Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
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 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three Three three four one and now with today's topic.
Here is James white.
And welcome to the fighting I. How do you start a program. After our pre-show today I introduced everyone To the the musical stylings of Milo Hudson Buehler and and his album. I'm outstanding in my field.
And that of course is our own dear channel participants mutato and. If you would like to to hear more of Milo's Artistry you can go to www .farmboymusic .com.
But I thought there was so much talent around. Well, especially in North Dakota.
That was that was the important part was North Dakota produced this and that's that's the amazing thing.
So anyway brings a whole new light to watching the movie Fargo now.
Well, you know, I got a little sense. There's a little something about Fargo there. That's. Yeah, I mean that too. Yeah, I'm sort of wondering if it's sort of like the Phoenix Tucson thing, you know. That that's what I'm thinking.
Something along those lines. So anyways, no, we you know, it's that it takes talent to to turn Stairway to heaven or play that funky music into something that you can actually listen to with the whole family.
How do you sing that with a straight face? No, I.
Many years of Practice. Yeah, I'm definitely. The next time I try to sing happy birthday to somebody on the air though I'm gonna have to call him up and have him help me because That that would that would be very very it would be much better than we probably want to.
Cut a wave file and send it to us or something, you know. Mp3 you think so we could play it.
Yeah, well because remember last time I tried to sing happy birthday to someone. What happened?
Well, I had just installed the Gettner system. I know that but remember what happened. It was really bad the feedback through the whole system eventually crashed. It was very very bad. No two ways, but okay anyway.
Let's see, we heard such such memorable ones as Super cattle growth hormone play that polka music crop dusters in the sky. I think we didn't get a chance to do. Who let the hogs out. But we did get pick up to lemon too.
So that was we we have them all all covered. I have another album coming. So in a future future program, we will we will make that work. So I'm thankful. Eight seven seven seven five three three three four one.
Hope you had a wonderful holiday.
We were not here yesterday because well, it's Christmas not holiday. Yes.
Okay, I'm sorry, you know, let's not go too far the other direction to where you know. I do recall as a youth hearing people say happy holiday not because they were trying to avoid Offending Muslims. Okay.
It just was another way because everybody knew what the holiday was. So anyway, and. One of the two of us wasn't here yesterday at this time.
But.
Anyways, that's why we didn't do the program yesterday and just thankful that a certain airline allowed you to come home.
I was out enjoying the wonderful comforts of getting searched by the TSA.
Yes. Well, that's what happens. I'm not gonna get into okay. I'm not gonna not gonna say it. Not gonna say it. There's certain rules about how early you arrive. I'm not gonna I'm not gonna go there just you know, I just because I spent half my life sitting in at gates one of the first people there there's a reason for that but That's not gonna go there right now.
Anyway today on the program We are continuing our response to Bart Ehrman getting a lot of positive response from that. We'd really like to see a written response put out to his book. I'm I'm talking to the powers to be about things like that as if I didn't have a million other things to be doing right now, but We will continue with that.
You may recall last week when we finished the program we ran out of.
Of.
Time I wasn't watching my time closely enough and I went ahead and played the next clip and it got into an important Discussion about first Corinthians 1434 and I said, we'll pick that up on this side.
We'll replay that so we get a context. We have got that I Have I have begun listening to? The presentations of the the grandpappy of all Muslim apologists, I'm a DDOT. I was sent a videotape. Thanks to the person who sent that to me a hat tip or whatever it is You call those things.
I very much appreciate the fact you sent that to me. I mp3 it so I could listen to it while while while writing and there is a lot of. Well, let's just say I now understand where a lot of modern Muslim Apologists are getting their stuff.
They're just basically repeating what they've heard. Ahmed did not say I Really really wish I had had the opportunity To debate him. He passed away in August of this year my understanding is that He had a stroke shortly after and this is this is from his own website.
I found it odd. I'm not necessarily Making a connection here, but it wouldn't be overly shocking to me. He had just finished a a talk on the atonement theory, of course the idea that Jesus Christ gave his life as atonement for sins is very Reprehensible to Islamic theology and he had a stroke and was not able to speak again and Stayed in that state for a number of years before he passed away in August of this year.
I believe is August 5th as I recall just up top my head I wish I had had the opportunity. I truly do to have engaged this man because listening. Well, first of all the The tape that was sent to me. I've ordered many more.
I'm going to be listening to a large portion of his his body of work as I ride around in the Phoenix area and elsewhere and.
The.
Tape that was sent to me was a horrible horrible debate. It was it was it was horrible. It was The the Christian pastor, I believe it was it was somewhere in Scandinavia the Christian pastor neither of them was English their original tongue though, I'm a DDOT is far more accomplished speaker and So the pastor was struggling with the English you could tell that but beyond that it was just a slaughter it the the pastor Really didn't strike me as being overly Orthodox.
He made a few decent points, but At some point he was talking about what almost sound like some kind of Bible code thing and it was it was it was just horrible and he ignored the vast majority of the things that Ahmed the DDOT said and the the shame was in fact, maybe if I remember that I was just yesterday listening to it and Actually the day before yesterday and I was there was an audience question and it was Horrible horrible horrible.
I don't I don't even know how to describe it. It was it's about mark 16 and you know this guy gets up and.
And.
He.
Quotes from the passage about handling serpents and drinking poison. Alright now someone gets up throws that out to me and says, you know Would you drink some poison for us now or blah blah blah blah if you say you believe in Jesus?
I'm gonna give a 22nd response to that, you know, I'm gonna say well I'd invite you to read the discussion of the textual data in regards to mark 16 19 20 in my book the King James only Controversy the fact the matter is that that is the longer ending that was added to the gospel after it was originally written that's a well-known among scholars and Thankfully because of the way the New Testament was transmitted over against the way the Quran was transmitted Quran ie after the Uthmanian revision you burn all the ones that you just changed and so on so forth.
You only got one text unlike that. We have the ability to go back and see these Earlier manuscripts and and to know these things and so That's the largest text of area in the New Testament to read what I wrote about it in in the book or we can go Into further detail if you would like to do so and you move on from there.
This pastor went nuts just completely lost it it was it was horrible and So I can't recommend I can certainly see why I'm at D dot and his folks Make this debate available because it was a slaughter. It was simply a slaughter.
No meaningful responses were provided to any of the alleged contradictions or textual variants or anything. But the point is it would have been quite easy to have provided those responses if he had been debating someone who could could do that and so it's it's a shame that That didn't take place so anyway I have queued up Portions from that debate as well.
Because the fact that I think he is so popular if you go on to various Islamic bookstore sites and and search for d dot d e d a t you will see it his videotapes and DVDs and books and stuff are very very popular and So I like to prepare you for what you're you're probably going to hear people Throwing out at you not that you're necessarily going to be running into an Islamic apologist but you might be talking to a Muslim who has listened to him, and if you've listened to him, and then you hear an objection being presented to you that.
Would you know.
Maybe confuse you initially, but if you if you've heard D dot speaking then maybe you will be able to Help in that situation in sort of translating and then explaining and and so on and so forth so we'll begin looking at some of that material as well on the program today, so Bart Ehrman and Excuse me I along with everybody else in my family has been playing with the Weakness of the flesh shall we say and it's still there just a slight bit hiding in there.
So the honest sharosh debate was better. I imagine you know hope it would have to be almost Thank you very much, sir. Just got a little water there to wet the whistle. It would have to have been better than that because that was that was just really mmm really really bad.
But before we get to that Last week we played a section from Bart Ehrman his NPR interview. There are two of them. We'll get to the second one in time. And we can take your phone calls to don't just because Just because I'm Responding to stuff or playing clips and stuff like that.
You know we can intersperse that between calls. We can we can you know mix things up, and it's toll-free numbers, so eight seven seven seven five three three three four one. First Corinthians 1434 the women are to keep silent the churches.
They are not permitted to speak but are to subject themselves as law also says if they desire to learn anything let them ask their own Husbands at home what is improper for a woman to speak in church?
Was it from you that the Word of God first went forth or has it come to you only? Verses 34 through 36. There is a variant here. It's a what I would call a minor Variant and the reason I call it minor is that it is limited not only as far as the number of manuscripts and sources but to a very Limited group in other words.
It's one thing if you have a variant in a number of different families of manuscripts if you have Manuscripts to represent the Alexandrian family the Byzantine family the Western and the Gospels Caesarean has been identified by some.
If you have different Modern language or ancient language translations that have it even if it's a small number if it's a wide representation. Okay, that's that's different than if you just have Manuscripts that are closely related to one another Giving the same kind of reading same and in first Corinthians 1434 and verses 34 and 35 Several witnesses, I'm reading from Metzger's textual commentary several witnesses chiefly Western Transposed verses 34 through 35 to follow verse 40.
So in other words, they take the section on women. And they put at the end of the chapter right before Chapter 15 which then starts off with a summary of the gospel. So in light of that Metzger makes comments such scribal alterations represent attempts to find a more appropriate location in the context for Paul's directive concerning women.
He then mentions The 6th century Codex Fuldensis he describes how it Is laid out as the Latin text. 1st Corinthians 14 runs onward throughout the chapter 2 verse 40. Following verse 33 is a scribal siglum that directs the reader to a note.
Standing in the lower margins of page this note provides the text of verses 36 through 40. Does the scribe without actually deleting verses 34 to 35 from the text intend the liturgist to omit them from reading the lesson question mark.
It's just.
Known so you have a very small number of manuscripts. There's really no question about.
Originality of the text. It's just that in the Western manuscripts someone early on had an issue with. Probably certain certainly wasn't a woman scribe anyways. With where to place this in the instructions that Paul gives to the church.
So with that in mind, then we go back to the discussion from Bart Ehrman and Pick it up from there. I'm gonna back it up just a little bit so we can get some context going here. So you can we can see how he in my opinion spins this particular concept.
There's a.
Passage that's quoted commonly today in the arguments over whether women should be allowed a Ministerial role in the church that's found in 1st Corinthians chapter 14 where the Apostle Paul who wrote 1st Corinthians Evidently says that women are to be silent in the churches that they're that they That they're not to they're not to speak to speak in the church services.
This passage though is a passage that is under dispute by textual scholars because There are some manuscripts that put these verses at a different place in the text and these verses have Characteristics in them that make it look like Paul didn't write them.
And so it looks like to many textual scholars today that these verses Originated as a marginal note by a scribe who was opposed to women speaking in church and that later these verses got stuck into 1st Corinthians 14 so they're not originally by Paul.
Now that is. Talk about overreaching okay to make these verses unoriginal. Due to the fact that in a small group of manuscripts very closely related to one another and connected to one another there is a Transposition of the verses simply down to the end of the chapter.
Is.
Tremendously overreaching and obviously what the assertion is on Airman's part is we'll see you know we we really can't know the role of women. The Bible is insufficient to tell us what the role of women is because there's a textual variance at this one place.
It's not like there's nothing else Bible says about women or that Paul doesn't say things elsewhere but because in Western manuscripts there's a transposition still there the text is still there. It's just at a different point, then you notice the little did you notice the mixture of two things there?
You have the textual data, but then you have this assertion that well, and there's Internal aspects That make scholars not named but scholars. Think this was not original, but which scholars and what are these aspects?
That's that's what I would like to know. It's it's very easy to throw that kind of thing out there and say ah see. But who what what are the aspects is it something is it something about the language?
What what specifically is it that that's what I'd like to know. So again when I see airmen and then Enemies of the faith, this is the same thing that you'll find for example in the The God who wasn't there?
Video.
Islamic apologists are parroting airmen just repeatedly over and over and over again. It's all an agenda. You take the same data. We're all looking at the same data, and now we spin it. How can we how can we spin this.
How can I spin this if I'm apostate how can I spin this to? Defend my my abandonment of what I once said I believed. How can I make that work if you're a Muslim, okay? I want to destroy any confidence in the Bibles where I've got.
Don't. Don't bother me with the fact that if airmen were to address the the Quran That the results of that would be significantly if he were to be consistent at all. I don't know whether he would be but if you're to be consistent at all He would have to point out that well.
You know the Quran can't even compete with the New Testament in this in this area because of what happened to its text later on the creation of a of a synthetic Ecclesiastical text the burning of Probably the most important early witnesses etc etc.
And the fact that in many Islamic countries today if you were to even attempt to address this particular issue if your attempt to study the earlier text of the Quran and Attempt to say to anyone that in point of fact there is there might be any issues With the Quran you would end up in jail or dead one of the two.
Put all that together and you have a completely different situation, so you're hearing spin and Really what we have to learn to do is to recognize spin and the only way to recognize spin is to know the facts well enough to recognize when only a portion of the facts are being represented or when the Conclusions being drawn are not the only conclusions that could be drawn and when they are consistently drawn one direction.
Then you get an idea of what's what's really going on. So we continue. What about the question of homosexual behavior.
Well the question my homosexual behavior is also a difficult problem. But it's not one that that is related to textual issues per se it has more to do with translational issues and there the problem is that our term homosexuality by by which we we tend to Think that people have an orientation of one way or another and homosexuality refers to a certain orientation.
The problem is ancient people didn't talk in terms of orientation and hadn't conceived of the idea of orientation. And so when a word gets translated by the term homosexuality it conveys precisely the wrong idea to us today.
These ancient were there wasn't an ancient word for homosexuality. So the Greek words that are being translated homosexuality actually had a different nuance in the ancient world. So good.
Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa now that is that is a a facile simplistic Highly inaccurate Regurgitation of some of your standard scanzoni mollincott Helminiac all those those liberal writers on the subject of homosexuality referenced in My book the same-sex controversy co-written with Jeff Neal.
I'm seeing someone asking if this is from an Islam debate. I'm going no this is from an NPR interview. I have no idea what this person's asking anyways just sort of confusing me a little bit anyways. All of that stuff you just heard there.
You have to break each one of them down. You have to break each one of those assertions down and.
Go.
Okay, what do you mean by they didn't think of this? They didn't think in these terms and when you do that you discover that these types of assertions just simply are not true at all and that they well understood the idea of pedophilia of pederasty of homosexuality.
You know. There was an excellent example.
Someone with modern arrogance modern arrogance. Although they just they just didn't know about these things. You know they they they weren't as insightful as we are. Baloney. Baloney they knew all about this stuff, and they did describe it so Plato had described it.
I mean come on. That that's just absurd and when you get into the actual terms themselves Apollo's very very direct in the terminology uses arson a coyotes coming from the septuagint and so on so forth.
These are all issues that we will be hearing again in November of this year. I assure you. When this subject is debated in Orlando if you didn't hear last the last dividing line. When I will be debating John Shelby spong on that particular subject so.
Anyway, that was. That's the kind of thing that's just passed off, but how many people sitting there going? That's it. He's a Bible scholar, and he's just said that we can't really Really can't address the the issue ourselves.
You know.
I'm like You just that that's where you really really wish. You know it's odd when I when I wrote the co-authored the same-sex controversy with Jeff Neal. I don't remember. Being contacted by NPR they didn't want to do an interview on my book.
I wonder why that might be. Well anyway.
This is a rather complicated topic as it turns out the the word that normally gets translated. Homosexuality in the New Testament is a word. That's the the word is arson a coyotes as the Greek word. And it's a it's a word that hardly ever occurs in Greek literature.
Paul may have made it up. But it it he's right. I think Paul did literally means a man who has sexual intercourse with a man.
Hey.
I'm gonna keep that one as a clip to play for certain other liberals out there that.
Don't seem to understand how to translate that. So the ancient people did under did know that there were same-sex Relationships in the ancient world. But they didn't think it was due to sexual orientation and the reason it was wrong For people like for people in the ancient world and the Roman world generally is because it meant that one of the men was behaving as a woman By by being on the receiving end of the sex act and that meant that man was being dominated Sexually and domination wasn't acceptable for men.
But those.
Passages.
Have become so debated as to whether in fact The whole notion of lying with a man Was Reviled and would cause a man to be cast out. Yes at the church.
Well, the problem is that in the in the ancient world when two men had had sex Only one of the men was condemned for it the man who was on the receiving end and people overlooked that contextual fact.
When they use these passages, it's.
Excuse me. Excuse me. That's not the case in Leviticus 18 and 20, which is probably the Greek septuagint origination of the term That Paul is utilizing arson equates which Ahriman correctly says. Paul by himself Created that term from the two terms that are used in the septuagint in Leviticus 18 20 on this issue.
And it's not just one person who is condemned. It is both who are condemned in that context.
Not just one. Well part of the the problem that people have to put these texts in context. Or if they rip them out of context and misunderstand them.
Yes, and the context would be a biblical worldview of sexuality and creation. A Biblical worldview of sexuality and creation. And of course, that's what nobody on NPR is certainly gonna be wanting anyways.
That is. What is always missed in these books on homosexuality is you won't allow for a biblical context. These folks won't allow for the idea of there being a biblical teaching on God's purpose in the creation of man and the creation of The the sexual orientation of man and woman.
They won't allow for that. So it's you know, it's it always is funny to me to listen to former evangelicals talk. Because they can't totally get rid of it. It still comes up it still pops out every once in a while and they're there.
They're not. I See a major difference at least in my limited experience between those who are former evangelicals who've become liberals who've apostatized or done whatever and those who were raised in it in the way that they.
That they phrase things the way they say things the way they respond. I see a real difference.
27 before the hour you're listening to the Diane Rehm show so one has to say how good of a Translation is the version that most of us are familiar with the King James Bible.
Well, the King James Bible is Obviously a classic of English literature and I encourage my students to read the King James Bible for its literary merits. There's been nothing like it since but if what you're interested in is knowing a an English approximation of what the authors of the New Testament or the the Hebrew Bible actually Wrote and the King James is not a good good translation because the King James Translation was based on manuscripts from the Middle Ages that by and large are not very good manuscripts.
We've discovered hundreds and hundreds thousands of manuscripts since the King James translators did their work and these modern these Newer discoveries have shown us that in many places the King James translators simply were translating the wrong text.
Before we now in case you are not familiar with Textual critical issues. Let me just mention I would in general agree with what was just said in the sense that I Addressed this subject in the King James only controversy dealt with the issue of what's called the textus receptus dealt with the differences between textus receptus and the Majority text the Byzantine text blah blah blah blah blah the variations that exist within those particular text types the Origination of the King James translation some of the issues in the King James for example the fact you had different committees working on different sections of the New Testament and the Old Testament and The final editing was not necessarily perfect in the sense that.
It.
Did not bring about a consistent translation. For example, you have the very same Greek phrase oof on you sighs you shall not murder. Translated in one section of the King James in The Gospels as you shall not kill and in in Paul as you shall not murder.
It's the exact same Greek, but it's different different translation things like that and so. Various sundry issues there if you haven't read the King James only controversy I do recommend it for not just if you are interested in the King James only controversy itself haven't maybe you haven't run into someone Who is King James only but at least it would provide you with?
The background of the text and so on and so forth. I noticed that it is time to take our break and when we come back we'll continue with Bart Ehrman on NPR and the Diane Rehm show and Your phone calls too if you'd like.
Also an Ahmed D dot clip coming up as well. Right back.
Adventure grace. Some religious place by weeping hard on your face.
The Trinity is a basic teaching of the Christian faith it defines God's essence and describes how he relates to us. James White's book The Forgotten Trinity is a concise understandable explanation of what the Trinity is and why it matters.
It refutes cultic distortions of God as well as showing how a grasp of the significant teaching Leads to renewed worship and deeper understanding of what it means to be a Christian and Admit today's emphasis on the renewing work of the Holy Spirit.
The Forgotten Trinity is a balanced look at all three persons of the Trinity. Dr. John MacArthur senior pastor of Grace Community Church says James White's lucid presentation will help lay person and pastor alike.
Highly recommended. You can order the Forgotten Trinity by going to our website at a omen org. More than any time in the past Roman Catholics and evangelicals are working together. They are standing shoulder-to-shoulder against social evils.
They are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements and many Evangelicals are finding the history tradition and grandeur of the Roman Catholic Church appealing. This newfound rapport has caused many Evangelical leaders and lay people to question the age-old disagreements that have divided Protestants and Catholics.
Aren't we all saying the same thing in a different language? James White's book the Roman Catholic controversy is an absorbing look at current views of tradition in Scripture the papacy the mass purgatorian indulgences and Marian doctrine.
James White points out the crucial differences that remain regarding the Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself that cannot be ignored. Order your copy of the Roman Catholic controversy by going to our website at a omen org.
And welcome back to the dividing line. Your host now has a recall going.
Ricola mmm get that throat going. Unfortunately now you can hear me like All over the place too, but you know what? This is a live webcast and it's free. If you can listen to Rush Limbaugh shuffling his papers And adjusting his hearing aid and stuff you can listen to me trying to survive.
Mm-hmm feel fine. But the throats just really dry and scratchy and sort of type thing you know. At least I didn't get what my son had my goodness. He had one of those coughs where you just want to Run into another room.
You know cuz you just know that he's gonna explode or something as soon as really bad. But anyway, he's back at work today. I'm sure he didn't want to go back to work today. But you know that's just what happens when you're 19 years old you get to go back to work anyhow.
We're listening to Bart Ehrman on.
NPR program this is not a Muslim debate. This is part Herman on NPR this is not on a D dot and this is not about Islam. Okay, I want to make sure everyone's on the same page this time because last time somehow the transition got lost and so In fact I'm going to I'm gonna.
Well Let's let's go ahead and play just one more little clip. And then we'll go to the D dot thing and if you got any calls then we can go back to that. You take a break.
I'd like to ask you about the Christmas story and about the birth of Christ and how each of the texts Differs or is the same and how they may have been changed?
The the Christmas story of course we tell every year where. And the way we tell the Christmas story is that we take this the stories found in the gospel of Luke and the stories found In the gospel of Matthew, and we we conflate them we put them together into one big story.
And so you tell the story where there are shepherds and where there are where there are wise men. You tell the stories about the Herod killing the children and them fleeing to Egypt and you tell the story about them presenting Jesus in the in the temple as a After he's born for circumcision.
This is combining what Matthew says with what Luke says. When you read the count accounts carefully however I what I have my students do an exercise. I have them list everything that happens in Matthew's account and everything that happens in Luke's account and then compare the two lists.
And Students are struck by the fact that virtually all the stories in Matthew are absent from Luke and the stories of Luke are absent from Matthew. Oh.
Has made a mistake. I hit instead of hitting stop. I are saying pause. I hit stop. Oops many apologies um. Now just for a moment. Just for a moment. What if that wasn't the case now? I'm I'll play not really coming on airmen at the moment, but if you would just Consider the debate with John Dominic Rossum and The normal stuff that you see on television these days about the Gospels, and you know when when all the liberals get all their the you know their Free air time that's conservatives are never given so and so forth um.
What do you hear? If the two Gospels Relate the same thing then you focus on the alleged differences if they focus on different things and don't narrate the same things that's taken as an indication of The impropriety of the gospel in other words.
It doesn't matter what they do. I? Mean let's face it if they gave the same story in the same words and in fact in the DDOT debate He goes to a place where in Isaiah, and I think it's first Kings you have the exact same text clearly using the same historical source material and Since they're identical word for word that means it's not the Word of God because it's plagiarism and If you then go to where you're telling the same story, but they tell it in different ways.
That means that they have different purposes, and they're changing the history. And if they don't tell the same story then that means that they are relating different things and that means it's not history.
So what what could the Bible do? How could the Bible say anything that folks will not find a way of saying see that that means it's all wrong. It doesn't matter you can say in the exact same words different words or not same words at all or not even tell the same Story and all of them are considered to be evidence.
That somehow the Bible's garbled is that how it works seems to be to me anyway. Well, I'm not sure where the little cursor thingy was so we're gonna waste a moment here who counts and so.
So what we have here are two different accounts of the of the birth rather than virgin birth.
The virgin birth. Yes, so well. I think I think I skipped something there.
I mean let me try this sir struck by the fact that there we go virtually all the stories in Matthew are Absent from Luke and the stories of Luke are absent from Matthew. To the extent that when you compare these lists carefully, it's very hard to reconcile the two with one another.
Why? Because in in Matthew's gospel Herod is out to kill the babies in Bethlehem, and so he sends out the troop. But Joseph is warned in the dream, so they escape to Egypt. In Luke's account. There's nothing about that at all on the contrary.
After Jesus is born 30 days later. They go to the temple. They perform a sacrifice, and then they return to Nazareth. Well if they perform the sacrifice in Jerusalem and return to Nazareth How is it that they fled to Egypt?
It's?
Why I mean if we've got two years here most people feel that the you have a two-year time frame here. I remember Herod's asking about this stuff, so if you only got one month the beginning. This is two years later.
Why is there a problem? I'm confused. It's impossible to reconcile these two accounts and so impossible.
Why. Why is the reconciliation that has been understood for 2 ,000 years. Well, okay? 1 ,800 years. Says his first comment on why is that? Impossible. I I. See an agenda here.
So what we have here are two different accounts of the of the birth rather than virgin.
Well before we listen to Diane Rehm's asking about the virgin birth. Let's move over. Here's some more Discussion here, let's you're probably gonna have to play with the Equalization over there. Oh great guru of the sound board because well then again you made this recording.
But actually you made this recording off of a videotape, so what can we say?
Then we played with all that stuff afterwards. This is toward the beginning of the debate between I'm a d-dot in this pastor fellow that I also don't remember his name was. It will sound great. Now now you're on the records.
You're stuck. It's gonna have to sound great. He has started off by asking which Bible translation the pastor is going to defend and. Ironically at the end of the debate one one person does get up and says you know Most of us in this room can speak more than one language.
We all understand the differences Between translations and the necessity of that. Are you trying to say it because there are different translations that the Bible's invalid. That's clearly what he was saying at the beginning.
But then at the end he says oh no no no I was talking about the textual issues. But that wasn't what he was saying. I skipped over that because it was it was a waste of time. Now he gets into more of a discussion of the Bible.
Pastor to explain who did this and who's doing this with the Word of God. If it is the Word of God then in the first five books of the Old Testament Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers and Deuteronomy 700 times We are told that this is not the book of God.
This is not the Word of God 700 times now. Did you catch that?
700 times 700 times in the Pentateuch Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy. We are told this is not the Word of God.
Now.
Here's what you need to understand. From the Islamic perspective. The Quran is Allah speaking. Now I'm not they keep saying that but I've found. No, this is not the.
Wow.
The holidays were rough on a few folks. This is the debate from somewhere in the 1980s and 90s in a Scandinavia To for the for the Muslim. This is all Allah speaking now. I'm not sure how that works. Because he's about to say well we have you know we have saying and the Lord said to Moses and Moses said to the Lord and blah blah blah blah and That means this is not God Speaking.
It's not God's Word. This is a recording of what happened in history as if that means that could not be God's Word. So they have a much narrower Understanding of what constitutes the Word of God. We believe the Word of God.
Is they honest. Us is God breathed and it is expressed in human language and hence you can have for example.
Psalmist expressing his deepest feelings of abandonment. When he is under the wrath of God or he is is facing trial and tribulation and it's still the Word of God our Understanding what the Word of God is is much wider much deeper much much broader I Think then then what you have in Islam.
But that doesn't make any sense to me because you have Jesus talking in the Quran. Does that mean that's not the Word of God when Jesus is responding to Allah? I've not figured out how that works and can't get anybody to call in to answer such questions anyways, but Anyways, so that's where this is coming.
You read and the Lord said unto Moses and Moses said unto the Lord the Lord said unto Moses and Moses said unto the Lord which means the Lord didn't speak these words. Nor did Moses write those words.
Why I?
Mean he will make this kind of assertion and he is I Guess just assuming that certain people in a certain worldview are just going to believe whatever he has to say. But the fact the matter is that he will make that kind of assertion, but he won't explain why that means that.
This isn't the word of the Lord that Moses didn't write it or that that God didn't speak these words or things like that.
Somebody else is talking. Information is this is what God told Moses and Moses told God and Moses told the God told Moses and Moses told God 700 times God told. This is not the word of God. Then this book these five books attributed to the Holy Prophet Moses.
But in the last book the book of Deuteronomy.
Now what you get here? of course is the discussion of the narration of the death of Moses and Moses couldn't have written that and Therefore, I guess that means Moses didn't write all the rest of it. Even though the Lord Jesus Christ said that Moses wrote the five books.
And there is no contradiction between saying Moses wrote those books and saying that when his compilation was collected by the people of God. That they added the story of his death to that and that the Spirit of God somehow can't do that.
All of that, of course might be effective against a an absurdly literal fundamentalist, but it's not effective against anyone who actually Thinks about the issue of the authorship of Scripture. So I'm going to move a little bit beyond that to his next primary objection here.
Okay more about Moses.
Natural. And then he died. His eyes was not dimmed nor his natural forces abated. He was too strong enough enough to marry another 16 year old. He had those powers.
Not sure how we know how old she was.
Before he died and they arose. Not a prophet since in Israel likened to Moses whom the Lord knew face to face did Moses say that.
Yes.
Is not only the word of God is I never Moses so if if someone if if the people of God Comments upon the life of Moses now, you know if this was some other book I guess it's just because it's in this book as if somewhere in the book.
It says every word in this book was only written by Moses. I mean, this is again. It would be nice if there had been a meaningful response given but it wasn't even touched in any part of the debate at all in response.
He's referring to twins in case you're wondering he had He had brought up these two different. You know, what's a World Council of Churches translations probably revised standard version. I'd assume at least in English.
I don't know what it would be in Scandinavia wherever it was but there are different years, but they were they were. Same cover so on so forth. And so he's he's using that he's holding the two of those up in the video I would like him to open now.
What's he's going to do here? And when you when you listen I can go ahead and play the whole clip here because at the end You get this wild applause and I every time I hear applause. I wonder what are these people thinking?
What are they thinking to applaud for something like this? It's so ridiculous. What he's gonna do is He's gonna read from Isaiah. He's have the pastor follow along first Kings and there's a section of identical text.
Which only means that both were using the same historical source, maybe even using first Kings in Isaiah. Providing the historical that has absolutely nothing to do with a that's plagiarism. He's gonna say and that proves it's not the word out and there's this wild applause and you just wonder.
What kind of person finds this to be a meaningful argument. I don't I really don't understand it, but you have to listen to it to understand.
If you help me This book here Isaiah chapter 37 it will only open Isaiah 37 not this one. Yeah, these are things you want to compare the pins to see how they are deceiving the Christian world.
How they are producing by the millions and you see the ordinary people now knows what he's saying. They're deceiving the ordinary people. This is deception if two sections say the same thing about historical incident.
It's deception.
Why we don't know we're never told. I just want to demonstrate that and I would like him to help me with this one. Sir, this is the Holy Bible reverse standard version. Just open Isaiah 37 and I'll read from here and see whether it is the same.
That's all.
Yeah, it was the RSV's ring.
Isaiah which word from birth. One sir, so we don't have the search. Worth one. When King Hezekiah heard it He rent his clothes and covered himself with sackcloth and went into the house of the Lord. Correct, sir, yes, I'm following this.
And Went into the house of the Lord and he sent Eliakim who was over the household and Shadman the secretary and The senior priest covered with sackcloth to the Prophet. Isaiah the son of Amos was three.
They said to him just says Hezekiah This day is a day of distress of rebuke and of disgrace. Children have come to the birth and there is no strength to bring them forth. It may be that the Lord your God heard all the words of Ravitcher Whom his master the king of Assyria has sent to mock the living God and go on towards eight The Return and found the king of Assyria fighting and going on towards 14.
Hezekiah received a letter from the hand of the messengers and David and Hezekiah and on and on.
But sir, I'm not reading from the book of Isaiah. I'm reading from the book of Kings.
Now now I stop it right there. Okay, he says I'm not reading from Isaiah. I'm reading from the book of Kings. And. Immediately applause erupts. Even before he makes the application of what that means.
That to me says it was set up. That to me says that there were people in that audience who are already set up. Waiting for this. To break into it to make it sound like oh, oh, wow. He just what a point.
Oh, whoa, man, you know, it was sort of like the Lloyd Benson thing, you're no Jack Kennedy Shot, you know. Whoa, that's what everyone's gonna remember. He was reading from it was reading first king instead of Isaiah.
And what is that supposed to mean again?
Yeah.
The greatness of the Bible.
Yeah, yeah, the pastor goes that's the greatness of the Bible. Well, yeah in the sense that you have The accurate transmission of that particular historical incident in two different places. Yeah, and there's no reason for there again this is the common thing you have in dealing with Muslims is They read things and acronistically the Quran is the final authority in all things.
Well, the Quran is interpreted by the Hadith anyways, and If the the Quran Represents to them the Word of God in one particular form.
Then that's.
That's the way it has to be that that's just the way that you have to Understand it have to have to accept it. And if it in if the Bible differs from that if the Bible well. And of course remember one that one of the big things is that one of their big problems is That the idea is well the Quran one author one period of time boom you have 40 different authors 1 ,500 years and Therefore it can't possibly the Word of God as if as if God isn't big enough to be able to do that.
I'll throw in some.
Okay, just got p .m. Absolutely positively. No idea what it means but More confusion coming from the computer and so since it doesn't say it the way that the Particular.
Muslim.
Assumes God speaks in the Quran.
Then.
You can't have it in the in the issue of the The Bible. So yes. On my blog. I said I would possibly throw in some on the d-dot. Which is what we've been doing for the past? 15 minutes now. So what does that mean?
I don't know. Anyways we will.
I'm reading to Kings 19 and he's confirming in Isaiah 37. In other words word for word it is the same and let me share with you. The knowledge I have gathered from the Christian learned men They tell me and this the pastor says to the contrary that the Bible was not a verbal revelation.
Okay, right there. I'm gonna stop that at exactly 2007 the Bible is on a verbal revelation. Here's exactly what I mentioned before the exact same idea before from their perspective. They they just don't understand.
I'd I'm certain that many have tried to explain it over time, but they don't understand the idea of God speaking Through human instrumentality, and it's still being the Word of God has to be I am Allah.
I say this That's as far as Allah can go. Allah evidently is not capable of Putting his revelation in such a way that it can have the kind of of communicative Capacity that the Word of God has in the Bible because he can't communicate through what men experience Under his sovereignty just can't be done.
I guess and that means is allegedly not a verbal revelation of course. He also confuses Hans Kung and other people as if they're representative Christianity. And so you have that whole issue comes up as well.
We'll continue with Bart Ehrman and Ahmed D dots and your calls as well. Well, actually we only have a little over 24 hours till we're back at again tomorrow afternoon or evening six o 'clock Eastern Standard Time will be here with the dividing line.
See you then. God bless.
The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries. If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or write us at p .o inbox 3 7 1 0 6 Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9. You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks.
Join us again this Thursday afternoon at 4 p .m. For the dividing line.