LGBTQ Tweets, Ehrman Dividing Mark and John, Open Phones

And greetings, welcome to the dividing line. We have a cold front coming through Phoenix right now, and it's probably the last time till that I can wear

You know, I was sitting here saying it's the last time I'm gonna be able to wear a Coogee and I look to my right What do

I see but Rich the window? Clapping wildly. Yeah, I mean, you know people know that that this makes me happy, but does he care?

You all don't see what we endure here the the the persecution the the you know

Instead I just get told that I'm I'm the mean one. I That's I tell you

I tell you but yeah, it's not even gonna make 70 today So, you know here in Phoenix anything in the 60s, you can actually justify wearing a sweater for so Probably be our last shot and so we'll we'll or as you all say in other places the world wearing a jumper today or a woolly

Make sure to put on your woolly Strange anyways, yes, we will try to get to the phones.

Eventually. We have a couple things get to I I Found it interesting this morning

I Received an email an email a tweet from Cheryl Lyle And it says nine hours ago

And what's interesting is? She specifically followed me to tweet this message.

So you you see I see on my screen the follow notification Immediately followed by the tweet

Addressed to me. It says for the sake of multi millions worldwide Would you kindly read

Kathy Baldock's book walking the bridgeless Canyon, thanks and then there is a

Tagging evidently of Kathy Baldock because she's gonna get involved this conversation.

And so I I looked it up Because I found that an unusual request and I asked

I Asked should I expect something other than the regular diet of a historical

Emotion based revisionism that I have read in the dozens of other such in the dozens of other such books

Maybe serious Bible based coherent reasoning and argumentation. I Book I looked it up.

It's on the LGBTQ I Rstuv wxyz stuff and I've read a lot of books on that subject.

I I don't Maybe Michael Brown's read as many as I have.

I'm Interestingly enough. I'm not sure that Bob Gagnon reads as many of those books as I do because He started talking about he was gonna he was examining

Brownson's book and Matthew Vine's book and he says I'm just getting around to reading them. I read them years ago so you know

Bob Gagnon focuses upon, you know, the super high -end scholarly stuff, but I've read

Jewish books on the subject and allegedly Christian books on the subject and I Haven't found a

Muslim book yet, though you know the Psalms of Adi might be able to point me to somebody that's because he monitors a lot of that stuff and A still another fascinating area to me that particular intersection of things.

But anyway, um I've read a lot of these books.

And so I'm like, well, I'm gonna be just reading the same thing I've read before or is there gonna be something new here?

and What's interesting is that there was then

A response from from the author That said

To my question. My book has never been described by a series of descriptors that you've used

Perhaps you should read it and see for yourself Well, what were that?

What was the series of descriptors that that I I used? a

Pre -historical emotion -based revisionism. That was one series and then the other was serious

Bible based coherent reasoning and argumentation What's the other one? Well, so none of those have been used.

I I I don't know So I respond to that by saying okay I've read at least two dozen pro LGBTQ books from Vines to Lee to Brownson to Michelson to Octomire and there was lots of others

Found them all presupposition Lee and found a foundationally flawed. How is yours different? and The response

I got Was Perhaps do as I do when

I want to know if a book has integrity and research and content. I Read the reviews on Amazon.

Oh I'm sorry My response was well, that is the last place

I look for meaningful information I assure you marketing is not my interest just asking what makes it any different than all the other revisionist material

I have already examined. I'm sorry, but I see the reviews on my own books and I know that half these people didn't even read the book

I've had I mean you can just you just know these certain people. I mean sometimes in the review

They'll say I won't read the book. So so Amazon reviews last thing

I would ever look at along those lines. And so I found that strange and So Cheryl Lyle who started all of this and clearly wanted to get this conversation going

Popped in and said Kathy speaks truth Thank you so much for your research and passion for truth for the multi millions worldwide who were born as LGBT Only the fundamentalists choose literal translations instead of contextual truth the

Bible is copies times copies times copies Now, what does that mean?

I mean, there's really no Rational meaning to that. What do you mean the fundamentals choose literal translations?

Are you talking about the new American Standard versus the NIV? What what do you mean literal translations?

I don't think Cheryl has any clue what she's talking about And then she said the

Bible is copies times copies. It's actually copies of copies of that's the Bart Ehrman thing

To which I responded briefly whenever I see someone parroting the copies times copies times copies line

I know they have yet to even begin to hunger for truth Because and then her response is see

James you just can't accept truth I feel terrible for you and anyone who listens to you. Bye. She started this and I'm just Responding back going.

Do you have anything meaningful to argue here? elsewhere she included a

Yeah, okay she quoted me I'm looking at her tweets now. I Also mentioned in response to her a

Bible scholarhood because she mentioned something about Yeah, here we go. And by the way, I am desperately hungering for truth

And that's why I even began this thread, but I know I will never find it with you I have high reputable

Bible scholars. I am in dialogue with who don't think they have the truth like you do

Just think about that one for just a second Okay to which I responded a Bible scholar who doesn't believe the

Bible is what Jesus taught Can only bring you confusion and disappointment your statement about copies is of course false and verifiably so doesn't that concern you and Her response to that was fundamentalism and literalist.

Oh good. I am out of this conversation. Well Yes, goodbye you are the weakest link so I just found

That whole thing rather interesting if it was a marketing ploy It did work work as far as I did pick the book up on audible and I got through the first three chapters on on my ride today

I Get the feeling that anything related to The Christian faith is just gonna be tacked on at the end because so far there's been nothing about Christian worldview or anything the introduction

You know sort of gave an idea of what's going on here And what's happened in in this person's life, but you know so far.

It's just been a very very one -sided history of Psychiatry and psychoanalysis and you know stuff like that and so well

Something tells me it's gonna be just a recooked version of vines or Lee or whoever once we finally get to a few

Bible sections a little bit later on so we'll we'll see anyway, let's get back to part of our work here, and then we'll we'll open the phones a little bit later on and Get to that we're trying something new today

Yes, indeed. I I was actually the whole reason I've stumbled into these he says as he drops on the floor the whole reason

It's so small The only reason and you know what that's this has larger thing of a

Bobby's in the package doesn't it They're not in here there. There must be stay must be someplace else

Oh up there Definitely gonna need the larger ones. This is this is for a little teeny teeny tiny little ones

It is our bobbles around anyway. I was looking for a Bluetooth range extender for some reason even my

MacBook Even though it's less than 10 feet away there's something about my window the the sliding glass door and the outside wall there

I Can't Bluetooth anything out there on in the gym when I'm working out.

It just it just won't get through it so I was looking for a range extender and Stumbled on to this

I started reading about latency stuff because look folks we've been using a 1980s vintage earbud

You know hard wired in for me to be able to hear what's being played and talk to people on the phone and stuff like that and it's like So, I don't remember how long ago it was year and a half or so ago.

I said, let's say let's use Bluetooth, man I'm tired of this, you know, this wire gets in the way. It looks dumb. Well, there's this thing called latency

How long it takes for the thing to process and get it into your ear and so I'd say something and you know

Over a second second a half sometimes two seconds later. I'm hearing it and that doesn't work

So I said, you know forget that. Well, I ran across this thing called I forget what it was but low latency stuff so you can watch

TV and listen on Bluetooth and so we just got it today and Yep, I can hear myself and it's very low latency

I can detest just or detect just a little delay, but Certainly not enough to cause any problems.

So we're gonna try and this is how I'll hear the callers, too so We don't know how long the batteries last and we didn't really have a chance to you know

Charge them up all the way. So if they if they die, I left the 1980s technology

Over there just in case we just in case we need it. So but we're going high -tech. We've got it We've got a we've got a

Bluetooth Thing of a Bobby Wobber here. That's that we'll use. Okay now

Let's talk a little bit about I'm gonna deal with one particular assertion and really

Go into depth on this, but I I think this is important. Ah This is a con this is one of Bart Ehrman's normal arguments it's found in the debate let's just go ahead and listen to it and Hear what he presents and I'll pick up the speed just a little bit.

Here we go Let me move to the end of Jesus life his death and resurrection

It is interesting that both the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John tell you exactly the day on which Jesus died

If sometime around the Passover feast when Jews would celebrate the Passover the exodus from Egypt by having a lamb slaughtered in the

Temple on the day of preparation for the Passover you prepare the Passover meal which involves eating a eating eating lamb that night

This the lambs get slaughtered on the day of preparation and that night is when the next day begins in Jewish reckoning

The next night the nights the next day when it gets dark That's when the day begins in Jewish reckoning. So in in all all the

Gospels Jesus died sometime around there somewhere In John's Gospel John is clear Jesus dies on the day that they are preparing to eat the

Passover the day before the Passover meal is eaten Mark's Gospel is also explicit

Jesus dies the day after the Passover meal is eaten You don't need to take my word for it.

Look it up mark chapter 14 verse 12 and then mark chapter 15 verse 25 It's the day after the meal was eaten

John chapter 19 verse 14. It was the day before the meal was eaten. They're explicit both of them

But how could it be both? Now you might say look it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. I mean, you know, he died sometime around there fine

Okay, but it actually matters to John and it matters to mark It matters to John because John is our only gospel that says that Jesus is the

Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world John is the only gospel that says that and he has

Jesus killed exactly when the lambs are being killed To show that he's the

Lamb of God It matters to him when Jesus died and it matters for mark that Jesus died the next day

Because for mark when Jesus gives his last supper, it's a Passover meal So that the

Christian the Lord's Supper is a replacement of the Passover meal It's important to both of them when

Jesus died, but he dies on different days They can't both be right if you're asking are the Gospels accurate?

Well one or both of them had to get it wrong because Jesus didn't didn't get crucified Two different times he got crucified once There are a number of implausible things that you find in the in the gospel accounts of Jesus death the most famous one

Okay, there's there's the presentation okay, and Lycona is gonna roll over on that one go.

Yeah, but it's it's not a big deal But yeah, John definitely has

Jesus crucified on a different day and I'm with ermine If if if John is is doing that that's a serious problem

There's no question about that. And there are lots of theologians who?

Like the idea. I think that yeah, that's what John's doing John's John's emphasizing that Jesus is the

Lamb of God. There's only one problem with that. Um, John never says that Where in the crucifixion accounts?

Do you have anything about and by the way, this is when the lambs were being slaughtered

And the Jesus is slaughtered the same time, you know, that's that's just theologians going

Oh, that would mean that and therefore it must be what he's thinking well,

I Mentioned before that what I'm gonna present to you is not anything new and They're this this answer to this allegation

Has been Around for a long long time Again I forgot to grab it but one of my

Textbooks in college Had in the back an appendix by AT Robertson that went all through this and Does a fine job

Just remember that when it when it comes to this kind of thing in most

Schools today you just You're simply not allowed to give the benefit of the doubt to any type of orthodoxy

If it's been what Christians have believed in the past You can't go there.

You just You're not allowed to do that. You're you are not allowed to Go with anything that would allow the text of Scripture to remain consistent with itself

It Doesn't work you're not allowed to do it now what I'm gonna present to you is a

Meaningful consistent, I've never heard Ehrman even mention it

Even try to interact with it and To be honest with you. I I don't think he ever would because to eat to interact with it is to give it more

Credence or respect than I think he thinks any type of harmonization deserves

So here's and I like I said, I think I first presented this

Particular thing this particular keynote section at the

Jeremiah cry convention in New York a Number of years ago, I don't I don't remember how many years ago now

But you know somebody could look it up and and tell me but it was it was a while while back so Bart Ehrman makes the assertion.

There is a Fundamental Clear Contradiction, it'll come up eventually

Hey There is a fundamental clear contradiction without possible explanation between the synoptics and John as to whether Jesus ate the

Passover and Hence upon which day he was crucified. That is was he crucified on 14 or 15

Nisan Nisan being the Jewish reckoning of the month and you just heard that presentation he chose

Only a few weeks ago to make this one of his primary arguments against The accuracy he's saying this is an inaccuracy that cannot be explained

Merely on the basis of Lycona's arguments about Narrative and Plutarch or anything else this is a

Theologically motivated Inaccuracy in history and from his perspective that means

That's it He wins the debate. Okay, so let's look at the facts the

Passover lamb Was slain on the afternoon of Nisan 14 and Those of you who studied

Jehovah's Witnesses should know that because that's when they have the memorial supper

It is on Nisan 14 the Passover feast This is important the

Passover feast unleavened bread Began that day with the

Passover meal that evening the beginning of Nisan 15 now as Dr.

Ehrman mentioned One of the I think one of the reasons he gets away with this is that Most of us think so much in modern

Western ways of thought that a day begins at midnight Not recognizing in that not only do you have a difference there between the

Romans and the Jews but for the Jewish person the day begins at sunset and this

Throws it makes it confusing enough that you can you can make all sorts of accusations

Against the narratives. So the Passover lamb slain the afternoon of Nisan 14

The Passover feast began that day with the Passover meal that evening the beginning of Nisan 15

So the Passover meal is at the very beginning of the first day because that day changes at sunset

So Nisan 14 ends at sunset Nisan 15 begins

After sunset The synoptics all agree that on the first day of unleavened bread

Jesus sent Peter and John from Bethany to make preparation for eating the

Passover meal So Matthew 26 17 mark 14 12 Luke 22 7 That's the same

Mark in passage that Ehrman made reference to just a few moments ago Now, of course if you actually believe that John wrote

John This is even more significant because You'd have to actually posit the idea that John the

Apostle knows Writing later in history

What's in Matthew Mark and Luke knows they've already recorded these things and he's still willing to change the story that he was involved with Now, of course

Ehrman doesn't believe John the Apostle probably ever existed or if he did

Had nothing to do with the writing of the gospel that is named after him But you would have that that issue

Clearly in the synoptics Jesus ate the normal Passover meal and hence was crucified on Nisan 15

So when you think about it, so you've got the Passover meal and You have the establishment of the

Lord's Supper and then you have the garden This is all in the nighttime You have the betrayal you have the overnight

But this is still all one day remember because the day started at sunset you have the overnight trial

Next morning you have the crucifixion in the afternoon. You have the death and The burial as the Sun's going down.

This is all on Nisan 15 all on Nisan 15 So they're all united with that many scholars including modern and mainly conservative scholars

Have concluded that John has Jesus eat the Passover on Nisan 13

So that he is crucified at the same time as the Passover lamb on Nisan 14

And that's what Ehrman is referring to There are five relevant passages in the gospel of John to examine

Ehrman says that clearly John contradicts the synoptics. Unfortunately this debate

Michael Icona Collapses on that says yep But is this?

So let's look at some of the passages John chapter 13 verses 1 through 3 now before the feast of the

Passover When Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world of the father

Having loved his own who are in the world. He loved them to the end during supper

When the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot Simon's son to betray him

Jesus knowing the father had given all things into his hands and that he had come from God and was going back to God I guess

I Guess I cut it off at that point Okay, there's verses 1 through 3 it is assumed on the basis of this being before the feast the

Passover that this means It was 24 hours before that is 13 Nisan, but this requires us to read feast the

Passover in here. This is the key This requires us to read feast the Passover as referring only

To the initial meal Not to the entire celebration which lasted an entire week

That's what people miss and I think part of the problem here is that we as especially

Western Americans Don't have multi -day holidays

We may talk about the 12 days of Christmas, but who seriously celebrates 12 days of Christmas and So when we think of the feast the

Passover we think of a singular event that one meal which is just the inauguration and opening of The feast the

Passover which lasts for a week Instead the text speaks of Jesus doing things during the supper, which is clearly the normal Passover meal

John John would have to expect his audience to be utterly ignorant of a bunch of stuff that he assumes

They're not ignorant of anywhere else in the gospel For people not to recognize that what's going on with the cup and The disciples reclining and what's this is the

Passover meal? But it's the Passover meal that starts the Passover feast

But John's not trying to say that He's he makes if he's trying to differentiate if he's trying to make this point

He would have had to have said something to differentiate this supper from the supper that everyone would have been

Assuming they're talking about and that is the Passover meal that initiates the celebration

Let's look at John 13 27 Then after he had taken the morsel

Satan entered into him Jesus said to him what you are going to do do quickly Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him some thought that because Judas had the money bag

Jesus was telling him buy it we need for the feast or that he should give something to the poor.

So now it is assumed That the disciples would not have thought

Judas was going to make preparations for the feast If the

Passover meal itself was already over hence, this must be 13 Nisan not 14

But there is no reason to limit the meaning of the feast to the Passover meal only

But to the entire feast of unleavened bread, which makes the statement consistent

With the synoptics and if there is anything that we can say about modern

Modern Schooling and modern way of thought You don't want the statement. You don't want to take the position that makes the the

Bible consistent You're not gonna get published that way You want to take the position that makes the statement as inconsistent as possible then

John 18 28 Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas To the governor's headquarters, it was early morning

They themselves did not enter the governor's headquarters. So they would not be defiled

But could eat the Passover now does

Eat the Passover means simply the Paschal Supper No, the term

Passover is used eight times in John besides this instance and each

Refers to the Passover festival Not simply the supper.

So each time it refers to the week -long festival not just to One portion of that which is the inauguration of the long the longer festival itself

So even when you go back in the Old Testament you see in 2nd Chronicles 30 22 So they ate the food of the festival for how long

Seven days Seven days So here you have biblical examination.

I'm biblical illustration an example of referring to eating the

Passover for seven days so If at any point during that time

The Jewish leaders had engaged in activity that would defile them Then they would have been concerned about this during the whole week not just on Nissan 13

Which is what people want to assume because again, they forget that the Passover is a week long Since this comment is made early in the morning

So when that when the the Jewish leaders make that comment about not wanting to file themselves

That's made early in the morning this must mean the festival and Not merely the supper which has already passed as Any impurities would pass away at sundown?

So in other words if the idea was this is Nissan 13 The impurities are done by sundown so they could eat that evening if they wanted to so they're talking about the festival

Well, there would have been activities during the day that day that they would not be able to participate in until that evening

So it can't be The Simply the supper and the whole idea falls apart as you examine it in this way.

Let's look at John 19 14 Now it was the day of preparation of the

Passover It was about the sixth hour he said to the Jews behold your king now here's again, this is

We've we've talked about this in the past In regards to the three days three nights issue a

Number of times but we always have new listeners. We always have new viewers. And so We've addressed many times the question what day of the week was

Jesus crucified on Because if you've got the the prophecy three days three nights we hear that very literalistically

And go that means it needs to be, you know 72 hours not not with a smidge of difference which

Again is is not what any of the original writers would have been intending in the first place and When we see preparation of the

Passover we see the word preparation and We go oh

That's The day that you prepare all the stuff for the Passover. So it's the Passover's next day. So it's

Nissan 13 again But this is the problem the

Very word there is no word Friday. I mean obviously in English Friday would not have existed at that time and Each culture had different names for their days

And especially under the Romans this led to you know the necessity to adopt sort of a

Almost secular or at least you know you had if you're a Jewish person and you're using your days of the week

You still have to be able to communicate with people around you if you're doing business with them, whatever else it might be You have to be able to say

I need delivery of such -and -such on such -and -such day and you have to use terminology They're gonna understand but the term for Friday in Greek To this day para skew a to this day

Is preparation That's the name for the day to this day even in modern

Greek It's preparation day. And so that throws us all over the place.

It's actually nice nice accurate thing but we read into it what they would never have read into it and That is we see we hear preparation of the

Passover. That means the the day Before the

Passover where you prepare things the Passover whenever that might fall. No, that's not how they would have understood it

It's the Friday of Passover week It's Friday and All the

Gospels are accurately united in saying Jesus died on preparation day

Friday, I mean, it's just That's the day for Friday I Mean if we if we wanted to avoid the confusion at this point

Instead of using the term preparation We'd go ahead and render it in modern language the

Friday of the Passover week Because that's how clear it is in Greek and how clear that would have been to the original audiences and this is really just a place where cultural usage language translation

Throws us a curve and we get all confused and go what day was it? What?

Hey, yeah, you know that type of thing So this says

It was about the sixth hour and The he said of the Jews behold your

King preparation goes Friday. That is Friday the Passover week and The other thing is here sixth hour sixth hour in whose reckoning

It does seem that the synoptic Gospels use Jewish reckoning and John writing in a much later period uses

Roman reckoning Because then you know, there's the allegation that they have him Jesus dying at different times, you know,

I didn't check into this I'm not sure how I would it would take forever, but I don't recall

Ermine raising the issue of the time of Jesus's crucifixion. Maybe he recognizes that That's not actually a valid argument in light of Jewish and Roman means of Telling time that they actually do say the same thing as long as you just recognize who's using what

I'm not sure So John 1931 since it was the day of preparation

And by the way, we'll go ahead and open the phones Because that'll be the next thing on the list would be your phone calls since it was

I'm sorry. Oh You're already answering one. Oh But people just don't have it memorized eight seven seven seven five three three three four one eight seven seven seven five three three three four one

That is toll -free. I believe is it not? Yes, it is eight seven seven seven five three three three four

Since it was the day of preparation so in other words since it was Friday and So the bodies would not remain on the cross on the

Sabbath that Sabbath was a high day because it was the Sabbath of the

Passover festival The Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and they might be taken away

So every day of the festival was a high day Including the

Sabbath of the festival because it's gonna be a week long There's got to be a Sabbath in there. So it's gonna be a high a high

Sabbath This does not mean the first day of the festival Coincide with the

Sabbath which would be altering the timeline so When you look at John when you listen to what

John says When you allow for the

Feast of the Passover to be a week -long and not merely the supper that inaugurates it

We see that John is in harmony with the synoptics on this matter We see no evidence whatsoever that John is attempting to change things to make some type of theological point

And It really makes me wonder be perfectly honest with you at The people who go.

Yeah. Yeah sounds that man that sounds about right Yeah, John must just make a theological point. We can let him have a theological but no problem

It really makes me wonder have they ever Listened to this have they ever noted this stuff?

I Can't assume it given the the Focus of theological education in seminaries today this wouldn't be a part of that focus and Even back in the 80s at Fuller this this just simply wouldn't have even been presented as an option really wouldn't have so there's now

I spent 20 minutes on that Could we drop the drop that screen out of there rich appreciate that so I can get my computer back

All right Let me look here I would say

Ermin Two minutes and 39 seconds.

I love audio note -taker great program. There's a section we played. I'm pretty certain I'm Played around there, but about two minutes and 39 seconds in length.

I Spent more than 20 minutes Responding to it

Fairly Honestly And in -depth

You can't do that in a debate. You can't do that in debate. I understand that I understand that That's why debates always have to be a starting place.

And that's why from my perspective One of the things I'm doing in a debate is

I'm I'm trying to make sure that if someone does sit down and Do the work that's necessary to really get meaningful benefit out of a debate and Check things out

They'll find out that what I said does check out. I Can't worry myself about people who aren't gonna do that and I have their minds made up or are primarily influenced by emotion and by the visual and stuff like that If I was overly concerned about the visual

I wouldn't be wearing my coogee today So And rich is agreeing

Two lines open at eight seven seven seven five three three three four one is the number and so With that we're gonna be testing out.

There's just a little delay I can get used to it, but it actually slows me down a little bit. I don't talk as fast when that's happening

So let's go to the phones. Hope this works and Talk with Bryson.

Hi Bryson Hey, what's going on? How are you? I just want to I'm doing well,

I just want to ask you for Recommended books on the resurrection of Jesus because I know that you're not as Happy to recommend

Mike Lacona and he has a big volume on it and maybe guys like William Lane Craig So what would be some books that you'd recommend on the resurrection?

I'm not real good as a Bibliographical resource that's not my thing.

I don't keep track of Things like that most of the stuff that I've read have been articles and things like that What you got to do, even if you disagree with someone like Mike Lacona That doesn't mean that the bibliography

Footnotes things like that are not useful A work of that extensiveness that size you're gonna find in the bibliography and in the reference notes a goldmine of information and Unless he's extremely selective in the sources.

He uses it's gonna cover a pretty wide range So I off the top of my head

Don't know of just simply books just on that topic that would take any different perspectives

I mean, I'm sure there are some more Conservative ones, especially when it comes to that issue of the zombies.

I just hate that that's just a horrible way of describing it, but Issues like that, but I'm not saying to people don't read like Kona's book on that subject just you have to read anything by anybody with discernment and You know,

I certainly learned in seminary You can read stuff that you disagree with and learn a lot from it as long as you read it in a discerning fashion that's what's gotten me into trouble a lot of people is that I'm willing to to do that and It is interesting.

I was already doing that. I was already looking at that camera. Sorry I just I just Automatically and we doing phones.

I just look at that camera and so it was just a second nature to me to Use Resources I disagree with get positive out of it and throw those stuff out.

That's based upon bad theological Presuppositions, so sorry. I'd off the top of my head.

It's not I just don't make lists of books in my head

To just be able to whip out so you'll notice on on Twitter. People are constantly asking me

Give me resources on this resources. I skip them because that's not what I do Sorry So a quick second question.

I just want to ask if you were going to be Interested in reviewing bar airmen's newest books as you were talking about him today

And I saw Michael Kruger post the article reviewing it on the gospel coalition. So yeah,

I said it wasn't anything Groundbreaking I I got the audible of it.

I haven't listened to it yet. It's You know Kruger said there really wasn't much to talk about because it was sort of a historical survey

But I may get around to it. I don't know. I don't know All right. Thank you.

Okay. Thanks eight seven seven seven five three three three four one

Let's talk to Brandon. Hello Brandon Hey, how you doing good?

Hey, yeah got a quick question. It may it may be a simple answer. It may be extended one but in your discussion with Steven Anderson With when you all were talking in your dividing line program when you talked about Hebrews Hebrews 8 9 and the

Jeremiah 31 32 and you were talking about the the difference in the

Hebrew texts between the Gaal and the ball and how The septuagint picks up on the variant reading there

I had a question on should we follow and Should should we should we what should we look look to as I?

Guess the correct manuscript tradition. Should we follow like the the the septuagint?

Since the since the author of Hebrews kind of goes that way or Just just kind of a follow -up on on the that into that dividing line

Yeah, I just had a question about that it's Obviously an interesting question

The Reformation answer was the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek but the the problem you face there is just that you have in the

New Testament a recognition of different lines of transmission over time and The Reformers themselves

Did not have the same information that we have today Concerning the state of the text in that day.

I mean until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls the oldest Hebrew manuscripts we had were the

Masoretic text from nine centuries after the time of Jesus and so that sort of Causes a problem and being able to compare those traditions the early church answer was the

Greek septuagint and part of that was because the early break between the synagogue and the church which was a very negative thing in the sense that the knowledge of Hebrew became much less prevalent than it should have been

You have the reality of Only a few people having knowledge of those things and That's you know, that's a problem in and of itself

They didn't know Hebrew. They didn't They weren't able to study it in that way So the early church's answer to that question was you use the the

Greek septuagint. I think The best answer to that question is you you default to the

Hebrew always Looking to the Greek septuagint and always with a recognition that there is

There are places where you have these variations and when those variations come up then you have to see

What the apostolic writers were doing? and There are times when they clearly preferred the the septuagint over the

Hebrew so at that point you got to do what you got to do and They both represent what the

Apostles Had access to at that time and were utilizing and and things like that So I I don't

I'm uncomfortable saying well you only use this When you have more available to you

Yeah, yeah, and I had booked I read Bruce what Bruce had to say about it and that was it was it was

Wasn't very satisfactory I guess and there's in my I've got log off a pretty extensive log us program

And it was there wasn't much on there and I was just I was curious your your your take on that But I appreciate it for sure.

Okay, Nicole. All right. Thank you. Hey, we're gonna try to get you to Knoxville sometime and deal with some of these

King James only Revival issues out here. All right.

Thank you. Thank you Right Let's see here.

Let's go to Elizabeth hello, Elizabeth Pretty good

Actually During the last call there was a static and what's happened is now it's behind because it's trying to catch up But it hasn't caught up yet.

So it's it's it's slowly catching up, but it's more lagged than it was so we'll work on it and where we're putting the transmitter and there's probably a way for me to hit a button and Reconnect it and get rid of all that.

But knowing me I'll hit a button and you'll all be listening to a local rock station or something

Yes, okay after listening to your wonderful Explanation this morning the clarity about barter and then

I've explained time difference when I'm working with people but Matthew 1240 when

I came out of the legalistic Jewish teaching I was

This is what tripped me up many times until I really went into studying it but What has always gotten me about that section is how people misuse it right

Because I was saying oh he couldn't have been three days and three nights in the tomb And it's like the word tomb isn't in there how

How do you explain to people about Matthew 1240?

I addressed this I forget when it was

I I gave sort of a study on What the sign of Jonah was?

the issue of Jonah going into Shaol In Jonah itself where he says he's that's where he's gone and primarily in reference to the

Muslim misuse of this text as an argument against The idea of the death barrel and resurrection of Jesus and things like that, but specifically it sounds like what you're addressing is

How do you get three days and three nights out of Friday to Sunday morning? Is that what you're referring to?

Well, some people have tried to use that on me and I point out that it doesn't say

Tomb it says heart of the earth So it's going back Going back and studying what really is the heart of the earth and Am I correct in that the heart of the earth is?

the confines of Jerusalem Hmm. I had never heard that a

Couple of teachers that that's what I'm asking you because I've heard it different times in different studies, but never from something that you have taught because I've listened to most of your debates

With Muslims and about Islam, so I knew that you had brought that up But I hadn't had never heard anything addressing the heart of the earth.

Yeah Probably because as far as I've always understood it and I think if we looked at the parallel passages in Mark and Luke that would be

Really useful. And in fact, hold on just a second here.

I might be able to do that Yeah, look at that I love accordance

I have it up in King James Darby world and literal

In front of me as well as a few others let me Did he did he why isn't that coming up?

It takes me to Matthew 8 16, which is not what I want Oh, wait a minute the sign for this generation.

There we go See three nights and heart of the earth and You don't really have that in Luke Just as Jonah became a sign of the

Ninevites so the Son of Man be to this generation that's different and Mark is just And a sign will not be given and accept the sign of Jonah.

So you only have that in Matthew and I've never heard that described as Jerusalem and Jesus was more than three days in Jerusalem.

So I'm not sure how that would Follow I've just always understood The Son of Man being three days and three nights the heart of the earth as having the parallel to the other statements in regards to Jonah and the the issue as I understand it is very clearly related to the death on before sons sunset and it's just simply a

Way of describing the time period and the

Jews would not have understood a literalistic 72 hour understand because they didn't even

I mean It was really interesting to me hours in The ancient world were not 60 minutes

They they took the day if it was like 12 hours of daylight

They divided that into 12 that would be about in 60 minutes, but during the winter it's going to be much smaller and the nighttime hours will actually be longer

So that's really confusing There really throws a lot of people off and so That that needs to be understood.

So when someone says three days and three nights We think 12 -hour periods they counted any portion of a day as a day and therefore

The no one would have been confused back then. We're only confused about now because it uses a different Temporal system than we use but I never heard that.

I never heard that description of the heart of the earth as Jerusalem I would like to see where that comes from Okay, yeah,

I'm never going to fall on my sword for something that isn't early orthodox teaching

Because I've been looking for Some more people that had said it and I couldn't find anybody early who had said it.

I've just not heard it Yeah, okay. Okay. Thank you. All right. Have a great day

All right, we had another Breakup and there's big big gap.

I I just don't know. I can't I guess I can't really shit I'm just not sure which button

I'm supposed to hit to do stuff But You you've had that happen when you're listening on Bluetooth Where it'll get an interruption and then it starts buffering and that's basically what it's done.

So it's it slowly catches up over time So technology is technology

Okay, let's talk to Cullen. Hi Cullen Hey, dr. White. I am just calling because I I've been encountering some

Some yeah, I don't know. I have I have relatives and friends that are atheists and skeptical and very

Like my father for example is a former Mormon and when he left He sort of branched he sort of broke off from all religion

And I was curious also just because I'm interested you've gotten me interested and and Like loving loving apologetics loving seeking to seeking to make

God Known and really understood among people and so I appreciate that but I was just curious if you could give me a good a good resource for for like early church history and Sort of how the how the

Bible The the New Testament specifically came to be compiled I've heard a lot of your work, but I didn't know if there was a book that you could tell me that would that would give me educated on the subject of Yeah, both, you know early church history starting from the

Apostles and then and then also the the beginnings of the Bible and the compilation of the scriptures

There's a lot of stuff there We just recently put up a video or linked to a video

Okay with Dr. Michael Kruger. Oh goodness Dr.

Michael Kruger who He and I had a conversation on Yeah, I've nothing

I can do about that On the subject of the canon and his books He has two books on the subject of the canon that would

Be of great assistance to you Now you gone. Okay, just leave it leave it right there and so I would recommend those to you as far as early church history goes there's all sorts of Single volume works

Owen Chadwick has one the early church and you've got your multi -volume Works like Philip Schaaf that you know has multiple volumes on the subject

That you know, some of those are older some of them that are newer All all depends on what you're looking at but Again, this is this is the one area.

I'm sort of like yeah when people ask for all sorts of books. It's like well, you know Amazon I guess

I guess I just I think myself as well as a lot of people just trust you and trust your consistency

Well, you don't want somebody that's off of you know, well anything it does it doesn't matter what you're reading.

It doesn't You know when I when I mentioned something like Owen Chadwick's work

Or Kenneth Scott Lauderette's two volumes set or something like that It doesn't matter who wrote it even even if it's even if it's dr.

Kruger you you have to Examine anything by anybody

For consistency every author has blind spots. Every author has biases and You know again, that's why

I'm sort of glad I went to Fuller Seminary to start off with because I was forced to deal with that from the start and I am concerned about folks that Will say well, you know that that particular author believed

X Y or Z therefore I can't Trust what he says on anything else There's a lot of people like that and they you end up with a very small amount of resources

You can actually utilize when you when you take that that type of an attitude. So That's something to keep in mind but and then again when you when you do read

These works they will have bibliographies and those you know Data mining and resource mining in bibliographies and footnotes is sort of a lost lost art

But it shouldn't be that that's that's extremely important to be able to do that Yeah, so You know, it's not like well

Schaaf does have some of that and he's old enough that his citation methodology is a little bit different But when you find something that's good generally, then you you see what sources they use that'll give you

Leads as to where to go from there. Yes, sir Thank you very much, and I appreciate your ministry and I'm really glad I got to talk to you

I've been waiting a while to find a question to ask you. So here I am. All right. Thanks Colin. Thanks for listening. All right

All right, let's take these these two calls and then we'll we'll wrap it up from there let's talk with Ross in Philadelphia.

Hi Ross Hello Ross. Yes, sir Go ahead

Okay, so my question was on Compatibilist freewill basically,

I was trying to At my job a few weeks ago Explain to a co -worker of mine.

He's not a believer the reform perspective on the will As I was talking to him.

I Was pretty much trying to explain that while yes, God has decreed all things, you know whatsoever to come to pass

But man is not forced to do anything that a man acts upon the desires of his heart

To which my friend responded. Well, where does the desires of his heart come from? No, I guess what

I'm just trying to How would how would you communicate to someone? and trying to explain to them what the basically what the

Bible teaches about the will of man and the sovereignty of God and the justice and the judgment of God Well, I'm not sure that's a conversation to be had with an unbeliever.

I don't I don't see the Apostles attempting to unpack the sovereignty of God and the relationship of man's will and God's will autonomous will versus creaturely will or anything else in talking to unbelievers there

These are spiritual things they're spiritually apprised and I don't think you're getting anywhere to be perfectly honest with you as it is it's rare enough to find a

Christian who is Submissive to the will of God to the point where they'd be willing to say

I will Accept what what the word teaches even if it's against my traditions or something else

You've got all sorts of Christians. It won't even won't even go that far. So I I'm not sure

That you've got much of a open ground in talking to a person who is still

Functioning on a on a position that I'm just gonna judge whatever you present to me on on my own basis

I don't I don't I don't see that Romans 9 is it is addressed to that type of a person in the first place?

I mean, you know if someone wants to you know If the unbeliever wants to look at the scriptures, you can say well the scriptures state this but you're in rebellion against the most basic command of scripture and that is to repent and believe and so obviously anything it says beyond that based upon your having repented and believed is

Really not going to be something that is of great import to you but you know, I know in a scholastic situation you might have to address some of those things, but It seems like somewhat like beating your head against the proverbial wall

Because it's in answering that question with believers you still have to come to a point with the believer to say well the

Fundament the the final statement the final statements that scripture makes is

That the judge of all the earth will do right? He's done all things to the praise of his glorious grace

He will be vindicated or literally justified. That's what that's what Dick, I oh the the

Greek term the the justification theodicy is is We we don't realize that's theos and dick.

I oh put together. So it's the justification of God God will be justified in light of his own purposes in the final judgment in regards to what he has done and You you get down to that final point where someone says well where that person's desires come from and that really is is where you get to that's that's where Paul gets to and he says who are you a man who answers back to God because Fundamentally God has said

I'm going to judge you based upon your acting Upon what you wanted to do and if you come back and say yeah

Well, if he's totally sovereign then then even that and it's like wait a minute. God's already told you you're not a machine

You're not a robot. He's gonna judge you on the basis that if you go beyond that To say well, I reject that then who are you a man who answers back to God?

The only the only person that that's really addressed to is a person who has already bowed the knee

That that no one else is going to find that to be at all a a relevant irrelevant response.

And so Even though inter varsity or inter

Christian Debates on this subject can often be rather heated and things like that At least there is the presumed if not always true, but presumed

Reality that everyone in the room is willing to submit themselves to the authority of Scripture if They're you know, and we've recognized that's not always the case and we've got the issue of tradition and stuff like that But at least that's the assumption that we're operating on And talking to the unbeliever at that point

You know, it's it's sort of like trying to explain the comfort that comes from An understanding of a person's union with Christ I mean, it's it's it's like trying to describe to the blind person the beauty of the sunset it you can't do it

They don't have the necessary equipment to be able to really understand what it is you're saying and I think you'll end up going around in circles for a long time.

Okay, is it sort of? Right, I when I listen to other reformed apologists sometimes they'll say something like Like if you read

John Piper, I'm not sure he's a reformed apologist, but he's reformed He'll say he'll appeal to mystery a lot.

He'll say well, this isn't exhausting the mystery But so is that kind of what? We would do maybe not in a you know, well, you know in An evangelizing context, but is that is that sort of how far

God's given us? It's just an appeal to mystery I'm not an expert on on dr. Piper's use the term mystery

I've not read enough to be able to comment on that. I I Hesitate, you know that the term mystery has as a proper utilization in the

New Testament primarily focused upon The revelation of the nature of the church.

I know that there is a proper use of the term mystery in Christian theology but unfortunately,

I think it's a lot of improper uses of the term mystery to Allow for Contradiction to exist and and emphasizing as equal truths things that biblically are not equal truths, so My my

Lutheran friends love the term mystery to to completely avoid discussing the issue of election and predestination and things like that, so I'm a little a little allergic to the term unless it's properly defined and I I don't know

What you'd be referring to specifically in regards to Piper's utilization. I don't want to Even in a you know believe in context.

I don't want to say well, you know Some things are just you know, maybe not an appeal to mystery because that word

I do find Allergic as you said right but an appeal to faith maybe that would well

I would say submission I would say submission to The supremacy of God's truth the consistency of God's truth and the reality that God has the right to say this far and no farther

So that's really where we chafe That's really I've used the illustration many times before but it seems to me that that Calvin got that very clearly

This far and no farther God has the has the right to say this is the extent of my revelation

I'm not going beyond this and Edwards tried to go tried to get a The flashlight of human reason and go beyond that and ended up stubbing his toe and falling into it into a cactus.

So I Would not view it so much as just simply faith but a

Submission to God's right to be God and that we're not and that living in time as we do with such minimal amount of knowledge of the entire universe that it's it's not good for us to think that on the basis of that we can somehow judge

God unworthy of belief and obedience to his commands Okay Okay.

Thanks a lot. Thanks for your call. God bless. Bye. Bye. All right one more and let's talk to Justin hi,

Justin Hi, dr. White Hey, so I had a question on mark chapter 7 verse 16.

There is no Variant there. Yeah, there is no mark 7 16 yeah, yeah, so That you know,

I was looking at the na 28 and it just on the ESP it goes from 15 to 17

Mm -hmm. I just want to know how I'm actually teaching through that in a

Bible study. I want to Inform the people in my Bible study Why is this verse not included and Na 28 or the

ESP Yeah, well The the the simplest answer is that when

Well, first of all, we're in mark and Yeah, it would be really really super cool if This was a part of My manuscript p45, but unfortunately, it's not

Because it would be really really cool to know whether it contained it or not It's a short enough section that we can't really tell in light of the condition of the manuscript, but so we don't have any papyri for This particular section of mark, maybe maybe someday we will

But so the two earliest manuscripts you're going to have for Mark at verse 15 of chapter 7 is side.

It's on Atticus Vaticanus Both of which do not contain it Okay, then you have at least three other unseals

I'm just looking here at the Nessie Holland information and two different translation translations that likewise do not have it and It is of course the majority reading but when you have the earliest manuscripts and you have translations not possessing it and It is a phrase that is well known in Scripture.

In other words, it's if this isn't, you know, let him who has ears here Is is a common

Phraseology and so it's much more likely in light of it There's no reason why it would disappear from those earlier manuscripts.

It's not like it's offensive or something It's it's not like there be there be scribes and they're going. Oh, we can't repeat that.

It's much more likely that having said the things that Jesus says

That a an early scribe Had memorized some of the other sayings of Jesus where he uses this phrase and Thought that he used it here as well and inadvertently added it thinking that it was there than to have

Inadvertently deleted it. It does not by any stretch the imagination Change the meaning this is this is really a a variant that you could you could call meaning wise a a throwaway variant because It there's there's just There's nothing unique about it the phrase appears elsewhere

It wouldn't change What what the meaning was one way or the other and so it it's it's good to be able to explain it

But it's it's also pretty easy to understand how it could have been Added in inadvertently you've memorized a similar passage someplace else

And so you you assume that it's there there was just wasn't a reason for someone to go.

Oh, I don't like that I'm gonna I'm gonna get rid of it because there's there's nothing offensive about it in of itself. So that's that's gonna be the reasoning of the textual scholars and looking at it that way, but we will have

I bet within five years we will have the

CBGM data on this this reading and we'll be able to take a look at it then but That's that's just coming around the corner.

So we'll we'll see what yeah, I know that the next one next edition. Yeah Okay Okay.

Well, yeah, thank you very much for answering my question and uh, god bless you and your ministry I know it's it's tough doing what you do

So, thank you. Thank you. Dr. White. Okay. Thanks, Justin. I appreciate it. All right. God bless. All right. Okay All righty, well, there you go, we got our we got our phone lines in and we got lots of different Topics addressed and we're gonna need to put our new

Bluetooth technology someplace else I just think I think it's got a lot of there's a lot of electronics between just this close up so might need to Hang it from the

Put it up there. I don't know But two or three times it I'd hear the static and then it's like wow.

Wow. Wow, it's it's all all delayed And the latency got really bad and then you're then you then it gets crazy because when you're hearing what you said

Two seconds after you said it then it's that but they guaranteed it man.

Well, yeah Well, I'm not I'm not giving up on it yet Because that be a whole lot better than this this but the stick in the rock worked and that's that's the important part, so Anyways, thanks for watching the vying line today.

Oh, oh, oh, oh good grief. I even I even had a note where'd the note go Where did the note go?

The note disappeared. Well, isn't that great? Write yourself a note and then the note disappears

Camped can't blame the Bluetooth for that. No, I have no idea where that that that program just like crashed.

It just died It went it went bye -bye So I won't use that for notes in the future, I guess

Haven't mentioned it for a week or so, but I need to mention it again

We have the Zambia leg Of my upcoming trip.

We know when that's going to be so now we're working on the the Joburg part and then moving out from there to London and Looking at talking to people in Both Glasgow and Belfast doesn't have to be either or at that point but we're trying to find locations for debates and things like that and obviously

I know times going by quickly, but Anyway, we want to be able to put all these things together and But we need your assistance we need your your help to be able to Afford to fly to all of these different locations and so we made reference to this a couple weeks ago

But if you want to help make these things possible these types of trips and then the debates and the presentations are literally around the world there is a

Donation link at a omen org You can see the travel fund there and you can specifically help us to be able to to do these things so we do need your assistance to make that to make that happen and I need to I just need to let people know about it

And I keep forgetting I jump into phones or topics or whatever else it might be and then I get off and go

Oh, I forgot to do that again. So if if you Agree with us that this is a type of information needs to be distributed around the world that we need to Be of encouragement in other places not just here in the

United States Then we need your help to be able to get there So if you can help us, we'd really appreciate it. The donation link is at a omen dot dot org.

There's a travel Sub category that you can that you can give to so thank you very much for your consideration.