Chapter 4 of "Love Wins"

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 -3341. And now with today's topic here is James White. And good afternoon. Welcome to a Wednesday dividing line.

We had technical difficulties yesterday cannot promise. We will not have them today, but we've had the feed up for I don't know number of hours. It has remained steady. No dropouts hopefully, hopefully we discovered the problem and Hopefully it has been fixed, but you know how.

The internet is and connections can be and can work fine for six months and then for a month. It's crazy and it works fine for six months again, you know. Not we haven't perfected things, you know, we're it's a lot better than it used to be.

Remember the first cell phones. Drive drive two blocks dropped call. You had to sort of go back around find that cell you're in. Oh that one works. Okay, I can stay here, you know. That's the way things were but improve over time and We're happy for for that.

We have a number of phone calls already. I've had something I needed to get to today, but we'll try to get through some of them And see what we can do with that. None of them. Let me check the names here.

No, no, no, no, the names are Start with Peter with that. I am Peter or anything else and I didn't expect Peter Lemkins to call in. Because he will not face me. He knows better because he knows his arguments are so vacuous so empty That upon any type of cross-examination, they would collapse specifically.

He will not reveal the name of his quote-unquote source. Now remember this is a man. We've we've already documented via video of His dishonesty where he would change my words. You can hear me saying the words that he's editing him fading the Volume out and puts putting different words on the screen and I mean, you know that that level of dishonesty is it's it's still there.

You can go back and look at it. It's right there and we've seen the childishness of the videos He produces and insulting people and stuff like that. It's just that's just the way he is that's that's that's old lumpy, but what he's doing now is he's running around and and He just want one of two problems either he cannot hear what's being said to him or he just refuses to hear what's being said in one to two and For example on the last program.

I mentioned that last year. I had written to my immediate superiors and They had told me we've heard nothing from Mill Valley. No problem at all. It's not not an issue and he that that in waiting in one ear out the other because he figures that if if I Was like him I Would have been trumpeting in from the mountaintops and like that that's the difference is that the Peter Lumpkins acts on a level about a 12 year old and I try not to do that as often as is humanly possible we do that sometimes in channel, but and Rich and I have been known to have an occasional about semi-annual rubber band fight in the office.

But but this seems to be an everyday thing For old Pete and now his now his new thing is That allegedly I'm claiming to be right now teaching a class or Golden Gate. Has anyone heard me ever say that?

Yeah, let's be clear here and the word president presently He's putting that in brackets or like the Jehovah's Witnesses put other in brackets and Colossians one same thing, right? So and he's he's dredging up that old Christianity today.

Yeah, yeah, which if you go and follow his links That phrase isn't there anymore. Oh, that's interesting. Well, that's nice. Again this type of argumentation is only only works on people who have No capability of following line of argument whatsoever.

Everybody can see what I've taught at Golden Gate and if these folks succeed in just making such a stink of themselves That I never get to teach there again. Well, I feel very badly about that. But the fact the matter is my students have enjoyed the classes.

I think there's one student in In in our chat channel right now that wrote an article about the class he took with me last January and Felt that it was well worth his while and was useful to him and I could direct you to other people who are in doctoral programs today and they will tell you that that one at one of the factors in their Pursuing that level of education was their time with me as their professor teaching.

Well, the list is long systematic theology Christology Christian philosophy of religion Greek Greek exegesis Hebrew Hebrew exegesis Islam apologetics Introduction to patristic theology and There is no question.

There is no question Peter Lemkins knows this. That's why he would never call this program. He lacks the intestinal fortitude to do so there's no question and all those classes were taught and Were completed successfully and the students were benefited thereby and I'd like to have that opportunity in the future.

And I just lay it out to the to the audience. What kind of a man what kind of a mindset is it a man who will support an arrogant canner? Where we have video evidence we have legal documentation demonstrating that his entire story was bogus and then we also have legal documentation and Video evidence that everything I've claimed about myself about the debates that I've done when I say I've debated Shabir Ali.

You can contact Shabir Ali and he can verify that for you. And you can go on YouTube and you can watch the debates and their debates of Peter Lemkins which I would hope never try to engage because he would he would be wiped out in them, but and Yet this man wants to make sure that the person who actually engages the Muslims Doesn't get to pass on that that knowledge to students, but the guy who made up his whole life as Being this, you know Jihadi dude in Turkey.

Well, we we need to defend him the twistedness of the mind of Peter Lemkins. Just a warning to those of you might have anything to do with the man. Just just keep that just keep that in mind. Okay, did was there something you wish to add to that sir?

Well, I would like to raise that just a little bit further and that is that in in everything I've read up there I just see one common theme and that is a vehement attempt to poison the well in Retaliation.

Oh, it's just plain and simple. That's all he's trying to poison the well at Golden Gate to see to it. Yeah, that's all and at the same time. I think he's clearly him and Tim Rogers are clearly looking to take a victory lap.

They want that last Confirmation that there's no possible way that you could ever set foot over there come anywhere close to it. And I remember both these are men both these men who could who could never even attempt to criticize the work I've actually done in those fields couldn't even couldn't even try to but that's just the way they are that's that's that's the ugly face of politics and that is the other thing and one of the major reasons why I Left the Southern Baptist Convention and that is it became very clear back in the late 80s early 90s.

They're that the organization was more interested in in its personal or functional politics Than actually so, you know wrapping its mind and its heart around the scriptures. Well, there are still many faithful men and women there and they're good folks and Just I just remind you just just take the time to look at Peter Lumpkins video where he attacked both turret and fan and Tom Askell and That gives you Lumpkins represents the worst of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Let's let's make sure that that's very clearly seen he represents the worst of the convention and. But hey, whenever you have a large body of folks you're gonna get people that are going to try to cause divisions and and things like that and don't don't really aren't concerned about truth and That's that's Peter Lumpkins.

So anyways that that done with and you know, of course phone lines are open, but yeah, it's not gonna happen. Because people people who have to edit your videos just to make you say what they would like you to say.

We'll never face you personally. He would never do that. That's just the way it is. All right. Let's move on with important stuff here because I did want to get to something and I'm not sure I'm gonna be able to get to it in this program, but Let's let's try to clear the clear the calls and get to it.

Let's talk with Patrick Patrick.

Dr. Wise what an honor it is to speak to you. Right after you didn't barter him and debate you spoke at every side by the church in South Lake, Texas. I did and you spoke on Islam. I attended that. I was very honored to hear that.

By the way, I have your your case all the way back to your radio debates. Back in the 80s 90s, I don't know you remember but I came up to you after that and to give you a Bible manuscript puzzle. To have that extra paper, you know, you know, yeah, but I.

Do remember that I'm just trying to. Was it something that I was able to take with me or did I say to send it to me or I don't remember. Yeah, I'm trying to remember. I'm trying to remember how that worked.

But I do remember somebody because of the illustration from Rob Bowman. About having a thousand piece puzzle with a thousand and ten pieces or something along those lines.

But anyway, it was very helpful to me and I really appreciate your work on New Testament criticism. But my question today is that I just recently Completed reading a book by Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes called conviction without compromise and it's a book about the essentials and non-essentials of the Christian faith and Dr. White I had a question about something they talked about Christ's bodily In this book on your book the Forgotten Trinity on page 42 and they were talking about how Some skeptics say that the word Trinity is not of the Bible and they quoted you Saying one theologian does wisely ask if I believe everything the Bible says about a topic X and use the term not found in the Bible Describe the full teaching of scripture on that point.

Am I not being more truthful? Than someone who limits themselves to only biblical terms to reject some aspects of God's revelation. So they didn't credit you in this book.

Well, I I don't know that but certainly I have Spoken at numerous conferences with Ron. So who knows?

Anyway, it is trying to be Christ saving Christ humanity Human depravity Christ virgin birth by some of sense Christ atoning death the resurrection and the necessity of grace and faith. Here's a question I have.

And the following. And God exalted Christ to his own right hand. It's Prince and Savior that he might get repented. I've not read the book. So I.

Can only comment on the the general? Question I wouldn't want to say well, I would disagree with them because I haven't read their presentation to how they're ordering things, but Certainly what a concern that I would have in light of the and and Ralph mentioned to me.

He actually he did total up the number of minutes. I've been preaching on Hebrews Via sermon audio and it's twenty three point six five hours or something like fourteen hundred and twenty nine minutes or something like that.

So and I'm right in the middle of of the section of Christ in fact Romans Hebrews 924 is the next text I'll be dealing with where he enters into the heavenly place and I have emphasized very very strongly in that the fact that the high priestly role is not a separate Work from the sacrificial role because the the offering of the sacrifice was only part of what the high priest did he brought the the blood into the holy place and so if Christ is the high priest then it's not like well first he does the sacrifice and then there's a separate work where he does Intercession and he represents us in the throne before the throne of God and stuff like that.

No, that would be a gross misunderstanding the the two go together so if if the book if the argument recognizes that the sacrificial role of Christ is central to justification then in light of the fact that he enters into the holy place having obtained eternal redemption and Then he stands as the lame that the lamb stand having been slaughtered in the presence of the Father that is just as much a part of of our justification as any other of the actions of his would be and Yes, there is the sanctifying element of that in the sense that because he is mediator is in the presence of the Father this then guarantees the the coming of the Spirit and the work of the Spirit in our hearts and Sanctification and holiness and all the rest that stuff.

So there's I think the real problem is even Making the division between justification and sanctification, but that may be again just a you know Divisions but so many things overlap and it would seem to me that the high priestly act of Christ needs to first be emphasized in its relationship to the sacrifice and then then in the application of that in sanctification, but you know It is very very difficult to divide things up in a meaningful way so that you can discuss them in a meaningful way I mean, it's sort of like trying to discuss the order Saludis.

The order Saludis is not a temporal order it's a logical order and many of the elements the order Saludis are contemporaneous with one another temporally, but they're dependent upon one another logically and so It is difficult To to line things out in in such a way as to as to make it very simple shall we say and so maybe that's where the division was made and and I would put it someplace else, but I've certainly emphasized strongly in my preaching through Hebrews the the connectedness there occasion.

Christ high priestly role is A dictation issue. In other words Christ is interceding before the father on our behalf right now for our justification. Would I be correct in saying that?

For our justification it's it the work of Christ is completed and That justification is is based upon The union of the elect with Christ and That then follows that it's not it's not just something that's future.

It is something that is that is a reality now. And the basis of that is the finished work of Christ. So There sounded there almost sounded like a future tense there that that concerned me. I mean there is a future justification in the sense of at the final judgment the the declaration the declarative element before the whole universe, but Paul plainly places our justification the past therefore having been justified by faith.

We have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. So his his Work, and I don't like using the term work, but his presence before the father is Representation is a representation of the finishedness of that work upon which justification is then freely given to those who have faith in Christ.

Okay, dr. Why. Thank you very much. Can I mention one more thing about? Distinction between being in person.

Sure real quick though, okay real quick.

I've really enjoyed your discussion on the Trinity between being in person. Let me throw one more thing and see if you think this is a good article claiming today. But not a person they claim the fetus is biologically human genetically human a distinct member of the species Homo sapiens, but not a person yet.

Would this be a good argument to use when making the distinction between being in person?

Well, that's a completely different issue in the sense that we're not we're not talking about Eternal relationships in the Godhead now now we're talking about a completely different subject. Where they if if they admit that that the the unborn child is is completely human.

Then they are obviously stuck with Dealing with some type of metaphysics as to what makes someone a person and if if they if they will admit To any type of metaphysical foundation now, they're really stuck because they have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt.

This is not a person. Because they're going to kill this person. And if they're if they're naturalistic materialist, they have no grounds for even making this this distinction. Because they've recognized the that since there is no spiritual element you're talking about a distinct unique human being and to kill that human being requires absolute evidence that this this human being has no rights and They they can't even begin to offer that kind of thing.

They Most of the pro-abortionists that I've talked to over the years would not admit the unique Humanity of the unborn child. They just referred to a blob of protoplasm. But I think they're realizing now in light of our greater knowledge of that you know the the videos and so on so forth that exist of development that that just simply doesn't work and They're sort of coming apart the seams at that point.

Okay, Patrick. Thank you very much for calling from, Texas today. Hope you all have a good time down there. Let's Try to keep moving here I'm gonna get to Jeff and Jeff and then I need to get what I was gonna try to cover today and if I can get the phone calls after that I will but I'm gonna do two more real quick and then Gotta get to what I've got prepared here because I'm not gonna get it done if we don't get to him.

So let's talk with Jeff and in Philly. Hi Jeff.

Yes, sir I'm going to see dr. Aaron tomorrow. Okay, hope you're not paying too much to do that. There's a question and answer period and hopefully I get that trying to. I was listening to your last.

Times. Is he speaking. Is he speaking on forged? Yes. Yeah, what else? Okay.

Yes. Yes, that's what that's what he's speaking on and also His speech and the question just to see if there was anything you needed for my.

See this is the problem is You know people will go see these folks and they want like a killer question or something and the problem is Bart Ehrman is a very very smart man, and I Learned a long time ago.

You don't You know like like when Norm Geisler was going to be on the radio station here locally years and years ago. It never crossed my mind to call in and voice an objection or something because the the caller is always that there's a disadvantage at that point and.

To really accomplish something it takes a seer. It takes dialogue. It takes going back and forth and and Bart doesn't do that he Not only will cut a person off, but he argues from authority so quickly.

Well I've been doing this for 35 years you just need to believe what I and we've documented that and That's what the value of my debate with him was. And why do it again? Is that at least I have a period of time where I can lay a foundation and and.

The question therefore has some meaning and so you know It's very very difficult in a single question to for example challenge his constant Utilization of the term Christian to describe well to challenge his whole Assertion that early Christianity was just this complete mishmash of completely different religious ideas all going under one rubric.

But but completely in contradiction one another so well the the angle I was going to go in on his own writing, right?

Well, and I think that is that that is a valid question and that is if you want to put it this way Dr. Ehrman if if all of your books were dug up two thousand years from now and that was all they knew about Bart Ehrman Would it not be the case that via?

Examination of language Syntax word usage it would be proven that you did not write the Orthodox corruption of Scripture in light of establishing Jesus interrupted misquoting Jesus and forged as the real Bart Ehrman or vice versa.

If The Orthodox corruption of Scripture is the real Bart Ehrman then it is a disciple of Bart Ehrman That wrote these other much more common simple books. Yeah, I think you could probably put that into a decent question now whether he's going to Answer that in a meaningful fashion.

I'll be interested in watching but I think that is a good way of putting it because it does at least expose The the primary problem with that kind of analysis and analysis and that is you get to start by determining what the real Paul was all about what the real Paul talked about and you get to say he never would have talked about these other things.

Right, and I think I was going to go down that route because in a question-and-answer period there's not enough time to to go over all the material and I frankly don't know that was part of the reason I was.

Calling was just if you had any recommended resources, not that I'm going to use it tomorrow. But on this topic because I was familiar with the first and second Peter discussion.

Well any any meaningful commentary any critical commentary any conservative critical commentary. Is going to have an extensive discussion at the front of authorship issues, and he just he just skips him.

I mean, it's like He just doesn't even think that what we have to say is even relevant at that point.

I was checking online. Just kind of what the anti-Nicene fathers quoted and it looks like Clement quoted Ephesians and first Peter and not many other epistles. So I was like when those are two of the ones he said aren't yeah.

Obviously you can you can mount a defense but not in a question. It would be nice if you Could find and off the top of my head I'd have to go in my office and look through commentaries to come up with which ones you could look at they would have a discussion of that I might.

My gut feeling is generally what happens in that context is. What these folks do is same thing that Robert Funk did when I debated him on the radio in 1989 and that is you know, I quote my guys well those they're only on the fringe of scholarship and.

So you anybody you quote who's going to be conservative? he's gonna just identify as being on the fringe of scholarship and we'll be able to You know countercite somebody that we would identify as being on the fringe of scholarship.

So You know, I'm not sure. Necessarily, that's the way to go. I think a short succinct well phrased question is is the is the way to go and I think that that's a that's a good one.

I. Yes, just look up the mp3 Podcast. Uh, he's a funny guy, but um. Whatever this venue really kind of it's not so much for the author. But it allows to get interaction with the audience afterwards, right?

A lot of people come up to you. So I it's gonna be 7 30 Eastern Time tomorrow, which is in the middle of your webcast. So I appreciate anyone's.

All right, Jeff. Okay, Jeff. If you could drop us a line with the URL once the video is up, it'd be interesting to watch. Although there's a contact there's a contact link on the on the website. All right.

All righty. All right. Okay. Thanks. Thanks. All right. Let's quit quick get Jeff in here and I need to get to my subject for the day. Hello Jeff in Phoenix.

Tonight good. Thank you for taking my call. Let's talk to you. Here's real quick, you know at our church. We're having a debate this Friday with two really well-known local atheists. One of them was on the cover of the New Times out here dressed like Jesus using the Cross like a machine gun and they're really militant kind of atheists.

They go to Mill Avenue to preach preach atheism. And so it's a full event and my partner and I vocab is a local radio station also host out here. We're both.

Yeah, I met him at At the when I when Michael Brown and I did the debate on the Jewish voice broadcast. Yeah, we're both there.

We love love that. We recommend that to all the time, you know, actually with that said, you know. Our church is gonna start thinking you're paying us for advertising because every time I do a Bible study we're using your book.

Background stuff so I just wanted to ask you we're approaching them with biblical apologetic reformed and we're presuppositional. So but we do want to be able to answer some common challenges that they're kind of known for throwing out and just one of The questions I wanted to hear you talk about was and the birth narrative Jesus not the genealogy.

But the birth narrative from Matthew to Luke. Matthew described, you know. They're there and then you know, Herod wants to kill him and then they flee to Egypt and then go to Nazareth. But Luke says they go to Jerusalem to perform all these things and then they go to now.

What's it? What's a good way to put that together? It's funny. Can I hear you talk about that?

Well, I would I would need to spend some time on that to be honest with you Jeff. We there was a fellow that was I forget I don't know about a year ago. There was a guy that was saying he was gonna call in and I I put together a bunch of resources I kept bringing him in for a couple weeks and he never called so I don't have him in here and and I would have To go back over that it would it would be a whole program just to even start on something like that okay, and so I really can't do that, but my but my I know that a couple of the resources that I put together and looked at for that is Carson's work on on Matthew and Then I think it's Daryl box to volume on Luke.

The first volume of his very large Luke commentary has an extensive discussion of those issues and You know, you're talking many many many pages. Part of which is just simply an overview of the various positions that have been taken.

But that's that's the important part is getting the background information. So That's much more in-depth. I mean, obviously you can get a Summary in such books as Gleason Archer's, but if you want the the deeper Documentary stuff then my recollection is that the big and I forget how many Thousands of pages the the Luke commentary is by by Bach.

It's just massive, but There was a pretty extensive discussion of the subject in there. Right, right, it's I it's a I don't even remember the commentary series. It's in the other room. I'd have to go get it, but Two-volume commentary on Luke and then as I recall Carson likewise addressed it in his older Matthew commentaries.

So when you get Bach and Carson going at the same subject, you're going to get plenty of reading To get under your belt at that point and if I recall correctly, there was actually even an outline in Bach of Various positions so that that probably gets you Unless the debate is specifically on the subject.

It's yeah, it's Baker exegetical.

Not we're just we're we're sticking to the important issues. I mean that the topic of the debate is which makes more sense Christianity or atheism, which I'm surprised they agreed to do that. But so we're approaching them in the proper way in the biblical way.

But we wanted to be able to respond to doing 10-minute cross-examination twice. And if they bring something like that, I just wanted to make sure that I gave a faithful response. Yeah, and all the while acknowledging.

Okay, let's let's acknowledge now that you're not reasoning for within a Christian worldview. You're standing on our platform, you know, assuming uniformity all those right, but I want to make sure I was faithful and respond.

I Really appreciate all you do. Well, thank you very much. And like I said.

My recollection is that the the discussion is fairly extensive and it's it is mixed in there. I think there's two parts of it and Lots of good stuff and we need to do a program or two on that sometime.

Like I said, I dragged all that stuff in here for a while because I forget now what the context was somebody Some atheist or something contacted us. They were calling and discussing blah blah blah and I should have just gone ahead and done it.

But but it didn't so anyways, I appreciate it. We'll pray for the debate and Hope everything goes. Well be interested in seeing how it goes. Thanks Jeff. All right. So many things I would like to do. And that would be one of them I would like to spend the rest of the program and and Might have to put lunch off for five or six minutes if I need to rich is protesting that.

You do have a French background, don't you? So Working hours are very very important for Anyway. It was only about a month ago I forgot to go and look at the specific times, but it's only about a month ago that the brouhaha over Rob Bell began and Isn't it interesting that for many people?

It's already a move a long time. It's nothing left to see here. The thing with canner has struck me in that way now. It's sort of like, oh, okay. We got Al Mohler to talk about it and we got Piper to talk about it.

And we've we've gotten some of the gatekeepers to speak on the subject so we can move on and Don't get me wrong. I I'm not overly excited about talking about Rob Bell but I Am concerned that the issues that he raised can be addressed in a very surface level manner and they just shouldn't be and We do have a Younger generation to think about that whether we accept what they find to be Good communication or not.

We can even look down on it Doesn't change the fact that if that gets their their ears. Then we need to be concerned and I just want to say to anyone who said I just don't I don't want to think about anymore.

Here's the people who can Safely say that if you feel that you can give a meaningful Biblical clear cogent defense of Why God must punish sin and why the wrath of God is important for us to understand?

Then you can move on because that's what this book really is all about. The God being presented by Rob Bell who he said he claims to be absolutely Orthodox. That God's holiness and wrath is gone. It's not expressed or if it is expressed it's it's it's so redefined That we can't understand.

So I want you to I want you to listen. I'm gonna read a whole section here. The most important part of this book is chapter 4. Right before it is where you get into some important stuff this first part I just wanted to address because people had asked me about and so I need to address it.

Page 90. Actually, you know what, let me double-check that I've got that I've actually got the paper version here and I'm looking at At my Kindle because it's easier to read page 90 getting there. No, look at that.

Well, that's wonderful. It tells me it's page 90 of 198. But it's not page 90 of 198. It's actually page 91 somewhere around there. Mm-hmm. Kendall needs to work a little bit on that. We see the same impulse in the story Jesus tells in Matthew 25 about sheep and goats being judged and separated.

The sheep are sent to one place while the goats go to another Place because of their failure to see Jesus in the hungry and thirsty and naked. Let me stop right there. I they are goats. That's not why they're goats.

Rob Bell misses it all the time. He always misrepresents why people are sent to hell. It's never about the ruptured relationship and the holiness of God and the sinfulness of man. No, no, no, it's it's it's because of their failure to see Jesus in the hungry and thirsty and naked.

No, you see when a person's been changed they see Jesus in those places, but that's not why they're sent. He misses it. The goats are sent in the Greek language to an ion of Collazzo. Now, I'm not the first one to criticize Rob Bell's Greek.

Rob Bell went to Fuller Seminary. I had a great Greek education at Fuller Seminary, but that was because I had my own Greek professor from Grand Canyon University. That was one of the advantages of being in an extension seminary.

Extensions are almost always more conservative than the main campus. Thanks be. So I had a great Greek education four years Fuller three years before that in my undergrad seven years total and The goats are sent in the Greek language to an ion of Collazzo isn't even close.

Not even close. Ion we know has several meanings one is age or period of time another refers to intensity of experience. This is one of the things that drives me crazy about Rob Bell is he makes these assertions and there's never a footnote.

There's never a reference. You just have to believe him. I find that extremely disrespectful to your readers. I really do and I'm an author so I can say that It is extremely disrespectful to your readers to do that I think rich can confirm.

I don't know if you were watching the cameras last night, but My Arabic tutor was over last evening. I was here late and my Arabic tutor was here and you know what we did. We spent almost the entire time Looking at some commentaries that I have some Tafsir literature.

That's only available in Arabic. It hasn't been translated in English. Because I'm writing a book the book is about the Quran and I want to accurately represent what the early Tafsir literature said about the specific text that I'm addressing and So I asked my Arabic tutor.

I said look. Here's a list but I want to start here. I want to start with Surat Al-Fatihah and I'd listened to a debate recently. I said, you know, I'd be really interested in what a Tabri and This other source that I have says.

About the very end of Surat Al-Fatihah, which every Muslim repeats every time they pray basically. And so we spent the whole time looking at Arabic sources in regards to the earliest interpretation of those texts and.

So when I mentioned that in the book, there's gonna be a footnote or an end note. I'm not sure what Bethany's gonna want to do on that point. I I like footnotes. I know but Bethany likes end notes. So, you know doesn't kill you to have your finger stuck in the back and look things up.

But there's gonna be a reference. I'm not just gonna tell you well, you know Early Muslims taught that it was Christians and Jews that are being referred to at the end of Surat Al-Fatihah. When it talks about those who have earned Allah's wrath as Jews those who have gone astray but Dalim, those are the Christians.

And I can prove that and there's no question about that, but but I'm not just gonna tell you that I'm gonna give you a Footnote because I respect my readers. Rob Bell doesn't seemingly respect his readers because he makes these claims.

But he never footnotes anything doesn't have to back anything up. It bugs me and I think it should bug you, too. Anyways, the word collado is a term from horticulture refers to the pruning and trimming of the branches of a plant so can flourish.

Well, once again, he could put a footnote here and the footnote would be to da Carson's Book on exit common exegetical errors because this is one of them he lists. What one of the best classes I had it was right toward the.

Was this part of my? Seminary or undergraduate, I don't know somewhere along that line. My Greek professor assigned Moises Silva's book biblical words in their meaning that names changed, but that was what it was originally called.

That was one of the most important books ever read. Because it pointed out this kind of semantic lexical error that Rob Bell is made. Colossus did have that meaning just like television once meant far-seeing.

That's what television means. It's two word tella and vision far-seeing seeing from afar. But nobody who uses the word television today. Has that as its meaning in their mind. So it'd be absurd to make that type of argumentation.