same, that standard thing, logically, rationally, epistemologically, does seem to be something that's important to do.

But anyway, maybe I was wrong about that. So anyway, all right.

Now, I forgot to pull this up, and I'm sort of waiting for Rich to run back so we can do some video stuff here, but let me pull, where'd it go?

There it is. I'm not sure if this is searchable yet. Douglas Wilson.

Yep, there it is. Debating the Text of the Word of God. Not my favorite title.

Debating the Text of the Word of God. Oh, number one, new release and New Testament criticism and interpretation.

Which may not be saying much. But it's out on Amazon, and I've been telling you, starting probably back, what, in May?

April, May, somewhere along there? I mentioned the fact that I had been asked to do a written debate over the course of the summer, and when

I was first approached, I was like, oh man, I'm going to Germany in May, well, five different countries in May, and then

I've just got a lot going on over the summer. I'm just traveling all over the place, and I'm just not sure if I can do this, but man, the subject is really interesting.

Funny, they haven't sent me a copy of this yet. I hope they do. Every publisher I've ever worked with always sends you at least a couple author's copies, but I haven't gotten any yet, and I have forgotten to ask to find out whether or not they are going to.

But if you look up Debating the Text of the Word of God, Douglas Wilson, James White, 899 paperback, it will be coming out in Kindle later on, and we both had to record our written portions.

So I had to sit right here, and once I submitted, say, my opening statement,

I think it was 5 ,000 words or something like that, then we had to record it, high -quality audio recording, and send it in, submit that along with.

And so evidently there will be an audio book, some audio version available in some form that will be both in Doug and I's voices.

And he's got that nice, deep voice, so that gives him an advantage right there. But anyway, I forgot what the initial thesis was.

I just realized I was asked to look at some other things from Simply Syrah, and now

I can't find them on this. There was some other stuff that for some reason he was confused about. Oh, here we go.

Okay, time out a second. I'll go back to my debate and just say I forgot to do this.

I apologize, and I hate to leave a thing. One other

Islamic tweet real quick. Here Wayne Grudem even admits that your personal relationship with Jesus is similar to Roman paganism.

And I was like, so Wayne Grudem admits that having a personal relationship with Jesus is similar to Roman paganism.

Is that so? So here's the quote. God is both infinite and personal. Our discussion of process theology.

Now, let me just ask you honestly, Simply Syrah, do you know what process theology is? Do you have any earthy idea?

Probably not. Illustrates a common difference between biblical Christianity and all of the systems of theology.

In the teaching of the Bible, God is both infinite and personal. He is infinite, and that He is not subject to any of the limitations of humanity or of creation in general.

He is far greater than everything He has made, far greater than anything else that exists, but He is also personal. He interacts with us as a person, and we can relate to Him as persons.

We can pray to Him, worship Him, obey Him, and love Him, and He can speak to us, rejoice in us, and love us.

I would think you actually believe all that, don't you? I think that's orthodox

Islamic belief, isn't it? Apart from the true religion found in the Bible, no system of religion has a

God who is both infinite and personal. For example, the gods of ancient

Greek and Roman mythology were personal, they interacted frequently with people, but they were not infinite. They had weaknesses and frequent moral failures, even petty rivalries.

On the other hand, deism portrays a God who is infinite, but far too removed from the world to be personally involved in it.

Similarly, pantheism holds that God is infinite, since the whole world is thought to be God, but such a

God can certainly not be personal or relate to us as persons. I'm just left going, where do you get the idea that Dr.

Grudem, for a second, admits that your personal relationship with Jesus is similar to Roman paganism?

That is misreading on a level that is stultifying.

It makes me stutter. That was not his intention, that's not what he said, and I don't know how you got that out of that.

And it really makes me go, what prejudice are you using to read this stuff with? And if you read my stuff or listen to my stuff with that level of prejudice, that's bad stuff.

So, sorry, very disappointed with all that. I'm sorry. So, I forgot to get to that, all of a sudden

I remembered it, and now I go back to what we were saying about Doug Wilson. So, I agreed to do the debate, the written debate, because it was a subject that I feel very strongly about, and the original thesis was something...

The original thesis was incoherent. It basically assumed the other side's conclusion to the debate, and I'm like, no, no, no, no, no.

The thesis of our debate is basically, which is the proper

Greek text for the church to use in teaching and preaching? The modern NA28 UBS5 text platform, we just call it the

NA UBS text platform, because, for example, there's something called the

ECM that is coming out, the Editio Critica Maiori, and ACTS was just released.

And I've got an order, because I really need it for my doctoral studies, because it's relevant to P45, because P45 contains a major portion of ACTS.

And the ECM is using what's called the coherence -based genealogical method and all the things that is a part of that.

Anyway, what that means is there's going to be a 29th edition, then a 30th edition, a 31st edition, as the

ECM is being made. And eventually, once the ECM is finished, I would imagine the NA UBS platform will just simply be known as the

ECM platform. I would imagine they'll all just sort of coalesce at that point. Even though Tyndale House is putting out its own

Greek text next month, I think, or the month after, which is going to have some differences in it.

I'm looking forward to seeing it. I'd like to see what their reasoning is, what the methodology is, or whatever else it might be.

But anyway, what's the Greek text? The modern eclectic text, the NA UBS text, or the

Textus Receptus? Now, some of you know that years ago, 1996, 1997, somewhere in there,

Doug Wilson and I did what's called a disputatio. It's on our website. If you look up disputatio on ailmen .org,

you'll see that we did this thing where we had, I think, was it 200 words?

It's real short, real short. This real quick back and forth, back and forth. He got start and end, because it's his publication.

But we had this discussion on this issue. And I had not heard him say anything about it for a long, long time.

Didn't know if he still believed it. But here's this group. It's a startup group. And they're pretty strict about how it worked, how it was supposed to be laid out and stuff.

But I'm like, okay, we'll do it. So I write my opening. And of course, in my opening, basically what

I say to Doug is, all right, I need to know exactly what text you're talking about, because there is no one textus receptus.

I mean, we've said a million times before that this

Trinitarian Bible Society text, people think that's the textus receptus, but it's really not.

That's a text made up from the King James Translation itself. So what is the standard text?

Well, to my shock, to my shock and surprise, well, first of all, the format of it meant that he could only respond to that in the rebuttals.

And there's no rebuttal to the rebuttals. All you have to have to that is questions. So by the time he actually got around to actually identifying what text he was saying is literally, literally the inspired inerrant text.

I have no time to interact with it outside of questions. And then my closing statement, which is only like 1500 words, something like that.

So I even wrote to the publisher. I said, you know, if Doug's up for it, we really need to have another rebuttal round because there's just too much here.

And they were like, nope, nope, everybody always wants more. But nope. It's like, okay.

So I think a lot of people are going to criticize the book for not having enough.

But I guess the idea of the publishers is, well, it gets the conversation started. Whatever. But we get to the 15, we get to the, to the rebuttals.

And Doug Wilson identifies for us what the final authority for the new, we weren't talking about the

New Testament. We weren't talking about the Old Testament. What the final authority actually is. Stay there.

And it just so happens that I've had it sitting in the office all this time.

Oh, well, okay. The 1550 Stephanus text.

This is a 1550 Stephanus text. It's the only uber expensive Greek New Testament that I, that I own.

Well, it's not I that own it. It is, of course, the ministry that owns it. But yeah, there, there it is.

1550 Stephanus text. And I had never, ever heard that one before.

I got to admit that PDF came in the mail and email, obviously.

And I read his, his rebuttal. And I just sort of sat there going, never heard this one before.

Never heard that. I sort of expected, well, it's in the general categories of all of Erasmus and Stephanus and Beza or, you know,

I can at least understand if you sort of like go for the 1598 Beza because it's sort of the end process of, of, of all that.

Or, and from an ecclesiastical text perspective, I could at least understand if you'd actually go with the little blue text because, you know, there at least you've got the

King James translators, you know, comparing all of these. So you'd have an ecclesial aspect to it.

You know? No. 1550 Stephanus. Which I guess would mean the 1598 would be a departure from that or something.

I don't know. It... Stephanus -only -ism.

Well, no. He actually doesn't go there. That's just it. At one point he says he wants his inspired inerrant

Bible to actually be inspired inerrant. But then when I press on specific issues regarding texts in...

And this is always where ecclesiastical textism falls apart. When you actually get down to the text itself.

It sounds great in theory. It just doesn't work in the actual real world out here where you have to actually translate things into other languages and things like that.

So, anyway. That book is now out. And you can order it.

We don't have it. But you can get it on Amazon. I suppose we could link to it in our

Amazon store. Right? Why not? There you go. There will be.

There isn't yet. But there will be a Kindle edition. So, that's out.

And I wanted to mention that. And that leads us into the last thing on the program today.

And that is a video that I saw. We're going to have to go back over here because the video is over here. I saw this video,

I don't know, three or four weeks ago. I think I was traveling when I first saw it. And I wanted to address it. What? Yes, I downloaded it, thankfully.

What? Because we don't have internet right now? Yes, we have no internet.

That's great. That's lovely. So, I'm glad I didn't go looking for anything on the web right now.

Anyway, Well, I was actually. Well, maybe. No, I won't be able to do that now. Anyway, this is the

San Jose Bible Baptist Church. I looked it up. And not much to my surprise, it is a

Ruckmanite church. And, if you're new to the program, if you've never heard of Peter Ruckman before, he passed away,

I don't know, less than a year ago. Peter Ruckman was the poster child of the cultic form of King James Onlyism.

It's cultic. If you want evidence, here it is. This is from my personal library. It's called,

Black is Beautiful. Now, Peter Ruckman was a racist. There's no question about that. A very strong racist.

But, the back's actually fairly accurate.

This book is not about black people. Our historical survey, running from somewhere around 3900 B .C. to 1890 -1995, will yield information on black cats, black bird, black

Cadillacs, black death, black male, black lists, black berets, black age, black spot, black knights, black market, black magic, black science, black marias, as well as the new age, the

Bermuda Triangle, the drug traffic, the Vatican, the Rhodes Scholarship, licensed killers, mutant monsters, and aliens from outer space.

And, once you start reading it, it's just that insane. Peter Ruckman was nuts.

He was clinically insane. And, this book is proof of it. And, I did not buy this book.

It says $9 .25 on the back. $9 .95 on the back. It was sent to me for free by Peter Ruckman.

It was signed by Peter Ruckman. Have you seen this? It's been a long time.

Yeah. Here's the signature by Peter Ruckman.

And, I'm sure anybody who knows Peter Ruckman's signature will be able to verify it's Peter Ruckman's signature. Dear Jimbo, because, remember,

Ruckmanites are just condescending, mean -spirited, nasty folks.

They just really are. That's why Sam Gipp, who's a Ruckmanite, can send me coloring books with crayons to write in.

Because, that's just how these people live. That's how they think. And, that's how they fight with one another. Ever seen

Steven Anderson and Sam Gipp going at it? Dear Jimbo, some more ammo you can use to prove

Ruckmanism is a heresy. Glad to be of assistance. You need something to keep busy.

Peter S. Ruckman. So, unsolicited, he sent me this book.

Which, once you start looking at it, is about Nazis and aliens and UFOs and just the drawings in it are enough to make you go, wow.

I mean, the darkest, creepiest parts of Facebook and the internet where the conspiracy theorists thrive.

Oh yeah, that's what this stuff's all about. So, that's what Ruckmanites are all about. Well, Dr.

Kim here is evidently one of the pastors at the

San Jose Bible Baptist Church. Have you got this? And, he put out a video why

James White, Wallace, and Ankerberg will confess corruption. That's what it's called.

And, so, I'd like to, it's, wow, it's 16 minutes long. I may have to use the speed it up trick.

But, I'd like to work through it and I'd like you to hear the reasoning that's behind this kind of stuff so you can recognize what the issues are, what the problems are.

Okay? So, let's jump into it here. Was it alt?

Yep. Why isn't it working? Well, that's weird.

The thing's working. See? The thing's moving and I ain't seeing nothing, you ain't hearing nothing.

And, now we have a twirling, the twirling thing, I'll bet you the fact that we don't have internet is just making everything go absolutely crazy.

And, QuickTimePlayer just crashed. Okay. Do not disconnect the internet from your computer while you're trying to use it,

I guess. Let's try it. Let's try it one more time. Open up your Bibles to Revelation chapter 22, please,

Revelation chapter 22. The Bible says in the last days, there shall be doctrines of devils, and the

Bible also says about Satan, we are not to... Now, by the way, I would like to thank Dr. Gene Kim, Berkeley PBI, it must be

Pensacola Bible Institute, what it has to do with Berkeley, I don't know, but San Jose Bible Baptist Church. I would like to thank

Dr. Kim for writing Revelation 22, and not Revelations 22.

That's very, very, very good. That's very helpful. ...ignorant of his devices. So, it is important in the last days we are to be aware of what

Satan is trying to do, and even doctrines where he's trying to corrupt the church. Now, what

I'm going to prove right here is that there is a doctrine that James White, Dan Wallace, and modern

Bible scholars deny. And what they deny is the inspiration of the

Scriptures, or the Word of God. I'm going to prove that once and for all. I'm not saying that they deny the preservation or perfection of Scripture.

I'm going to prove once and for all they deny the very Bible itself. Because all modern scholars, you've got to understand this, this is their mentality.

So, White, Wallace, and all the other modern scholar critics, they believe in the

Word of God. So they'll believe all Bibles, all

Protestant Bibles, or what's the right word? All Protestant Bibles, all Bibles, all versions of the

Bible, that they are the Word of God. They will believe in that. No, they will not.

The New World Translation is not the Word of God. The Scholar's Translation is not the Word of God. The Joseph Smith Translation is not the

Word of God. There are very bad translations. There are purposeful mistranslations. There are, obviously, translations that are very substandard in their translational methodology, etc.,

etc., and if they are written and translated for the purpose of fundamentally overthrowing the coherence and meaning of Scripture, its ancient context, whatever else it might be, we would not actually identify them as being the

Word of God. I would agree with King James translators that any mean translation, that is, translation that may be, you know, not the flowery, most flowery, but it seeks to accurately communicate the original, can be called the

Word of God. I would accept that in a general statement. Obviously, our fundamental desire is to provide the most accurate translation of the most accurate manuscripts of the

New and Old Testaments in possession to us. So, a translation of the

Latin Vulgate is going to be inferior to a translation of the original language texts of the

Bible, though every single Reformer was saved through reading a translation of the

Bible that came from the Latin Vulgate, probably. Pretty safe saying that. So, no, there's a lot of really super oversimplifications in Dr.

Kim's statement here. And one of the biggest ones is going to be his interpretation of Revelation Chapter 22. His entire presentation is based upon an errant understanding of Revelation Chapter 22, as we're going to see here in a moment.

Now, if I'm misunderstanding or if I'm wrong, if they do not believe all modern translations are the

Word of God, well, actually, I will take that back. Modern scholars believe some modern translations are trash, actually.

They will believe that. But, anyways, aside from that fact, they will believe the NIV is the Word of God. They will believe the

New King James Version to be the Word of God. They will believe the KJV to be the Word of God. The NASV to be the

Word of God. And then other popular modern versions, they will believe it to be the Word of God. So, they believe all of it is the

Word of God. So let's just put two simple things here, okay? KJV, NIV. They believe all that to be the

Word of God. Now, I'm going to prove right here this. They do not believe in this. They do not believe in this, and I'm going to prove it once and for all.

First of all, let's go to Revelation Chapter 22. And I'm sure all modern scholars can agree with this.

Revelation Chapter 22. The Bible says in verse 18, For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things,

God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of this book, of this prophecy,

God shall take away his part out of the book of life. Alright, now the point is this. Now, I do find

I do find it rather interesting at that particular point.

The statement, let's see, verse from the book of life.

And that's verse 19, I believe. And yeah.

That's one of those whoopses on the part of Erasmus. And this in of itself raises the real issue.

I want to know what John wrote. And I can recognize that Erasmus really struggled in the production of his text of the book of Revelation.

He had to literally extract the Greek from a Latin commentary. He didn't actually have a freestanding

Greek manuscript from which to work for his first edition. And there are a lot of questions.

And anybody who studies the relatively small number of manuscripts of the book of Revelation because it is the book in the

New Testament for which we have the smallest number of manuscripts knows that it has a extremely unique transmission history which is why

Hermann Haskir Hermann Haskir spent his life putting this together.

This is one of the only times where there has been an exhaustive collation of all known manuscripts of a particular book of the

Bible, the book of Revelation that has been done. If I recall correctly, Haskir died like two months after publishing this.

It's like, I'm done! Because that's a lot of work.

That's a lot of work right there. But one of the reasons you can do that is because this, of all the books in the

New Testament, is the one that we have the fewest manuscripts of. And so, those are not going to be there maybe even as early as next week.

Right? Good. Anyway, the point being, even when he read that from the

King James, the King James reflects the historical reality that the King James is an English translation done by human beings based upon a very limited number of manuscripts.

And the overriding concern for any serious Christian is what did the

New Testament originally say, not what did it say in 1611?

That's the important part. So, we go back to Dr. Kim's discussion of this, and this is where our major difference is going to exist.

The point is, in verses 18 -19, Christians, all right, all

Christian denominations can agree that God disapproves of subtracting and adding to his words, yes?

Now, the naivete here is stunning.

The naivete here is stunning. Unless he's just simply saying, well, Christian denominations, and there's only a few of us left anyways.

Because, obviously, there are, you know, the majority of the mainline denominations don't believe any of this.

But what's most important is the misapplication of this text.

On any meaningful exegetical ground, Revelation chapter 22 is about the book of Revelation.

Written in this book. This book. Bibliotutu, this book.

That's the book of Revelation. Not Mark or Matthew or Luke or anything else.

I know everybody says, well, it's the last book in my Bible. You know that there is no other book in the

New Testament written after Revelation? You're sure of that? Who provided the order of the books in the

Bible? I've actually had people, good people, say, well, God knew that's the way it was going to be, and so, yes,

I'll take that as having, no, that's just, that's not meaningful exegesis.

This section is about the book of Revelation. And it's about being submissive to the revelation that has been given to Jesus Christ and through Jesus Christ to John.

And so, taking away or adding to is talking about the book of Revelation.

And it's not even talking about the text. It's not talking about, don't you, you better copy this thing well or God's going to get you.

Every scribe that ever made an error, and there are a lot of errors in the book of Revelation as far as scribes are concerned.

I mean, the Byzantine text type is split. It splinters numerous different directions.

Everybody knows this who's studied the text of Revelation or read just a few pages of Haskir.

You can see there's these different streams, even in, in fact, it would be really fascinating to see what the coherence -based genealogical method comes up with in the book of Revelation.

I can guarantee it's the last book they'll do. This has got to be the last book they're going to do. Because it'll be a mess.

Anyway, does that mean that every scribe that skipped a word is going to have all the plagues of the book?

No. Its fundamental focus is, A, the book of Revelation, and secondly, the content of the prophecies and the teachings, not the text itself.

Now what? I was going to say, that could really cut down on the amount of scribes willing to do the work.

Oh yeah, yeah. Oops, you skipped a word, and here comes leprosy, baby! Leprosy, frogs, ten -headed beasts walking into your scriptorium and eating you alive, and yeah.

It would definitely, well, it's sort of like, it's a Bart Ehrman, it's a Bart Ehrman theory when you think about it, because remember,

Bart Ehrman has one of the most naive theories of textual transmission I've ever heard in my life.

If God actually inspired it, He wouldn't let there be any textual variance. You know, the first time I heard him say that,

I'm like, well, what do you mean by that? The scribe's about to, the scribe's getting sleepy.

It's toward the end of his day. He's got hypoglycemia. He's about to skip a word, and what does

God do? Turn him into a pillar of salt? You know, just instant flame?

I mean, it's just so silly. It's like, come on, what are you babbling about? But anyway, yeah, there is that.

So, the point is, Revelation 22 is about the Book of Revelation. It's not really about the text of the

Book of Revelation, it is about the message and the content of the Book of Revelation.

But if you take that perspective, all the rest of this 16 -minute video is not going to make any sense whatsoever, but we are getting through it with some pace.

Everyone can agree with that. Adding or subtracting. Now, every single word, they won't believe in this, but they will believe the

Bible generally. Adding or subtracting. All Christians, and I mean all

Christians, will agree with this. If they don't, I don't think you're a Christian. So let's be honest.

The Bible. I'm not going to say the words, every single word. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying the Bible. The Bible.

So, let me say this. Let me say that all Christians can agree that the 66 books in our

Bible, that they are the Word of God. If you took out one book of the Bible, if I ripped off the

Book of Obadiah, if I ripped off the Book of Philippians, then you would consider that to be a problem, right? Okay, we can all agree with that.

Now notice, what's important to notice here is, now we're talking canon. But eventually, that's going to just simply transfer directly over to text.

And it is extremely common, it even happened in my discussion with Doug Wilson. It's extremely common for people to recognize that there is a relationship, but not see what the differences are.

Because you can talk about the canonicity of the Book of John while at the same time discussing whether the

Prick of Adultery, which is not found for the first 400 years into the 5th century, in the actual manuscripts of the

Book of John, is a part of the Book of John. The Book of John exists apart from whether that particular section is a part of it or not, or any single word or single letter variant.

I mean, there's many, many single letter variants, or word variants, or word unit variants, or whatever else it might be, in the

Gospel of John. You can still talk about its canonization with canon status without going through all of those individual variants in the process.

Now, here's the problem right here. The problem is, is that if it is true, alright?

If we believe, and I mean, when I say we, I'm going to include even all Christians, James White and Wallace, alright?

If we believe the Bible, and I mean the 66 books, let's say I have this in my hand, alright?

Let's say I have this in my hand. If I raise up the NIV, KJV, or whatever version with the 66 books in it, and I say, this is the

Word of God, they're all going to agree, yes, it is the Word of God. Now, they're not going to agree every single word, but they will believe the

Bible in general. Now, here is where you catch them, alright? I don't think they're really thinking. This is their problem.

The problem is this, is that, okay, after I say that, let's say that when

I'm giving you a Bible, my member's the Bible, I'm saying, this is the Word of God, and then let's assume any translation,

NIV or KJV, okay? But then, when I was reading the book of Obadiah, and then I ripped that out, and I read passages in Isaiah, and I chopped off certain chapters out of Isaiah, and then

I gave that to a person, am I subtracting from the Bible? I'm not saying words, okay?

Am I subtracting from the Bible, yes? Yes, I am, okay? I am, alright? If I add one more book of Obadiah, let's say second

Obadiah in the Bible, am I adding to the Bible? Yes, every Christian can agree. Every Christian, I don't care how many...

Okay, now, please notice where the problems are right now. We're talking canon, and we've already misused

Revelation chapter 22, so the subtracting -adding thing isn't what that's talking about.

But, now we're talking about canon issues, which, I've never seen

Rachmaninites give us any meaningful discussion of the historicity of canon, development of canon.

They don't interact with church history and stuff like that. I mean, I don't even believe the Septuagint existed in the days of Jesus, so they're really disconnected from reality at that point.

But, anyway, that's what's going on here. Right now, it's primarily canon stuff that's being discussed.

Then, watch what's going to happen. What he's going to do is he's going to use as his illustrations textual variants.

The Percipate adultery, the woman taking adultery, the longer ending of Mark. And so, he's going to take textual variants, so he's going to jump out of the canon area into the textual critical area without recognizing the difference between them and try to make his argument that we are subtracting from the

Bible. He's assuming the King James. He doesn't prove the King James. He just assumes it. There is no

King James -only -ism without the presupposition functioning in that way. But, he's going to assume the

King James, say that we're subtracting something, not that the King James would ever add anything. The King James is never subjected to the same standard of evidence that any other translation is.

And then, conflate those two categories. Canon categories with textual criticism categories to make the argument that he's actually making.

That's what's coming, and we'll see here in a second. PhDs, XYs and Zs, Greek and Hebrew, you know.

Christian scholars, I'm sure, can agree with that. And I'm adding and subtracting the Bible. Now, think about this.

But, let's assume I use this argument. Even if I do that, I ripped off the book of Obadiah, or I added another book of Obadiah, or I added another book of Philippians, or subtracted from the book of Philippians.

Let me ask you this question. If you accuse me of adding and subtracting the Bible, what if I say this?

I will use this logic. And you've seen this logic from modern scholars. It doesn't eliminate major doctrines.

Now, let's go ahead and address that briefly while at the same time complimenting Dr. Kim on his excellent white board printing.

I wish mine looked that good. It used to. Isn't that interesting how you get old? Anyway, let's chase that rabbit.

There have been many generations of Christians who have lived and died without having a completed canon description.

Justin Martyr didn't seem to have Paul. There was a period of time when the

New Testament was being written. There, even to this day, are places on earth where the entire

New Testament is not yet available in someone's language. Maybe only the Gospels or something like that. Can a person be saved by reading the

Gospel of John? Of course they can. Do we want them to have the whole counsel of God?

The fullness of God's revelation? Of course we do. When we talk about is something the

Word of God that is diminished in its fullness, then yes, in that situation we have to differentiate between, well, it is canonically challenged.

It is not canonically full. It is not the entirety of the Word of God. What you have still is the

Word of God. What you have would communicate to you great swaths of God's truth, but the balance that is intended by God giving us what

He's given us has been altered. Just the same way we would reject the apocryphal books and that this changes the balance, not in any major way.

In fact, I would argue if you understand what's actually said in those books, not in any substantive way either.

The point is that God has given us something and if you don't have all of that, then you don't have all that God desires you to have, but you still have more than a pagan that's got nothing has.

None of this has anything to do with sexual criticism, but that's where the application, fortunately, is going to end up being made, and that's where the part of the problem is.

Hey, I mean, think about it, guys. Think about it. If I ripped off a couple chapters from Isaiah or the whole book of Obadiah or, oh, let me think of a major doctrine, major doctrine, or, let's say,

Zephaniah, alright? It's not eliminating major doctrines, right? No, it's not, because you can still find the

Second Advent, the Messianic Promises in other books of the Bible, right? Now, let me tell you this.

If I use this logic, will that still justify me ripping off the book of Philippians, adding another book of Obadiah and giving it to you?

No. Now, none of us are making that argument. We do point out that no textual variant in the

New Testament eliminates any major doctrine in the New Testament. Even Bart Ehrman recognizes that and agrees with that.

We have often pointed out that if you use, you know, the

Nessiolan text versus the Textus Receptus, do they both teach the deity of Christ?

They certainly do. Do they both teach the Trinity? They certainly do. Do they both teach the doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone and Christ alone and the glory of God alone?

Do they teach all the solas? All the way down the line. Doug Wilson and I agreed on that as well, by the way.

All the way down the line. It's all there. No question about it. But all we're pointing out there is that the level of textual variation does not change the essential message of the

Bible itself. We're not using that as a grounds or an excuse for adding from —he really needs that word from in there— adding to or subtracting from the

Bible. And, of course, once we get to the issue that he's going to raise and that is, well, all these words and the story of the woman taking adultery and the longer ending of Mark, these —he's begging the question because the question is—these weren't original.

These were not a part of the Bible. We're not adding or subtracting adding to or subtracting from the Bible. We want to know what the

Bible originally said. And so we can detect where either accidentally or intentionally someone has tried and failed to add to or subtract from the

Bible. And all of this has nothing to do with Revelation chapter 22. That's where we jumped the ship a long time ago.

Let me tell you this. This is the logic that modern scholars use. Because when you chop off —you've got to realize this— you know what the

NIV and modern scholars subtract? So this is what they subtract or doubt.

You ready? They take off more than half of Mark —half of Mark?

—more than half of Mark 16. —Mark 16. The longer ending of Mark.

That's not subtracting. —They eliminate a whole story, alright? —We're saying that's an addition. —They eliminate a whole story of a adulterous woman.

—Added 5th century. —Not only that, they subtract many verses.

—Which are actually parallel corruptions. —Now, I do not have that track right now. But there are several theologians, scholars that totaled all the subtracted words and verses in modern versions.

You know what they totaled down to? —Again, just to make sure, I know

I addressed this in the King James I controversy, but notice the use of language. Constant assumption.

You're subtracting. How do you know it wasn't added? You have to be able to substantiate that.

You can't just simply assume that. You've made the King James your standard, but then you can't defend why you've made the

King James your standard. And this works as long as you stay in your suit and tie, in your Bible Baptist church, and you never wander outside and start trying to talk to anybody else.

It doesn't work once you start actually trying to do apologetics and things like that. —In your

Bible. That's the totality. The totality of all this is several books in your Bible.

Now, that's pretty serious, right? But you know how they justify this?

They justify this by saying, no, it's not a problem. It's not a problem. Why? Because it doesn't eliminate major doctrines.

—See, he totally misunderstands the actual argumentation. The argumentation is we want to know what was originally written.

It's not a matter of whether it eliminates major doctrines. And of course, when you say several books of the

Bible, I think that's a real expansion. That's an exaggeration of the total number.

Because if you compare Tischendorf to the Textus Receptus, I think it's, what, 1 .5

%? If you're talking about several books, you'd have to be talking about Jude and 1 and 2

John. No, Philemon and 2 and 3

John, maybe. But you're not going to... No, you're not going to get... The Byzantine text type, even in its fullest form, is not that much more.

And the vast majority of it. When you're talking about verses, almost every single verse is actually a parallel corruption from another point in Scripture.

What I mean by that is if Mark has something and Matthew doesn't, a later scribe wanted

Matthew to have what Mark had. So it's not like that is missing. It's just only found in one gospel rather than being found in two or even in Luke, maybe three.

So this idea of several books of the Bible would only have the long writing of Mark, the

Percivate Adultery, and then repeated material, and then singular words. It's not like there's a tremendous amount of...

There's nothing new here other than the long writing of Mark, which contains some pretty weird stuff, and the

Percivate Adultery. That's all you're going to get when you actually look at it.

If you eliminate a whole Bible... Whoops. There we go. Even if you chop off more than half of a chapter in the

Bible, and when you eliminate many verses where it consists of several books of the Bible, you can still find major doctrines in the

Bible. And guess what? I can say the same thing if I were to rip off the book of Philippians, if I ripped off the book of Obadiah and several chapters of Isaiah and give you a

Bible and say actually this is the Word of God, here's the Word of God right here. Or let's say even if I added several other books in the

Bible. You're not going to believe that's the Bible, right? Obviously not. You're not going to believe that. But let's say

I use the excuse it doesn't eliminate major doctrines, you can still find the doctrine of the Second Advent, you can still find the doctrine of the

Messiah, the Messianic Comment, you can still find the doctrine of the blood, the doctrine of the deity in those verses. Then are you going to accept my

Bible? See? This is why this logic is full of fallacy.

It's a hoax. It's a hoax, man. This logic does not justify God's command of what?

Which no one has suggested it does. So here's the essence of Ruckmanism. You prove points that no one's actually making.

That's why Ruckmanites almost never interact apologetically, either outside the

Christian faith or certainly with people like me. Because it's just too easy to go, no, that's actually not our argument.

This is what our argument is, here's the category here, here's the category there. Ruckmanites really struggle with category error.

It's constant, and you can't reason them out of it. Hopefully they just run into folks out there in the real world that force them to start seeing just how narrow their little world has been, and they need to get out of it.

And there's a whole lot more out there. ...the Bible. Now, here's the thing.

Let's assume, I know what they're thinking, they're assuming this. These subtractions are the real deal, alright?

They're going to say, this is more legit. This is more valid, more close to the

Word of God. They will say that. Actually, the closer

Word of God, the original Word of God, would be closer to these subtractions. You have to. Okay, then here's their problem.

You ready? See, it's not going to work. You know why? Because then they're going to have to admit that this one is adding to the Word of God.

Okay, so you see why I demonstrate, the first thing I said was that's an invalid utilization of Revelation chapter 22.

And I do think it's vitally important, and it is important to recognize apologetically that the

King James translation, or if we can get away from the silliness of making

English the standard anyways, the later manuscripts, the

Byzantine text type, are less defensible as representing the original than the later.

And this is where we go to the Doug Wilson debate, and that's really what we're talking about there. These guys, unfortunately, have this mindset that it's black and white, all or nothing at all, and so if the

King James has later traditional material that has accrued over time, then that means we can't say this is the

Word of God. Well, we recognize that those passages need to be seen for what they are, and that is why if someone were to ask me, well, what

Bible translations should I use in doing apologetic work, I would never suggest the King James translation.

I can't. It doesn't mean that I condemn the translators. They were doing the best with what they had available to them.

It does not mean I do not see its tremendous historical worth. It doesn't mean that there aren't all sorts of my own

Bible memory verses that still come out replete with these and thous, because that's what I grew up with, and if I went into the other room,

I could grab the first two Bibles I ever owned. I've still got them, and they're both

King James versions of the Bible. And God blessed that Bible just as He's blessed the

NIV, ESV. Believe it or not, now keep this under your hat.

Shh, don't tell anybody this, but there's actually been people saved from reading the

NRSV. Serious. Serious.

Now, does that mean that you don't, that you just uncritically go, well, that means it almost be good.

No, you recognize liberal bias, and sometimes you have to recognize conservative bias, too.

It actually exists as well, if you're really honest with yourself. But, you know, for these folks, it's just all or nothing at all, and if there's anything that you would say does not represent what was originally apostolically written, and in fact, he's not even getting into translational issues.

I mean, there are places where the King James just has translational problems. Does that mean the whole thing needs to be thrown out?

No. It doesn't mean the whole thing has to be thrown out. Well, guess what?

Whether they like to believe it or not, they do not believe the KJV is the Word of God, the NIV is the Word of God. They do not believe in that.

You know what the Bible they believe in, to be true? Their own imagination. Their own imagination, because they're not really thinking here.

They're not really thinking here. If you added all these subtractions together, it consists of several books.

I know people look at that and go, how can they get away with stuff like that? Because they live in a teeny tiny little world where they don't have to deal with other stuff.

They don't have to deal with... They're not meaningfully interacting with other perspectives. As long as you stay in that little room and you wear your tie and you think like the way you think and act the way you're supposed to act, then you can get away with going, they're just not thinking, when it's actually you that's not doing the thinking.

Again, the only way to get people out of that is if they actually start running into the rest of the world and trying to meaningfully interact with it.

The statistics can be found at Ted Watkin's track, Comparison of Modern Versions.

It's in a track. You can find it at his website. But the thing is this, is that see, it doesn't change the fact right here, that this logic falls apart.

And guess what? They do not believe in this. I'm not saying they don't believe in adding, subtracting every single word, but rather the

Bible itself. They don't believe in this command. They don't. Because even if you eliminate a whole story, even if you eliminate verses that consist of many books,

I mean, you're cutting off a chapter, for crying out loud. Let's say that I chopped off half a chapter of Isaiah.

Let's say I chopped off half a chapter of Obadiah, half a chapter of Philippians, half a chapter of other books in your

Bible. Does that make it the Word of God? Let's say I eliminate a whole story of David killing Goliath. I mean, that doesn't eliminate major doctrine.

Let's say I eliminate a whole story of Cain killing Abel. That doesn't eliminate major doctrine. Let's say that I eliminate the whole story of the thief on the cross, who got saved through Jesus Christ.

That doesn't eliminate a major doctrine. Why? Because you can find those same doctrines in different stories of the Bible, they will say.

See this? See this? Of course, all of this is irrelevant because none of those texts have textual variation, or none of them are in the earliest codices have notifications that this is a later edition.

None of them have multiple versions, like in the Longer Enigma Mark. None of them don't appear until they first appear in Codex Pese Canterburgiensis, which is a living

Bible of the early church. There's no parallels to any of these things. He's just talking about willy -nilly checking stuff out.

That's not what anybody's doing. There is a reason why those two major textual variants are what they are.

And that has to do with the manuscripts. We're dealing with facts, and they're dealing with traditions.

These are very human traditions, but they're held to very strongly. I picked and choose whatever story

I want to delete, picked and choose whatever verse I want to delete, or chapters, large portions within a chapter to delete.

And I gave you the Bible, and I say, here, this is the Word of God. Would you believe that to be the Word of God? No, you wouldn't. Every modern scholar wouldn't believe that.

They wouldn't. They would say, what you're doing is heresy that's blasphemy. Because why? Because of Revelation 22, 18 -19.

Don't you dare touch that Bible, add or subtract it. So you're going to have to be honest. You're going to have to honestly believe this.

With all this consisting of several books in your Bible, which is quite a chunk, you're going to have to believe this. You're going to have to either believe the

NIV was subtracting the Bible, or the KJV was adding to the Bible. You do not believe all modern translations to be the

Word of God. You don't. You're a liar when you say that. You are a bald -faced liar. You want the

Bible you believe is to be the Word of God, your imagination of what you pick and choose. And that's dangerous. That's what they're going for.

Be honest, alright? If you believe this to be more of the Word of God, and the KJV was adding, then believe the

NIV then. Be NIV only. But they're not going to do that. See, be NIV only.

You don't have to be only anything like that. I know in the very narrow black and white world of King James only fundamentalism that you've got to be only everything.

I happen to be able to recognize the New Testament writers weren't Masoretic text only.

Or Septuagint only. So if I follow them, I'm not going to be an only. You can be an only if you want to, but I don't have to follow you.

...better to be the Word of God. They don't believe anything to be the Word of God, actually. They don't believe any Bible to be the Word of God. Because nothing's correct, nothing's perfect.

So then they have to create their own imaginative, perfect Bible of what they think to be perfect. The thing is this, is that in totality, in the end,

Revelation 22 verse 18 through 19, what does this command mean, huh? Let me ask you this, modern scholars this question. What does this command mean?

Adding or subtracting the Bible, huh? What does that mean? We'll go ahead and stop there because we've already demonstrated that's a complete misuse of Revelation 22, so there's no reason going back over it again and again and again.

But that's the kind of reasoning that you see in very narrow fundamentalistic circles.

And of course people like to paint us all in that, even if we listen, even if we interact with other perspectives, they try to paint us all in that type of realm.

And that's not where we are. But I want to be able to go through it. There's another place where we've taken the time, we let him speak, and he was specifically referring to me, so I figure it's fair.

We'll listen to the criticism and interact with it and maybe be able to shed some light on the issues in the process.

And we did a mega -dividing line almost exactly on time. That's two mega -dividing lines.

Seems like when we don't have internet, we go longer.

So there you go. So thanks for watching the program today. Lord willing, we will see you next week here on The Dividing Line.