Catholic Answers Clips

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James White director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 973 4602 or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 -877 -753 -334 -1. And now with today's topic here is James White.

Travel Plans, Gay Marriage Debate, and the San Francisco Setting

And good afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line Thursday afternoon edition Won't be another dividing line for another week and the reason for that to be found on the main page at Aomin .org. Which I really don't generally have to tell you a whole lot about because if you're listening live You already know about am in dot org.

In fact, if you're not listening live, you already know about am in dot org, too. So That's pretty much showing a way really to to be listening at all. But anyways on the main page you have the banner ad the very very pretty banner ad.

Except for the few of you who haven't figured out there's not supposed to be a black box Between the navigation thing and everything else. I was well, so main channel go. Yeah, I like the new website but what's with the big black box and that's actually a banner ad section and Very pretty banner ads there.

You need to turn ad blocker off to be able to see it. But some people are just I never figured out why that's there. Well Generally that might indicate that you're you're not seeing something you need to be saying but anyway Have a debate in I guess it's Hayward, California once I get up there, I'll have to get directions as to where in the world I'm going but Hayward, California next Tuesday and If anyone is in the area who is a believer and Who is especially over six feet tall at about 250?

And you can get the day off or lunchtime or something and would like to come by and Say hello Sit in the front row Have a nice chat with me on the way out of the car, whatever it might be, you know something along those lines I would be good.

Cuz I other than other than syzygous I don't know of anyone who's gonna be there and the last time I saw syzygous if you blew at him He would he would break Ain't give you a whole lot of unless there's a kung-fu guy in there someplace that I've never really seen He wouldn't be a whole lot of help.

So The subject of course is going to be gay marriage, which is why it would be nice to have a few Oh, yeah, Bart Bart Emmaus is saying he'll come out to be my body.

Gone from bad to worse. Yeah. As I recall it you might recall the last time we ran into a group called act up. Oh, yes was up in Salt Lake City, and they were a very. Colorful colorful colorful. Yes. Yes.

Something tells me you're gonna see a lot of.

Possible people. I I hope I hope it's nice and calm and Respectful, but I am going to San Francisco. What in the world can I say?

So who knows who knows make sure Golden Gate has a lot of people there to represent. Yeah, I hope I.

I just don't know. I just I just don't know I did write and started jokingly today and asked if there any former NFL linebackers in the student body that might have the day to Drive across the bay and be with me.

But anyways, that's why we won't be doing the dividing line next Next Tuesday morning, but Lord willing we'll be back again on Thursday Afternoon. The number here is eight seven seven seven five three three three four one.

Criticism of Blog Reactions and the Greek Debate with Steve Gregg

Yet, you know, I just don't know that I have it in me to discuss. The blog article I posted earlier today is undoubtedly one of the most troubling in the sense of absolutely Disgusting demonstrations of the depravity of man or in this case female.

That I've I've ever ever seen and I do warn folks before reading it. And if you're listening to this on archive, this would be the blog for April 17th 2008. I Just talked about a demonstration of the depth of the depravity of man.

I.

Just don't know where to go with that, but if you haven't seen that then I Honestly would not suggest If you are weak of stomach or Constitution reading it to be perfectly honest with you but if you are and you need to keep up on the Developments in our society demonstrating that God's wrath is most definitely Coming upon this society and coming upon the society with clarity and force.

Then you might want to might want to take a look at that a couple things. I have a couple of Catholic answers clips that we can play and Some folks are just now in channel reading what I was talking about they hadn't seen it yet.

And then I've also got some interesting commentary posted yesterday By Steve Gregg in regards to our debate last week. I haven't had a lot to say really about that I think it sort of speaks for itself, but it is always interesting to note that a similar theme is developing Amongst those on Steve's Gregg's board that I heard enunciated by Jalal Abu Alrub in regards to our debate in both debates I Mentioned and made reference to the Greek language now I did so for different reasons in the debate with Steve Gregg obviously the reason I raised the issue was because Steve Gregg has raised the issue I'm not sure why he gets to mention Greek and I don't but that does seem to be the standard.

The difference being that I can evaluate Greek arguments and Mr. Gregg cannot evaluate Greek arguments, but Despite his inability to evaluate Greek arguments. He presents the many ways from Robert Schenk and people like that and so to respond to the Errors that he had made in the mp3s I had listened to a year ago and that he says he posts I believe in 1999.

So they've been floating around for almost a decade now I had to point out and I have yet to see a meaningful response. I actually did see someone Trying to play with x 1348 on his forums earlier today.

But all they did was demonstrate that they still just do not understand what the issues are. There's been no meaningful response to the fact that we have a paraphrase to construction there or anything else.

It's just it's unfair of you to use Greek, etc, etc, and That's very different than the situation with Jalal Abu Alrub because obviously He too, I guess it isn't totally different now I think about he too is presenting false translations on a much deeper level and a much more obvious Level on of something very very important in the sense of the deity of Christ though I would argue that the nature of the gospel is important as well, obviously.

But anyway, both have you know, there is this odd statement on Jalal's Blog, I guess or website or whatever I call it About the Greek geek or the Greek Greek or something. I have I couldn't even begin to follow it.

It was it was very odd. But obviously, you know when he puts into his books That John one one is the word was a God and this is a different God than the other God and blah blah blah. You've got to address these things and demonstrate where the errors are and and so on and so forth.

And so I I did so well anyway. Yesterday mr. Gregg posted some materials on his Board that I thought would be since most of the folks listening now listened to the debate would be worthwhile looking at.

He said there was a fellow named Paul T. I don't know who Paul T is it's interesting there's somebody Turretin fan informed me this morning. There was someone who was accusing me of accusing me saying that I was posting on the Puritan board using somebody else's name and I responded and said that's that's false.

You need to withdraw this and I Suggest an apology at least to the person who you said is making a fool of himself who you thought was me. Which it isn't me. You need to apologize them to and then later looking at the the blog I start I noticed a small CT and I started thinking back about two and a half years ago.

To someone who was on the Puritan board who was King James only. Another one of the King James only wackos I mean just totally imbalanced and if I recall correctly that person ended up being a woman not even a man remember that just I and.

And my initial response was I even know who in the world you are then as I've been looking at the website I saw that CT and it started ringing a real faint bell because I honestly folks I do not Generally invest a whole lot of energy in remembering weird people like that that just are just completely off the beam.

So.

You know if it's same person then okay that that explains that there there's you know No interest in truth there whatsoever. And so but it was interesting to be accused of to be accused of that but Here someone named Paul T has been on Steve Gregg's board and asking some questions and Steve Gregg responds to him and says what you are doing is the same thing that Dwight did which led to the Controversial interruption the debate on Tuesday's broadcast.

I asked a simple question that could be answered honestly and simply but dr White apparently was concerned about what I might Do with his answer and where I might be going with line of questioning because these concerns dominate his mind.

He was not able or willing question mark to even to give the obvious correct answer the question With which any person reading the passage would have had no difficulty Doing and that of course is again just not true.

My objection was to both being interrupted being spoken over. Given the nature of the encounter that would mean that half the audience would be hearing him and half the odds would be hearing me. Which is not a good thing in the context of the debate.

We needed to have rules for interaction, which is what we did the next day. I'm the one who suggested that even at the end of the program I suggested that and so it was it was the kind of questioning and the lack of integrity in the kinds of questions that was the concern for me and.

So then he goes on in talking with this Paul to you to say similarly if dr White had said okay, perhaps Romans 118 does not state that Paul has all men in view. But I think there are other verses that teach my position that would have been the honest and direct answer.

Well, what was my answer? My answer was that Romans 1 is part of Romans 1 2 3 and it has to be interpreted that way and Therefore. Yes, I do believe that Romans 1 is in reference to all of mankind and it's it's interesting.

We didn't get again because of the nature of that kind of exchange. We didn't actually get into it. But I I haven't seen any discussion About something really obvious, you know, I made my case that this Romans 3 10 through 18 is a summary statement Gathering up both Jews and Greeks together and I based that primarily from the conclusion He draws by when he says that all the world May become accountable before God, but I haven't heard much discussion about the fact that it's stated directly in verse 9.

When when Paul introduces Verses 10 through 18. What does he say? Let me read it for you. What then are we better than they not at all for we have already charged that both? Jews and Greeks are all under sin that's the introduction to the long list of passages and so How can you?

Come up with the idea that what Paul is saying here is no what I'm really saying is there are certain groups That these are descriptive of but there are other people this isn't descriptive of because this says we have already Charged that means before you get the verses 10 through 18 Paul's own interpretation of his own words is that he has already made the charge that all Both Jews and Greeks are under sin.

Now the it's interesting there's a difference here between the ESV and the NASB. Because the NASB has we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin. ESV has we have already charged that all both Jews and Greeks are under sin.

I don't think there's any difference in the meaning but the point is Jews and Greeks exhausts the categories that are available to Paul to begin with and They're all Under sin, so that's how he introduces it and then he concludes it by saying the whole world's responsible for God.

What part of that is unclear?

Now having listened to that I Got the impression that Greg was trying to make a delineation. I didn't get the impression. He was denying that everybody was under sin I thought he was. He was making a separation of those who suppress the truth and unrighteousness.

Yeah, I know that that totally threw me well see I don't. I've not found anyone who really has a An ability to say no. He specifically means this because he keeps it's a moving target and moving targets are very difficult to nail down.

Well that day Part of the argument and and this came up when when he took calls the next day, you know he points to Job Job's righteous man, and so. Somewhere in there there is this idea that that there are people who are not included in this universal condemnation of sin and I say I Don't believe so because for the obvious reason not only is the direct statement of the text but then this becomes after you've proclaimed the bad news and you've made all the world accountable for God then and only then does the Apostle Paul raise the issue of Justification by grace through faith and Everybody Jew or Greek having been put in the same position of condemnation now has to have the exact same way of Salvation and that is being justified freely as a gift through his grace in Christ Jesus.

So that just struck me as a As an odd thing then he goes on to say and this is this is what really what I wanted to want to look at. Exegesis of a Greek document requires adequate consideration of the Greek vocabulary and grammar, of Course though in a large majority of cases such considerations require a little or nothing beyond the reading of a competent translation.

The translators of say the NASB or the NKJV I do not include the IV which you thought I quoted from but which I do not respect enough to cite. This is again referring to a guy named Paul T Have done a competent job of translating the Greek and well over 90 of the verses of the New Testament my estimate.

But I would be surprised to see it challenged. I think it's far more than 90 That's not the question. The reason you refer to Greek is because sometimes in English Phrases can have certain meanings that are not found in the original language.

For example in the book of Hebrews, it says Christ died once for all now in English. There's two ways to take that. You could say he died once for all people extensively. Or you could take it merely temporarily temporarily.

He died one time never to die again. Now in Greek there is no confusion between the two in Greek it is a temporal passage. It is speaking about one time. It is not speaking about extent, but in English if you don't have Recourse to the original language you could interpret it either way and believe me.

I have heard entire sermons that were based upon someone who didn't know that and They misunderstood an English phrase and built their entire case. Upon a misunderstanding the English phrase that mere reference to the original language would have demonstrated was not a possibility so.

That is why You need to be able to do that and what's more than that? It's not just Greek vocabulary and grammar. It's also something called syntax. That's where the argument that Steve Gregg is presented in Acts 13 48 collapses because you you can sit there and you can go in your computer program and you can run your cursor down a line of words and That program can tell you that particular word, but it's not going to tell you about Phrases and that's what syntax is about and that's what a paraphrastic construction is about and that's where Steve Gregg is wrong and Robert Chang is wrong and when you present wrong Ideas you might expect to get refuted.

Once again exercising my prerogative to step in front of the callers.

A Caller on Greek, Translation, and the Meaning of Acts 13:48

Now.

Something that I Wasn't real clear on where he was coming from when he's Criticizing your Greek abilities. Does he see this like Dave Hunt. Does that you're an elitist that those who? Who have the level of education in Greek that you have that you can you know, you're doing the as he's.

He made a reference to his interlinear. That about made me fall out of my chair when he made the reference. I don't know if you picked up on it that I think he had to. He couldn't find his inner linear he was it was it was out of his reach or something at the moment and I Heard you in the past talk about inner linears.

Actually, I think this I think it comes up in this next paragraph the second paragraph.

I was gonna I was gonna read. I think this answers the question because here's what he says only. Occasionally, is it necessary to discuss the niceties of syntax in order to learn more about the meaning then can be seen in a good Translation.

For example, dr. White's emphasis in the fact that the verbs in acts 1348 are active verbs. Or that the word us and if he's the one for is used as a direct object not an indirect object. We're not only irrelevant to his point.

But also quite discernible from the English translations. No special considerations the Greek tenses etc was called for since such did not bring any more light than the English versions provide. However reference to the Greek whether relevant or not will always impress a certain element in the audience.

That some kind of valid valid argument has just been made if they don't understand what it is. I'm sorry what it was. It's an effective debate tactic for those wishing to sound like they have an argument where they have none.

But not a very honest one. I'll let you read into that what you want to read into that but I've often wondered does he even understand what the point of my argument is because Evidently from that still doesn't still doesn't get it.

I mean if you can just easily flip flop back and forth between Christ as the chosen one and us as the chosen one without recognizing The weight of the argument that I've made then you haven't understood the argument and I can't force you to understand it.

I think most of the folks listening at least from quote-unquote our side understood it. But to to basically say that well, you know, so they're they're active verbs. So what? You know, or it's that's that's direct object.

So what well, maybe it's because Mr. Gregg's interpretation Doesn't fit that and the difference between us I really honestly believe is that one side is driving its theology from the text and the other side isn't now He that's what he says about us.

He says we have our traditions if you just read the Bible you'd buy be by default be an Arminian blah blah blah. Which of course from my perspective? The only reason anyone by default Arminian is because the unregenerate man puts man in the center instead of God in the center, so.

But we obviously disagree with one another and I leave it to others to determine Who actually was driving their theology from the text and and who was not? I I don't think that we ever got a meaningful answer to Romans 8.

I think that was just you know blown right past. And and saying well, I just feel this or I just feel that really isn't I think adequate Responses to those those particular things, but some it was interesting that Jalal Abu Alrub likewise Made the argument.

Well, who cares about all this Greek and blah blah blah, even though His argument was extremely not convincing because in the previous debate he had spent Some time or at least rather forcefully Asserting that unless you can translate Arabic you have no right to criticize the Quran.

You really don't have any right to engage in in in Islamic studies at all if you cannot translate Arabic. And there is a certain point at which he is he's right I mean To to do any kind of serious work.

In that field you do need to learn Arabic eventually I mean if you're gonna You know study the Quran or the manuscripts of the Quran or whatever else it might be you better do your homework. There's no two ways about that I ain't arguing about that because let's see we get out of here five o 'clock an hour and a half after this program ends my Arabic tutor shows up and I spend a few hours beating my brains against Arabic so I accept that but then to turn around and to criticize the New Testament while abysmally ignorant of its original languages and Claim that this is the best translation of this and that's the best translation of that while abysmally ignorant of the languages and completely Incapable of even beginning to offer a defense of your assertions.

That's where the wheels fell off of Jalal Abu Alrub's argument at that particular point in time eight seven seven seven five three three three four one is the phone number and.

That's the number that Pierre called. Hi. Let's talk with Pierre. Hi Pierre. Hey, dr. White. What's wrong about gay marriage Canada?

Oh, no kidding. No kidding bad. Well, it's and and San Francisco is awful close. So yeah, I I you know, who knows maybe this will be one of the last Debates can be held there by law. But yeah, it's I'm well aware of that.

It's it is amazing the the totalitarian Perspective of secularists when it comes to a controlling free speech.

Yeah, that was it was a little take the discussion on purely Neutral terms. Yeah, there are no neutral terms. There are no terms and I and I just found that.

You.

Because well, I'm not quite sure.

What you mean by when when you when you? Had the discussion. What do you mean inherently a part of what. What is inherently a part of the gospel?

Well, I'm not that when you're talking.

Well, hmm.

I.

Guess if what if what's being said is that a Christian. Really.

Hmm.

Is there a danger of compromise if one does not bring the Word of God to bear against? That which is a violation of God's law that which is sinful. Yes. And so the minor prophets for example raise that very issue and and talk about that very thing and and the need for Justice to be done within society and things like that.

Does that mean that a a person living under a totalitarian regime? must of necessity Forfeit his or her freedom. By going out and speaking about the very things that the government says they can go out and they cannot go out and speak against in regards to social issues or is the only thing that really is central to The gospel proclamation the proclamation of the gospel.

Well, I don't see any evidence that the Apostles got themselves Arrested in in the Roman Empire for protesting the abandonment of babies. I'm sure they the history tells us that they did something about it.

They'd go out and get them. They'd go out and rescue them. But as far as actually ending up You know making the decision as to as to fulfilling that Acts 5 passage whether is more important to obey God or man you decide as for us.

We're gonna obey God. It's obeying God about the proclamation of the gospel. I would have a hard time Extending that beyond that by saying there is a mandate that a person has to you know Stay outside the the abortion clinic.

I've done that. I'm not saying there's something wrong with that. But but you know, I think there is a consistency between the two. But I also think there's a recognition that when living under a totalitarian regime.

And I would certainly say that in some aspects of things the Roman Empire was quite totalitarian in the way it dealt with things for example in Palestine or something like that or there are Places today where Christians have to have to make a choice as to where they are going to you know what they're going to suffer for and I would say the the thing that we are called to suffer for is is the gospel obviously within the teaching of the church and things like that you have to apply the the whole realm of the law of God and I think if if the government were to come into a church And given my upcoming debate subject here if the government were to come into the church and say you have to do you have you must recognize gay marriage.

You have to you have to say this is a valid marriage. That's a place we say can't do it. It's your authority versus Jesus Christ. You are forcing me to Reject the authority of Jesus Christ not a possibility so, you know, what does that lead to well good question, but Those are some of the things I think that we're that we're facing.

I'm not mentioning the Bible in this. I think all that right. We weren't just religious people that were a religious percent, right? Right, I think that that's what I got from it. Why we couldn't Use from a Christian platform.

Well rather just from a moral and a scientific platform and and I would say that.

That there is no moral or scientific platform that exists separately from the revelation of God in Scripture. There is there is no meaningful Christian worldview that you can build outside of that scriptural foundation.

That is a point that I'm gonna have to make. Even though I only have a 15-minute opening statement that there is no neutrality when it comes these things this is a clash of worldviews. One is a worldview of life and one is a worldview of death and.

That's the same an abortion or gay marriage there that's the exact same issue. That's there. Hey Pierre got a run for the break. Thank you very much your call. God bless. Eight seven seven seven five three, three, three, four one.

We're gonna take our break and be right back right after this.

Catholic Answers Clips on Calvinism and Predestination

Pilgrims progress is not an easy way. It's a journey to the Sun.

More than any time in the past Roman Catholics and evangelicals are working together. They are standing shoulder-to-shoulder against social evils they are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements and Many evangelicals are finding the history tradition and grandeur of the Roman Catholic Church appealing.

This newfound rapport has caused many evangelical leaders and laypeople to question the age-old disagreements that have divided Protestants and Catholics. Aren't we all saying the same thing in a different language?

James White's book the Roman Catholic controversy is an absorbing look at current views of tradition in Scripture the papacy the mass purgatorian indulgences and Marian doctrine. James White points out the crucial differences that remain regarding the Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself.

They cannot be ignored. Order your copy of the Roman Catholic controversy by going to our website at a omen org. The Trinity is a basic teaching of the Christian faith. It defines God's essence and describes how he relates to us.

James White's book the Forgotten Trinity is a concise understandable explanation of what the Trinity is and why it matters. It refutes cultic distortions of God as well as showing how a grasp of the significant teaching leads to renewed worship and deeper understanding of what it means to be a Christian and Amid today's emphasis on the renewing work of the Holy Spirit.

The Forgotten Trinity is a balanced look at all three persons of the Trinity. Dr. John MacArthur senior pastor of Grace Community Church says James White's lucid presentation will help layperson and pastor alike.

Highly recommended. You can order the Forgotten Trinity by going to our website at a omen org.

Under the guise of tolerance modern culture grants alternative lifestyle status to homosexuality. Even more disturbing some within the church attempt to revise and distort Christian teaching on this behavior.

In Their book the same-sex controversy James White and Jeff Neal write for all who want to better understand the Bible's teaching on the subject. Explaining and defending the foundational Bible passages that deal with homosexuality including Genesis Leviticus and Romans.

Expanding on these scriptures. They refute the revisionist arguments including the claim that Christians today need not adhere to the law in a straightforward and loving manner. They appeal to those caught up in a homosexual lifestyle to repent and to return to God's plan for his people.

The same-sex controversy defending and clarifying the Bible's message about homosexuality. Get your copy in the bookstore at a omen org and we'll go back to the dividing line.

Acts 13:48 and the Meaning of Paraphrastic Construction

Let's go ahead and go back to our phones here and talk with Mike. Hi Mike. How you doing? Hey, dr. White. How are you today? Oh doing all right.

All right. Well as many things I'd like to bring up but I'm gonna zero in on one thing in particular here. Obviously keeping with X 1340 and by the way, I appreciated your dialogues there with Steve on that.

And I think it was patently obvious who really did their homework. But I think you've done enough elaborating on that. Anywho, what I wanted to do is put forward to you a perspective from Chapter 10 entitled the saving work of Christ and this is the systematic theology.

Systematic theology textbook from the Assemblies of God. Oh a Pentecostal perspective a.

Pentecostal perspective. Well. You know, there's always an advantage. You know, I've just learned I had to study Greek. If you just get it from the Holy Spirit. Then it's doesn't take nearly as much time.

Well, okay. We'll see where this goes then on that note. Anyway, what I'll do is I'll shorten this thing down a bit, but I'll do it. I'll just read the sentence which precedes the footnote to kind of set the set the basis a little bit.

Anyway, it goes like this. They have here predestination. The bottom side of the coin looks toward human beings and shows the sovereign working out of God's will. Then at least the footnote that says this Acts 13 of 48 says quote when the Gentiles heard this they were glad and honored the word of the Lord and All who were appointed for eternal life believed.

This verse makes a strong statement about some being appointed to eternal life. Although it does not state it God did the appointing. Those of us who are none of a strong Calvinistic I'm sorry a strong Calvinist persuasion must not weaken the statement to make it more cordial to our theological position a couple of things could be said.

Luke gives no basis for the appointing but perhaps it is similar to Luke and ideas elsewhere to see Christ's death and resurrection as the result of God's purpose and for knowledge acts 2 and 23 then to the possibility exists that the Greek that the verb and The Greek to tag him annoy.

I think that's how you say it from Tasso could be middle-voiced and not passive. In Acts 13 of 46 Paul says to the Jews and this is me and this is from the NIV. Since you do not consider yourselves worthy worthy of eternal life.

We now turn to the Gentiles end quote. They did not put themselves into a position that brought them eternal life. The verb Tasso basically means to place or station in a fixed if this were middle. It could then be translated.

They believed ie Those who placed themselves in a position to receive eternal life the Jews refused to the Gentiles did in reference to acts 13 and 48 Art and Gingrich say about this verb as a passive that conveys the idea of quote belong to.

Be classed among those possessing end quote that comes close to the idea of the middle voice. And that's the footnote on that. I want to share that with you see what you future thought on that. Well again.

The the key thing that I listen for when I read any of this and when I saw some people attempting on Steve Gregg's forum to Say, oh, you know, there's just so much confusion about this Ted talk Minnoy is In a paraphrastic construction.

It says ha soy a son Ted talk Minnoy ice is a Wayne Ionion as Many as were what well if you take Tasso and you start discussing that that word by itself without Recognizing that there is a verb in front of it and that therefore this becomes a unit.

You cannot break up. It is it is a phrase that has a particular meaning in and of itself. This is called a ploop perfect Translation it's the imperfect form of I me plus the perfect participle. You can't break it up.

And when I read shank when I hear this I hear all this and they're all borrowing from each other. But it amazes me that that no one sees this and recognizes. Well, you know everything that I'm doing here looking at, you know running over to first Corinthians 16 15 running up to 1346 in both of those places you have what's called a reflexive pronoun right there.

That's where the middle concept comes from is the fact there's a reflexive pronoun. There is no reflexive pronoun in Acts 13 1448 and so when when you know to me it should be really obvious To someone that when you have to render a verse differently than all Committee translated translations that might be something to you know, put up a red flag and go you're missing something here.

What are you missing? Well the committee translated translations know enough about Greek to recognize Paraphrastic construction the singular ones don't the ones done by one particular individual. You don't have that committee to come up and say hey, what were you getting this stuff?

You need to let the text say what it says. So That's what I was listening for was instead of Trying to play around with TASO. Are they going to say now this is a paraphrastic instruction. It has the blue perfect concept to it and then deal with it as the text would deal with it and they didn't.

Yeah, so once again, you've got another one of those situations where you just go well At least they were honest enough to recognize the role of their of tradition. But they didn't go far enough to actually then filter it out.

Yeah, I just thought that might be a bit interesting sort of went because of this whole thing as of late with Steve Gregg.

Yeah, well, there you go. I guess everybody in the listening audience certainly knows what a paraphrastic instruction now is. We got a good tutorial on there you go.

Right quick I said since you probably a couple weeks ago a little package on some materials From that EMOM that I have been dealing with dealing. Yes. Uh-huh. Yeah, sure if you got that. Yes, I did. I don't thank you very much.