Latria, Dulia and Robert Sungenis

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 at 602 973 460 to or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James white.

Opening the Program and the Authority of Scripture

And good morning, welcome to the dividing line as I noted on the blog just a little while ago. Actually for those of you who are net savvy, and of course if you're listening to this you probably are at least somewhat that savvy.

We gave me be they're gonna be beginning they'd say that really fast the program today. I Thought about writing out my response and I thought you know what? It's a whole lot easier to do this on the dividing line and it is illustrative.

I think once again of the vast difference between those who Derive their theology from the text of Scripture and those who force their theology on to the text of Scripture. Received an email from a Roman Catholic Says again regarding the issue.

It's been going on for a few weeks now simply once again repeating the Discussion of Latria and Dulia. Now, let me make sure that everyone is up to speed here. I don't want to make anyone feel like they this is not a program for them.

I think even if your interests are not specifically in the Roman Catholic area, but your interests include Biblical theology and the like that this is something that would be worthwhile to you, especially in regards To how you do exegesis and from whence you derive your religious authority.

Roman Catholic Veneration, Latria, and Dulia

Roman Catholicism promotes religious veneration of Saints angels. You will if you've ever been a Roman Catholic Church see Roman Catholics bowing before a statue and On their knees rocking back and forth fingering a rosary lighting candles In intense religious devotion and Rome says this is not a violation of Biblical commands against Worshiping an idol.

We're not worshiping the idol we only worship God. And they substantiate this by differentiating between two terms. They say that God alone is given Latria. God alone is given Latria and That Latria however is given to God and it is also given to the transubstantiated host representing Christ's body in the tabernacle.

But even Mary is not given Latria. Mary is given hyper Julia while the Saints and angels are given Julia, so the distinction is made between Julia and Latria and Since I'm only giving Latria to God and I'm not and I'm giving Julia to these other things then I'm not violating biblical commands and of course Historically Protestants have rejected this distinction and Roman Catholics have sought to defend it.

I've made the simple observation that If you are a consistent Roman Catholic, and you don't you don't derive your beliefs from the Bible. Fundamentally you may accept the Bible is the Word of God you may say you believe it very highly.

But the fact the matter is it's not your ultimate authority the church is your ultimate authority because the church you say is infallible and The church you say defines the extent of the canon of Scripture and the meaning of Scripture the extent of what is tradition and what is not tradition what tradition means and so I Submit to you that on any logical or rational basis.

You cannot say that the scriptures are your ultimate authority. The church is your ultimate authority and therefore you believe what you believe and It is accepting the church's definition. You have to be so confident that the church is what the church claims to be.

That you would be willing to stand before a holy God having engaged in that activity throughout your life with absolute confidence that the church is is Right in making this distinction that that distinction will stand up before the very throne of God itself on the Judgment Day.

The Protestant says the church is not infallible that the church's authority comes from her fidelity to the message that has been entrusted to her in the proclamation of that message and While that gives true authority it does not mean that we have to be infallible to pronounce infallible words from God's scriptures and So it is it is rather appropriate That I had a person write to me Over the past I guess probably 24 hours at some point.

I received the message this morning and It says this simply dismiss any philosophical logical distinction between lottery and Julia. I guess that's your contra Julia lottery argument would work if you could first prove the novel anti-orthodox anti-scriptural heretical position of solo scriptura.

And what I appreciate about that is it illustrates really what the division is all All the citations of scripture I can give and all the argumentation Demonstrating that they're the distinction that Rome is absolutely dependent upon and asserts does not come from the Bible.

But as artificial it's external. All of that is irrelevant to the person who doesn't doesn't have any concern about being submitted to the authority of God's Word and Once you've accepted Rome's claims.

You don't have to worry about being submitted the authority of God's Word because in your thinking by being submitted to the church you are Submitted to God's Word because God's World Word becomes mediated to you through the church and so the church has Allegedly struggled with all these things.

The second Nicene Council Allegedly struggled with all these things. They didn't but that's that's the reality that you are told and So by your submission to the church. Then you believe that you're submitted to the Word of God and of course our argument for a long time has been well this actually Demonstrates just how far from being submitted to the Word of God Rome actually is.

It is so obvious to us That the argumentation used by Rome would never suffice In any meaningful context we've we've used the illustration many times and it's a proper illustration. I've never seen any refutation of it.

But if a person were found bowing down before an idol of Baal in their tent in The days of Moses and they were brought before Moses would the argumentation that a Roman Catholic uses today to bow down before a statue of Mary to bow down before an angel to bow down before any kind of of of statue or representation of a departed believer.

Would the argumentation? That they use today avail before Moses or are they saying no. But there's something things things have changed since then they sort of throwing a dispensational style argument in there.

I I don't think so and so. This issue really does illustrate just as all the Marian dogmas do. What happens when you reject soul scripture you're left with no scriptura at all the message of the scriptura is Thoroughly and completely Denigrated when you allow some other authority To stand as your ultimate authority when it comes these issues.

Well, I have presented this we've debated this issue on Long Island. We heard there from Patrick Madrid that you know Those those commandments against idolatry were just for people who have problems with idolatry and if that's true, then that means they're perfectly valid for all people at all times because all people in all times have problems idolatry but Recently I have raised these issues and on a book in a blog article.

This is what I guess started all of this a blog article. Let's see here the date was 21st of August and I was talking about The issues of Latria and Dulia and I was talking about someone calling into the program and I I made the following statement That this person should call in and prove me wrong and here's the quote that the central semantic core of Dulia and Latria intersect intersect smack dab in the middle of avad Hebrew term meaning to serve to work so that any person seeking to give pure avada to God service Cannot in any way shape or form pretend to be serving an image while only worshiping God.

Okay, there's the assertion that's 21st August and There was the assertion that I made and what is the what what is all that saying? Well, obviously I was utilizing a certain amount of language there that that would demonstrate the person I was challenged to call in doesn't have any training in those areas and Wouldn't be able to engage those subjects and when that person called in that's exactly what happened and was demonstrated but Let me explain what was being said because this email which I've posted on the blog if you haven't seen it yet You might want to take a look at it this email.

It's that's floating around it. Allegedly I have not written to Robertson Janice to say is this your writing? So I am going to right up front here say this email was allegedly written by Robertson Janice.

I don't know that I don't have any reason to accuse the person on the envoy forums of lying in Saying this came from Robertson Janice. I'm assuming that that probably did but since I have not actually taken the time to contact Robertson Janice to find out I'm going to say that it is it is claimed to have been written by Robertson Janice.

There is an email That seeks to respond seemingly only to That portion of that sentence on my blog that the central semantic core of Doolia and Latria Intersects smack-dab in the middle of avad. So that any person seeking to give pure avodah to God cannot in any way shape or form Pretend to be serving an image while only worshiping God.

That is going right back to those two terms Latria and Doolia now Latria and Doolia come from Latin, but they they're actually loanwords straight from the Greek and Here is where we find the difference between consistent biblical Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.

When I stand before God I want to be able to Do so with a clean conscience, and I want to be able to Answer any questions about my worship based upon what God has said in his word. I'm not going to look to somebody else say well.

He told me I could I don't think that's going to work and So I want to derive my definition of worship not from the Second Council of Nicaea. The Second Council of Nicaea was far removed from the apostolic period.

The Second Council of Nicaea Was not dealing with these biblical issues was not engaging the kind of exegetical study That would give it any kind of authority to the person who like the psalmist Contemplates the Word of God not contemplating the traditions of men and so I want to make sure that My worship is in accordance with the Word of God and So I'm going to go to the scriptures to define Worship and I'm going to go to the scriptures to define Latria and Dulia.

In fact I'm going to hold Rome to a Biblical standard even though Rome if you really think about it rejects that she can be held to a biblical standard she rejects that that constraint upon her and A consistent Roman Catholic would start as my Correspondent did by attacking solo scripture and calling it heretical.

But since I believe in solo scripture and have defended it I think successfully a number of times against Roman Catholic apologists. When we go to the scriptures what I'm saying the claim that I was making in that article is That when you look at the semantic core of Dulia and Latria now what in the world is a semantic core.

Well Words have what are called a a semantic domain. Some words have very wide Semantic domains the term logos in Greek for example very wide semantic domain. What does that mean it's used in a lot of different ways and if you were to to draw a circle?

Representing the range of its meanings it would be a pretty broad circle. That would allow a lot of sub meanings and a lot of sub uses in particular context within that semantic domain. I Love having love of having live people listening right now never mind about the alleged part.

Sam Shamoon is listening, and he says that Question 13 on Robertson Janice's site is the exact email that I've received so drop all the alleged part. We are definitely going to demonstrate that Robertson Janice doesn't know the basics of these issues either as we look at this subject today.

Thank you very much Mr.. Shamoon. So you can tell this is a live webcast and that's what makes it better than a dead Webcast. So anyway as we look at the subject of words Some words are very very specific and therefore they have a very narrow semantic domain.

And you will only find them being used in context where that narrow semantic domain is going to fit. There are very technical terms for example in especially today in In science in computers electronics and things like that where you have a very narrow meaning to a word it.

It can only be used in certain context. And of course then you have all sorts of words that fall into the middle that have wider and wider context to them. When we look at Lottery and Julia as used in the discussion of what worship is We discover that terms Can overlap one another their semantic domains can overlap one another to where they can become in A sense synonymous with one another or can be used in parallel with one another.

If you're familiar with the Hebrew language you know reading Hebrew poetry you will encounter what's called parallelism and that is the Hebrew languages way of repeating something and by repeating it and Using other terminology to express it you're filling that meaning out.

That doesn't mean that in every single instance the two terms that you're going to parallel always mean the same thing. But that there is a place where their semantic domains cross over one another. All right, so What I said Was that when you look at the semantic core of?

Julia and Latria not the Latin because there is no Latin in the New Testament. But as they come into do you owe. Let's row the two verbal forms of service and worship in the New Testament and Then remember if you're talking about New Testament terminology.

What is the single? Greatest Impact what's the single greatest? resource. The single source that has that the biggest impact on how New Testament writers going to define words. It's called the Greek septuagint and Anyone who especially reads Paul, but but all of the New Testament writers anyone who ignores the Usage of the septuagint the fact that in the New Testament the vast Majority of citations from the Old Testament are not from the Hebrew.

They are from the Greek septuagint the Greek translation of the Old Testament. When you then follow Latruo and do you owe and their substantival forms into the Greek septuagint. You can then see what Hebrew terms are translated by them.

And when you do that You are brought back to a certain text that we have looked at Before and what is that text? Exodus chapter 20 the ten sayings which we call the ten commandments but the ten sayings.

The first rendition thereof Exodus chapter 20 verse 5 you will also find this in the Deuteronomy rendering of this in speaking against idolatry and false gods. You shall not worship them or serve them.

Exodus 20 verse 5 says for I Yahweh your God am a jealous God visiting the iniquity of the fathers and the children on the third and fourth generations of those who hate me. Now there are two Greek terms and two Hebrew terms that appear at the beginning of exodus chapter 20 verse 5 and.

When you go over to Deuteronomy chapter 5 verse 9 you find the exact same terms being used there as well in the Hebrew. The first which is rendered to worship means to bow down. Now one of the amazing things that I'm seeing in reading Roman Catholics who are desperately trying to find some way around this argumentation, and it sorry it does smack of pure desperation.

Is the argument that if you can find any exception to the statement that you've succeeded in defeating the argument. The problem is the exceptions the statement they keep finding are not in a religious context.

We're talking about Worship here. We're talking about God defining for us. What worship is we're not talking about the fact in oriental cultures People would bow down before a superior. Now there are places in Daniel for example where Daniel will not bow down.

Why. Because it was placed in the context of worship and yet Daniel will then allow Nebuchadnezzar bow down before him. Because it wasn't in the context of worship see Simple contextual stuff you're very basic very very basic, but again Rome's apologists really struggle on the on the biblical level.

They really do let's just face it. Their biblical argumentation is normally exceptionally shallow and they they don't seek to try to get their people to go deeply into these issues because they discover the The contradictions and so the first Hebrew term That is that is utilized refers to bowing down.

All right. The second term is the term that I used avad in the blog article and It is a term Just as is just as in English our word work Has a wide semantic domain it can be used as a noun it can be used as a verb.

That doesn't work. You didn't show up to work. There's there's a lot of different ways that we can utilize this term all right. And of course in Hebrew the same same way and so if you do a search on avad You're gonna find it used many many times in many different ways but you're also going to find that it is consistently used in context of worship both true and false worship and That's what's appearing here.

You shall not worship them that is bow down to them or serve them. Now when this concept comes into Greek you can translate avad By Two different Greek words easily and guess what they come into is Latin dulia and Latria.

Do you owe? La truo in fact when this text is used in the New Testament Ironically The verb that is used to render. It is la truo. Which is the higher form in Greek. It is more often connected. Certainly in a New Testament It's always connected and then in secular writings more often connected with religious worship and yet It means to serve to do work, which is exactly what dulia means and so the whole point of my statement on the blog was that the semantic domains where these two terms crossover is right where avad is here in Exodus 20 and Anyone who's studied the text and studied the uses they know that they knew what I was saying.

It doesn't seem however That many of the Catholic apologists who have tried to respond to this understood that. It's interesting when we go to the New Testament for example the very final book in the canon anyways Revelation chapter 22 in describing the new heavens and earth says there will no longer be any curse and the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in It and his bond servants will his douloi.

Which is the the substantival plural substantival form of a servant from dulia doulas douloi. His bond servants will let true. Oh him if you want. Sparkling evidence that these words go hand in hand with one another in regards to what worship is and my my point has always Been it is an artificial Unbiblical distinction to say that Latria and Dulia can be Disconnected from one another.

I'm not giving Dulia. I'm giving Latria, or I'm not giving Latria. I'm only giving Dulia. What you serve is what you worship and what you worship is what you serve and if you're not serving what you claim to worship.

You're not worshiping it. In fact I would argue what you serve is far more what you worship than what you say you worship. There's a lot of Christians running around saying I worship God. I love God. But they won't be in the house of worship on a Sunday because they got to be out on the lake in their boat.

I'm telling you something you're serving your boat, and that's your God. Your actions demonstrate it. You can't divide these things up. It's not biblical. But again a lot of these folks just open say I don't care if it's biblical or not.

Rome says otherwise. That's why I can get away with it. That's what Rome says. So with that as a background then let's Let's look at this claim. By by Roberts and Janice in fact. I'm gonna go ahead and just just click on that and bring it up since.

It's number 13, huh? There's number 12 there's number 13. All right, okay? Hmm. Hmm interesting little mention about art Sippo there. At least he put the he's in art Sippo's camp and anyone who has experienced the blast furnace charity of Sippo knows what that means.

Mistress and Janice says white is barking up the wrong tree. First of all there is no central semantic core of Dulia and Latria. There are two distinct words in Greek. And there is no middle ground between them.

If there was a middle ground the Greeks would have assigned that to another word as They usually did in such cases. Second. It is erroneous to then claim that a Hebrew word would be in the middle of two Greek words.

Whatever that means this is a conflation of languages that has no linguistic or biblical support. Just an Ipsa Dixit of whites. Hence the concluding argument. That is that any person seeking to give pure service to God cannot pretend to be serving an image while only worshiping God cannot be based on whites artificial and unproven linguistic premise.

Whether whites. Concluding argument is true or not must be sought after on other grounds as it stands. There is a great enough distinction between Dooley and Lottery and Greek to say that an individual can give honor or service Dooley a to a being that is not divine at the same time reserve worship Lottery to God alone of The four nouns of 21 verb forms of Lottery in the New Testament.

They all refer to worship of God with the only exception being of those who erroneously direct their worship to false gods in. No instance is Lottery ever assigned as honor or service to a human being.

The same is true with the use of Lottery in the septuagen. Dooley on the other hand can be used of service toward God or. But when it is directed toward man, it is never coupled with the word Latvia. That is where the argument should rest and that is the Catholic argument as such.

We can argue that one can venerate an image yet direct worship to God alone that stands behind that image. Let's let's respond to this. First of all, there is no central semantic core of Dooley and Latvia.

Either Robertson Jennis doesn't understand what a semantic core would be or He is being deceptive one the two. There's that's the only Possibilities I can see here as I have explained it. Which I the only thing I see here is that he doesn't understand this as I've explained it.

There are places obviously where the two terms semantics semantic ranges Overlap and they do so right where avad is and avad meaning is in exodus chapter 20 Deuteronomy chapters chapter 5 and so on and so forth and so.

When he says they are two distinct words in Greek. That's a given but there was nothing in what I said at least to a person understood what I said. That would cause there to be a problem with that. There are two distinct words in Greek and there is no middle ground between them.

What do you mean? There's no middle ground between them. Obviously we have places. I just cited a place where you have the substantival form Used as a description Servants do Lloyd and Latreau used in the context of worship in Revelation 22.

We have in Galatians Paul saying that the the Galatians When they were engaged in idolatry served those which by nature are no gods. Now is Paul actually saying that they were only that they were to be excused because they were only giving Julia.

That's still you owe there. I mean again, it just almost seems That mr. St. Genesis completely unfamiliar with what the arguments here are or he has never looked at what I've said about it, which is quite possible.

Or he's only seen what he wants to see about it. How many times has he misquoted the fatal flaw trying to say I teach Roman Catholic views of of the mass. We've caught him on that over and over and over again.

So He just doesn't he evidently is too busy with these other theories of his about Jews and Geocentrism and stuff like that to keep up with what we're actually talking about. He says there's no middle ground between them.

If there was a middle ground the Greeks would have assigned that to another word as they Usually did in such cases. You can't even respond to such a vague statement because give me a given example What do you mean.

And besides it's based upon evidently a misunderstanding in his part of what I was saying. So the first point his first point is dismissed and is an error. Second. It is erroneous to then claim that a Hebrew word would be in the middle of two Greek words, whatever that means well again if Mistress and Janice had had read the Roman Catholic controversy if he had Listened to the debates if he would go back and read Calvin's discussion of such things.

Or if he'd even looked at the blog article itself I mean, it's possible and again, this will just demonstrate that mistress and Janice doesn't check his sources, but it is possible that What happened and I I'm gonna go this direction.

Even though it wouldn't be unusual for Bob's chance do something like this. But I think what happened was is somebody quoted they cut and paste pasted the the that section of the blog article and Sent it to him for comment because they don't know enough of the languages to be able to respond to it.

The problem is you have to have the right fonts and If the fonts if even some Janice doesn't have the right fonts of the Hebrew it wouldn't come across to him. And that's why he doesn't comment on it now.

I thought I saw when this first appeared on The envoy forums, I thought I saw a Transliterated and it was it was what would be? The transliterated form of the font for Hebrew still in it there and maybe it got cleaned up before it was put on the website.

But I think it was at least mentioned one way or the other but the point is he doesn't deal with a vaad. He doesn't deal with the fact that what you do in biblical theology is you look at Hebrew terms you look at what they're saying and Then you look at the Greek Translations thereof and how those come in the New Testament.

He's not doing that. He's dismissing that and ignoring the fact that that is the core of my argumentation. It's no wonder that these folks don't call up with a reputation because evidently they don't understand what the core of this stuff is.

So it is erroneous to then claim that a Hebrew word would be in the middle of two Greek words. Whatever that means. No, it's not what I'm saying. Is that the semantic domain of Of Latria and Dulia of Latrua and do you go in regards to religious worship?

Come together and are used synonymously within the context of what a vaad means in Exodus chapter 20 and Deuteronomy chapter 5. And it comes in the New Testament that way just prove that You can't the text is right there.

It's it's it's not disputable. This is a conflation of languages and has no linguistic or biblical support. No, it is a demonstration that either Syngenis didn't have the blog article or has not read enough of the background to know what we're talking about.

So he's just giving a response off top of his head that has no meaning to it. Just an ipsodix it of whites. Well, we can dismiss that as well. Hence the concluding argument that is that any person seeking to give pure service to God cannot pretend to be serving an image.

While only worshiping God cannot be based on whites artificial and unproven linguistic premise. Well, we've blown away everything He said to this point we have substantiated everything I've said at this point and so we have provided the substantiation you cannot say I am Serving this not worshiping this in the context of worship.

It can't be done. You shall not bow down to them nor serve them. That's what the Bible says and The excuses that Rome's apologists are coming up with are often contradictory to one another. I mean notice he's not doing the Patrick Madrid thing here and say well.

Yes, that was only relevant back then when people had problems by Dollar Tree. You know, we don't we don't have problems by Dollar Tree anymore. Well, I just looked at the clock and and we're going long on the break here it's gonna take a quick break gonna finish up this email and Then if there are any phone calls relevant to this subject or to the second subject.

We'll go ahead and take those at eight seven seven seven five three three three four one and then come back with the seven steps Defense on Romans one that homosexuals use we'll be looking at that as well.

We'll be right back.

Commercial Break and Upcoming Topics

The history of the Christian Church pivots on the doctrine of justification by faith. Once the core of the Reformation the church today often ignores or misunderstands this foundational doctrine. In his book the God who justifies theologian James White calls believers to a fresh appreciation of Understanding of and dedication to the great doctrine of justification and then provides an exegesis of the key scripture texts on this theme.

Justification is the heart of the gospel in today's culture where tolerance is the new absolute. James White proclaims with passion the truth and centrality of the doctrine of justification by faith. Dr. J. Adams says I lost sleep over this book. I simply couldn't put it down.

James White writes the way an exegetically and theologically oriented pastor appreciates. This is no book for casual reading. There is solid meat throughout an outstanding contribution in every sense of the words.

The God who justifies by dr. James White. Get your copy today at a omen org. Answering those who claim that only the King James Version is the Word of God. James White in his book the King James only controversy examines allegations that modern translators Conspired to corrupt scripture and lead believers away from true Christian faith in a readable and responsible style.

Author James White traces the development of Bible translations old and new and Investigates the differences between new versions and the authorized version of 1611. You can order your copy of James White's book the King James only controversy by going to our website at www .a omen .org.

What is dr. Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book chosen, but free a new cult secularism false prophecy scenarios. No, dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called Calvinism.

He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent Philosophically insufficient and morally repugnant. In his book the potter's freedom James White replies to dr. Geisler, but the potter's freedom is much more than just a reply.

It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded. Indeed it is a defense of the very gospel itself in a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate.

James White masterfully counters the evidence against so-called Extreme Calvinism. Defines what the reformed faith actually is and concludes that the gospel preached by the reformers is the very one taught in the pages of Scripture the potter's freedom a defense of the Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's chosen.

But free you'll find it in the reformed theology section of our bookstore at a omen org.

And welcome back to the dividing line. We are looking at.

You know the nice thing about doing the program live and also a nice thing about not having it Necessarily scripted out way way way ahead of time as you can you can do stuff. That's that's it's fresh.

It's it's what's going on right now. Apologetically, but that does remind me. That's a week from Thursday. We will be doing a special program. I will have as my guest Dr. Jim Renahan of the Institute reformed Baptist Studies Westminster theological seminary in Escondido California and We are going to be discussing his work over there.

Some of you may know that Jim Renahan was the fine gentleman with whom I teamed up to debate John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg on the subject of the resurrection last year and We're gonna be talking a little bit about John Owen and Owen's influence upon the English Baptist of the 17th century and The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, of course the Savoy Declaration very important to the 1689 and things like that and You will find I think Jim Renahan to just be a tremendous resource for things scholarly and historical and So we will have him on the program next Thursday here on the dividing lines.

So make sure to be with us at that point in time. So we are looking at Robertson Genesis claims regarding Basically a sentence was it of. I don't know if it was a full sentence. I'd have to look back at it here me.

There it is. Was it even a full sentence? Yeah, one one full sentence from my my blog article of August 21st and That was posted on envoy and then was sent to me by email and then Sam Shimon founded on Robertson Genesis website, and so we're looking at it as it is found there.

But you will notice that until I knew that until it appeared on the sought on St. Genesis website I said allegedly supposedly. That's how it should be done. I wish other people would return that favor.

I can't believe how many times I've seen people ripping my lips off for things. I never ever would have said. And then when you ask them, well, how do you know I said that well somebody told me and When you actually go and look at it, you discover they'd even they'd either change something or we're completely ignoring the context whatever else as it was but You can't expect that.

You can't expect to be treated in that in that fashion if you're going to engage in apologetics, that's the nature of the beast. So he says that We Can only determine whether my argument the a person seeking to give pure service to God cannot pretend to be serving an image while only Worshiping God cannot be based on whites artificial and proven linguistic premise.

Whether whites concluding argument is true or not must be sought after on other grounds. Well, no it has been firmly grounded in the language itself and Again, if mr. St. Genesis would like to defend the idea that he would be willing to stand before Moses having been caught Bowing down before a statue of Mary in his tent.

I know I'm being anachronistic there, but let's let's make it real. I don't think that the the Jews would have accepted that and that he would try to introduce this very distinction that his Entire soul depends upon to Moses.

It wouldn't have worked. Just all hurts to it then he says As it stands there is great enough Distinction between Dooley and Lottery in Greek to say that an individual can give honor or service Dooley a to a being that is not divine.