Acts 9:7 and 22:9 Examined in Light of Dan Barker's Claims

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line

The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence

Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 973 4602 or toll -free across the

United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 And now with today's topic here is

James white Thank you. Morning. Welcome to the dividing line on a Tuesday morning.

I want to start off with a little bit of apologetic study here I Was listening to one of the many debates that Dan Barker has done be debating

Dan Barker Two weeks from this Thursday at the University of Illinois 7 p .m.

The information is on the website. So I've been listening and Was directed to a debate that Dan did with Mike like Kona and Interestingly enough an issue came up.

I am mentioned only one time in his book Godless and it's on this very subject the subject of acts 9 7 acts 22 9 this is a

Very old accusation of contradiction one that we have dealt with many many times in Dealing with Mormons if you deal with almost anybody who's good go online look for contradictions this is gonna be one they're gonna throw at you so I want to play the section of the debate where this came up and Then take a look at the information related to acts 9 7 and acts 22 9

You might want to have your Bibles or you'll be taking a look at this alleged contradiction day on the dividing line

Let's start with the interaction. This was during the cross -examination period of This debate

I believe is sometime in 2004 late 2003 2004 somewhere around there is

I think the the date on this? Dan Barker and Mike like Kona, but let me ask you this Are you granting the axe because if you're granting the axe then we can really settle this thing with By the way, the sound quality is about to drop out for about 10 seconds and then it'll come back

So don't panic resurrection very easily about Paul. Well in acts we find contradictory accounts of the

Yes, we do. We find that in one case in acts 9 7 the the men that were with him heard a voice

But later in acts 22 9 the men that were with Paul heard not A voice it's a direct contradiction

In a course in Greek, yes,

I have I translated much of the New Testament from the Greek Now, let me just stop again. We've played now.

Remember it was over the past couple weeks I've played a lot of Dan Barker and when Dan was talking to his fellow atheists at I believe

George Washington University Describing his education described his time at Azusa Pacific as glorified

Sunday school And when he described his knowledge of Greek, he said he could use a lexicon and he could throw Greek words into sermons

But when he talks to Christians, he's translated most of the New Testament now translating the

New Testament. That's not having looked at sections that takes a very high level of knowledge of the language and He is going to admit here that he had two years of undergraduate

Greek Is is what he had now if he was a if he had a great Greek teacher, and he was a very good student at the end of your second year undergraduate

You can work through a lot of stuff Hebrews and most of Luke will still be a mystery to you

But you can you can work through stuff and you can use a lexicon. You can look things up You can follow what's being said in a in a commentary or stuff like that But I'm sorry after two years of undergraduate

Greek to claim to just you know, read, you know translate major portions of the New Testament A little bit of a stretch here, but that's not really the reason we're looking at courses college courses

Have you taken in Greek two years of college Greek two years of college Greek? Okay, so they're going in Greek that gets you through a point

Greek, of course Okay, that gets you through beginners and intermediate Greek. Maybe a course of exegesis.

I can appreciate that Okay, and I've had five years of Greek and I've studied Greek now for 20 years and You know,

I can see these things you're saying Dan. They just don't add up with the Greek. Well, then explain it Okay, first of all in Acts chapter 9 verse 7 where it says he

You know, they heard the voice and in Acts 22 9 when it says they didn't hear it the

Greek word for here is a kuo and it can mean both Here and to understand so, you know

I think the translators have it correctly and the majority if you look at almost any Translation of the New Testament it will say in one they heard the voice, but they didn't understand what it was saying

And what was the word in Acts 22 9? Acts 22 9. Okay. It's a cool. It's the same word exactly right in Acts 9 7

They are cool on taste. It was the participle. They heard the voice but in Acts 22 9 Look equal sign they did not hear the same didn't understand it could mean they didn't understand the boy

Well, then in both cases, it could be understand. It's a contradiction either way No, no, no Just let's stop immediately and I want to make sure we hear what

Dan is saying before we even take the time to start working with the text itself Basically what he just said there was well if it means understand in one place and it has to mean understand everywhere

And I think he gets away with this because rarely in a debate you have really the time to examine each one of these things

And that's why we're going to take the time to do it But the fact the matter is I I find this particular allegation on Dan Barker's part because he can read enough of the language to know what these issues are and I don't think through second year

He would have had a whole lot of in -depth syntax or things like that. But but again be that as it may

He he knows enough To know that he's pushing a bad point here. That's that's the point and what it illustrates for me is

The fundamentalist nature of his atheism Dan Barker's a fundamentalist atheist

He was a fundamentalist Christian and he just kept that attitude that perspective and of course fundamentalist today

Means a person who doggedly holds to a perspective without critical thought or examination

That's not what it meant historically, but let's face it. It is it is a word that has changed in meaning

And it is in popular culture today, that's what it means when someone uses that term, that's what it means

You can correct them all you want. You can try to drag them back seven or eighty years into history But that's what it has come to mean is a non reflective person a person who does not examine what he or she is saying on certain issues and In this context

Dan just will not accept correction. He knows enough to recognize

That he himself in his own writings uses words in different contexts with different meanings but he won't allow that to the writers of Scripture and So the whole argument here would be that Luke a careful writer of all the

New Testament writers Is not Luke considered even by the critic to be one of the most careful

He is called the historian. We know that his his Specific use of language is extremely specific is extremely advanced in the sense that in Comparison to the the grammar and syntax of almost anything else in New Testament Luke is the most advanced

He's much more classical. He's much more classical less coin a than any other element of New Testament Greek Hebrews being very similar along these lines very complex grammar a lot of participles and infinitival form

And so on so forth. So you have someone who is very careful in history his historiography and what you're asserting based upon two different uses as we're going to see

The the verbs are in different forms The direct objects are in different cases and in the case of a kuo

There is much flexibility whether it's taking its direct object and a genitive or the accusative.

There is a wide Semantic domain to the word a kuo which means to either hear as a physical sound or to hear with understanding and Then there is a modification x 22 9 of the one speaking to me and In acts 21 we are told that was

Paul is giving this defense as which is what actually tonight is part of he is Speaking in Hebrew or Aramaic whichever dialect it was

He was speaking to the people in their own language, that means that that Luke is translating that rendering that into Greek and hence, there might be some

Semitic isms and things that come through that because Luke's inaccurate to translator, so the point is a

Contradiction what is the law of non -contradiction? What's the classic example a? Chair cannot be both in the room and outside the room at the same time

You can't have not have something that is true and not true at the same time in the same way Even Given the the worst reading of the text

That's not what you have in these two instances The language does not allow it now

Barker and Mormons interesting combination here Basis upon the

King James translation which makes no differentiation does not recognize any differentiation between the two Simply says in the one heard and in the other did not hear but The reality is that those?

Words were not spoken in English They were originally written in Greek and the

Greek speaker would recognize This is not an X not X situation. There's too many complicating factors he's pushing a bad argument, but why does he do so because he's a fundamentalist and It has to he will not extend to any biblical writer the same level of simple compassion or kindness

That he would any other ancient writer. He wouldn't you would not argue that other ancient writers that this was somehow a mistake

He would recognize that even in his own writings. He has to ask for people to be fair in allowing for context, but not when it comes to the

Bible and That is the problem at all because see for first century people reading

Greek that's not going to be a problem at all Let's suppose the electricity went out in here right now and no one could see us, you know, except maybe some people here and then some

P and the sound system was out, but we just kept talking we kept going and The next day someone who was at the back.

They're talking about this debate and they said yeah, the lights went out And yep, they kept talking. I heard them.

I heard them talk About that, but then later on they say and I couldn't hear a word they said well,

I think we could understand There's no contradiction there. They understand what we're saying. We get the word here was used on both occasions

So I don't see anything Contradiction here and even Daniel Wallace who's a prominent Greek grammarian and in his book

Greek Greek grammar beyond the basics He talks about this very passage and says given the field of use of a kuo and phonet and the fact that in chapter 9

It's a kuo plus the genitive and in chapter 22. It's a kuo plus the direct plus the accusative.

It's the dative. It's accusative Barker is wrong. It's accusative. Not the dative

He said what we can look you said 22 9 Well, it doesn't matter. There are two different cases. I agree with that.

No, I've got it right here. It's it's the accusative It's phonet tain phonet. So I'm given that he says given the fact that it's taken on a different Ending there.

He says that certainly harmonizes. No, that's totally wrong. I've already so you're saying you have two years

Greek experience Yes, you're right and Daniel Wallace is a very prominent and respected Greek grammarian is wrong

He's wrong and I can show you exactly why he's wrong all through the new test. Now. I just stopped there for just a moment

There's an amazing amount of hubris on the part of someone To to make this kind of argument and having read

Dan Barker's paper on this Again he in comparison to reading

Wallace's material. It's it's Well, there is no comparison, but there's a little problem here.

And that is Mike Lycona is wrong Lycona is actually quoting Robertson who's being quoted by Wallace who

Wallace is going to disagree with So Lycona was wrong and Barker's wrong about Lycona Being It's a it's a little a little complicated we're gonna read all of Wallace here in a moment

But just so you know, that's what's going on. There's a loose interchange of case

Flexibility, I will show you other cases where those exact words are used to signify opposite words

But where the case changes it would produce a different contradiction the case flexibility There does not change the meaning of the word in spite of what some of these people show it

In fact, I wrote a good article on that did Paul's men hear a voice going I read it and I found it problematic for the reasons

I've explained Well, well then look up those verses that I explained and look at the fact that those cases differ so what what

Barker is arguing is that you can find in New Testament and outside of New Testament usage a wide range

Where a kuo the verb to hear you see generally in in Greek a verb takes its direct object in the accusative but after you learn that and struggle through that you begin to discover that there are some verbs that take their direct object in other cases and Normally that indicates a difference in meaning at least on the part of the person who is using the language at that particular point in time a kuo can have a direct object in the accusative or the genitive

The fact the matter is you can find in the New Testament. We don't even have to go outside the New Testament But we could if we wish to during the koine period a kuo being used with both the genitive and accusative and with both

Sometimes meaning to hear with understanding and sometimes having no implication of that at all with both of them so the point again is

Without assuming guilt on the part of Luke without ascribing to Luke with no foundation for doing so other than your own prejudice

Rampant stupidity where he can't even remember what he said just few you know a couple chapters before It's obvious that since he uses different cases

Then the whole argument of contradiction This just doesn't doesn't fall into the realm where that would be a meaningful argument to be made

Now we haven't gotten into Some other contextual issues are important here, but just so you understand what the argument going on between them is

What Barker is saying is well I? Can show you places in Matthew I can show you places in John Where the genitive is used to mean understanding and so therefore the the accusative can't mean

Understanding in Acts 22 9 that's where he's just simply wrong again He may claim to have translated a lot, but I don't think anyone's ever gonna be publishing his translation

That's where he's just he's misleading people. He's wrong Just because you have something in John doesn't mean that that's gonna line up with Luke's syntax

That's just a basic beginners mistake And you would think that there would be a little bit of humility on his part

Especially when you're talking about someone like a Dan Wallace Who's you know that has he ever seen

Greek grammar beyond the basics the size of that beast probably not but To have the kind of temerity just simply oh, yeah, he's wrong

Is is rather interesting That's precisely why

Wallace says that there's no problem here But they differ they differ in places where Matthew tells a story

Where they heard the voice of the king and then Luke tells the same story there heard the voice of the king the same story

The same king and yet different cases are you telling me that there's different meanings in both retelling of the same story of course not they were flexible enough to change those cases from the accusative to the dative and then

To the to the genitive case and without any change in meaning so that I the dative doesn't come in here

He's just he's misremembering it. He's just wrong about that. He misidentified it He's just wrong

That's you know But that's sort of irrelevant to the entire point on the fact that he's wrong on that point too

That's a bad argument the contradiction stands, and why not why shouldn't there be contradictions in the writings of fallible human beings?

Are you defending a complete? infallibility of these documents Now notice the red herring.

Oh, that's are you saying it's completely infallible. No, we're talking yes, actually But we're talking here about whether you have a meaningful foundation and by the way it just backing up the truck a little bit farther this debate supposed to be on the resurrection and To Basically what

Barker is arguing here is because of his allegation of Contradiction on these two accounts in regards to Paul this somehow is relevant to Resurrection and all based upon whether the men who are with Paul did or did not hear the voice

I guess that's the the whole argumentation here. Well anyways. There's There's the the discussion that takes place from this particular debate and so I want to walk through this this text with you and again, it is a text that It would this was one of the very first alleged allegations of Contradiction I ever had to deal with as a young person

Dealing with the Mormons. I believe that the Mormons hit me with this one before the atheists ever did they tend to borrow each other's

Information at least they did back then I didn't have enough conversations at the

Easter pageant this We were out there Friday and Saturday night I didn't mention anything about that because we had hoped the

King James only people would not be out there, but they were anyways and so anyways, we were out there and did have

I did a very nice conversation with two missionaries, but It would strike me that they probably are not quite as big on the biblical contradiction stuff as they once were

Because that's way too objective truthy stuff, and it's not subjective enough, but anyway this is a text that you're going to need to be able to deal with and be able to give a response to and I just note that most people one of the reasons this sort of Catches a lot of would be catching more modern

Christians than it would even 20 years ago is because Most modern

Christians aren't using the King James anymore, and so if you have the new American Standard Acts 22 9 says and those who are with me saw the light to be sure but did not

Understand the voice the one who is speaking to me, so if you have the new American Standard You're not going to see that contradiction

You're not going to see that unless they raise it to you and say I see it's the word Here and the new American standards is trying to fool you but if you have the

ESV and Those who are with me saw the light But did not understand the voice the one who is speaking to me the voice did not understand the voice

The new English translation that Dan Wallace worked on those who are with me saw the light but did not understand the voice the one who was speaking to me and The NIV my companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me so Those give you the the big those are the big four as far as what most

Evangelicals today would be carrying new American Standard ESV any TN IV They all say did not understand the voice the one who is speaking to me so at the very least

You have four major Bible translations that Dan Barker would have to accuse of rank

Tampering with the text you're just trying to avoid a contradiction That's all you're trying to do and that based upon his two years of undergraduate

Greek Now you already heard most of the discussion and you heard

Dan Wallace's comments brought forward but let's

Let's let's take a look at what Dan Wallace actually actually said So that we know

You know correct the record here because I think Mike Lacona was a little bit off on that one, too Quoting from I believe this is page 133.

I copied the text out of libra nix, but I had looked it up in my hard copy as well Looking at so this is actually an axe 97

There seems to be a contradiction between this account of Paul's conversion and his account of it next 22 for there He says those who are with me did not hear the voice

However, an axe 22 9 the verba quo takes an accusative direct object on these two passages Robertson States and Robertson Here is dr.

A T Robertson his massive 1400 plus page grammar still the largest grammar in print

Quote it is perfectly proper to appeal the distinction the cases and the apparent contradiction between a cool and test men taste phonase

Axe 9 7 and 10 day phone name a Kusan x 22 9 the accusative case case of extent

Accents the intellectual apprehension of the sound while the genitive specifying case

Calls attention to the sound of the voice that accent accenting the sense The word akua itself has two senses which fall fall in well with this case

Distinction one to hear the other to understand and quote now that is the

Robertson citation that seemingly Mr. Lykona was citing at that particular point in time, but that's actually a citation of Robertson not

Wallace Continuing on with Wallace the NIV seems to follow this line of reasoning

Axe 9 7 reads they heard the sound but did not see anyone x 22 9 has my companion saw the light but not but did not understand the voice the field of meaning for both akua here and understand and phonate sound voice coupled with a change in cases genitive accusative can be appealed to Harmonize these two accounts, so he says it can be appealed to But it would be improper to say that that's how

Dan does it because he goes on to say on The other hand it is doubtful that this is where the difference lay between the two cases used the kuo in Hellenistic Greek the

New Testament including the more literary writers is filled with examples of a kuo plus genitive indicating understanding for example

Matthew 2 9 John 5 25 18 37 acts 3 23 11 7 revelation 3 26 3 5 8 13 11 12 14 13 16 1 5 7 and 21 3 as well as instances of a kuo plus the accusative where little or no

Comprehension takes place explicitly so in Matthew 13 19 Mark 13 7 Matthew 24 6

Luke 21 9 acts 5 24 first Corinthians 11 18 Ephesians 3 2 Colossians 1 4

Philippian Philemon 5 James 5 11 in Revelation 14 to the exceptions in fact are seemingly more numerous than the rule

Thus regardless of how one works through the accounts of Paul's conversion and appeal to different cases

Probably ought not form any part of the solution. That's Wallace's point But he recognizes what has been said by all sorts of folks and that is that these two

Texts are not an X not X situation Just on that basic level given the difference in the form of the verb from a participle to a

Regular verb to the use of the the accusative to the use of the genitive All of these things render this really on any meaningful basis irrelevant to mr.

Barker's purpose But what do we say about that? Well? It is not just Robertson who makes the observation that he he did there are a number of people that have said the exact same thing creamer vine

Robertson again in word pictures Molten quoting

Robertson in in his work So this is you know Nigel Turner the part of genitive occurs in New Testament verbs of perception

Especially with a personal object for a cool the classical rule is the person whose words are heard is in the genitive

But the thing or person about which one hears is an accusative We have to ask whether the class distinction between genitive accusative has significance for exegesis in New Testament There may be something in the difference between the genitive and acts a 9

And acts 22 not acts 22 9 that's X. We're looking at etc. Etc.

So there's there's a number of scholarly citations that Talk about the fact that there is a there is a difference in how these two texts present things

But I think what is often missed And I put this in letters to a

Mormon elder many many many years ago I think there's a an important element in this investigation

RJ knowling in the expositors Greek Testament Said the

And as well as John Abberley in the New Testament commentary edited by Alleman In acts 22 9

Paul is speaking to a crowd in Jerusalem according to acts 2140 Paul addressed the crowd in Hebrew the

NIV says Aramaic exactly which dialect it was It's not really relevant. The point is he was not speaking

Greek, which means that this is being rendered into Greek by Luke or by Paul depending as he relates it to Luke He mentions to his

Hebrew listeners that when Jesus called him he called him in their own Language in Hebrew.

How do we know this in both acts 9 for and this is something that is almost never mentioned except in just a few sources in both acts 9 for and in acts 22 7

Saul is Not spelled in its normal form the form that is used in the rest of the book of Acts It is spelled in its

Hebrew form Saul What does this tell us it tells us that the voice spoke in Hebrew?

Therefore acts 22 9 would probably be referring to the fact that the men who accompanied Paul did not

Understand what was said they could not understand Hebrew The text supports this rather strongly for Paul modifies his saying they did not hear understand the voice by adding a very important phrase of The one speaking to me to laloon toss

Moy notice the one speaking to me not speaking to them The voice was not speaking to them

The voice of the one and this is only found in acts 22. This is what emphasizes the Understanding element of a kuo in acts 22 9 is that the voice is speaking

Specifically to him. This is not a revelation for these others. They may have heard the sound

But they do not understand What is being said either because they don't understand

Hebrew or? Because it's not for them to understand. This is a private conversation and Therefore it is not given to them to hear these things, but the point is that the one was speaking to me

Not to them. It's not just a general statement that there was a voice from heaven and anybody stand around could have heard it this the second reference specifically limits the speaking to Paul the emphasis is on the speaking of the voice which indicate comprehension understanding and Therefore given everything else we find in these texts.

We see that the NET and IV ESV NAS B are all

Appropriately translating the text and that there simply is no meaningful basis for accusing

Luke who is actually Going beyond himself to be very specific He's here's a situation where by trying to be as specific and careful as possible

You end up coming up with an allegation of contradiction by those who simply will not allow context to be context and That's what happens and in you know, the funny thing is

Dan Barker has produced two books losing faith and faith and godless they are not identical to one another and Therefore using his own standards you could accuse him of doing the very same thing

That he's accusing Luke of but he would go Wait a minute. It's what do you mean? You gotta allow me to define my own context and and I had to update the book so I had to change some things on and If you're not willing to give the ancient writers that level of of fairness, then why would you expect us to do that for you?

it is amazing to observe the the double standards, but hopefully that is of assistance to you in understanding of the the issue there maybe if again

Many Christians they only have an NIV or an ESV. They've never used the King James and Therefore when these folks come up and throw an alleged contradiction at you

You've never even it could not even have suggested itself to you because of the translation that you have and so it's important I think to be

Aware of that. So keep that in mind. Hopefully that'll be useful to you and when we come back

We'll look at some more of these alleged Contradictions here on the dividing line. We'll be right back

Sure today So many stars strong and true

Bible works 8 is here full of innovative and essential tools users will have a hundred and ninety plus Bible translations 35 original language text and morphology databases 29 lexical grammatical references and an abundance of additional resources

Pastors you will appreciate the phrase matching tool which will allow you to find all of the verses containing phrases

Similar to your search verse giving you greater depth and keener insight during sermon preparation Seminary professors and students will be enriched by the way

Bible works 8 shows the most common words in the pericope Book or chapter plus provides a wider range of formatting options and faster access to copying preferences scholars

Your research just got easier with the army external resources manager a handy tool to collect organize and display resource files from your computer

As well as the internet. Dr. James White says Bible works is the best Bible software available I have used

Bible works software for years and each new release has brought many new and useful tools to the program This is the program that runs 24 7 on my office computer and it is the one that's running on my laptop when

I engage In debates it is simply the number one research tool for anyone doing serious exegesis of the text for over 15 years

Bible works has assisted all users in their study of the original languages and That enables you to do one thing focus on the text and that translates to focusing on the truth

Order your copy of Bible works at a omen org and for a limited time You'll receive free shipping and a free mp3 download of the white airmen debate

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. Jay 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

Hello everyone. This is Rich Pierce in a day and age where the gospel is being twisted into a man -centered self -help program

The need for a no -nonsense presentation of the gospel has never been greater I am convinced that a great many go to church every

Sunday yet. They have never been confronted with their sin Alpha and Omega ministries is dedicated to presenting the gospel in a clear and concise manner making no excuses

Man is sinful and God is holy That sinful man is in need of a perfect Savior and Jesus Christ is that perfect Savior?

We are to come before the Holy God with an empty hand of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ Alpha and Omega takes that message to every group that we deal with while equipping the body of Christ as well

Support Alpha and Omega ministries and help us to reach even more with the pure message of God's glorious grace.

Thank you You have power yes, what do you what do you do?

What are you doing in there? He's playing with stuff He's not okay. Now. He's gonna try to make me sound all weird and stuff.

That's good. That's brilliant That's good, and that's somehow going to just draw more attention to the fact that we don't have any new bumper music

Let me just add one thing by the way that I've got to mention Dan seems to have a problem with the idea of a kuo meaning to understand and I just It is important to be able to point out that the lexical sources

Substantiate this very clearly. I mean think of think of a kuo in John Hearing you can hear but you can't hear you're hearing what

Jesus says but then you can't hear what Jesus is saying and so on so forth, so Just just look at the at low

Anita's Greek lexicon based upon semantic domains and under the section on understand the very first entry is a kuo

That is clearly one of its meanings. Yes, it can simply mean the faculty of hearing but it can also mean to hear with understanding that is clearly a part of its of its range of meaning and I just let me highly recommend to everybody once again the

Excellent book I you know, I Think it old It was called biblical words in their meaning by Moises Silva, I then the title may have changed

But it was you know, sometimes there are these books. Sometimes you'll just read a book and it will Change your life.

I'm very thankful that there are a couple books I've written that I've had people tell me that that that did it for them

Done by the father Potter's freedom forgotten Trinity King James only controversy those four especially

Other than people who said it, you know just change your life. Well Moises Silva's book was one of those for me

I just recently reconnected with my Greek professor from back in the 1980s dr.

Mike Baird who had hair when he started teaching me Greek and lost most of it in the process of seven seven years of Greek three years undergraduate and four years graduate before I started teaching it myself and I I mentioned to him as toward the end.

It was just he and I we had I had outlasted everybody towards the end Some people think

I can't see the chat channel when I'm talking here, but certain people in the other room are complaining about the fact they're not the only ones that have lost their hair from their relationship with me over the years and but anyway

We got together and I was saying do you remember The book that we read and we discussed how one of the books that we read and we went over it.

I remember Meeting at the Hungry Hunter is that was what was it called down there the Hungry Hunter doubt it

It was an Indian school in the freeway wasn't it's gone now. I think it's who knows what it is now, but We met the

Hungry Hunter and discussed Moises Silva's book biblical words in their meaning which was an introduction to lexical semantics and The concept of semantic domains, you know, he said it changed how he taught

Greek vocabulary and it will change if you are have taken even one year of Greek I would highly recommend the book to you because it will truly expand how you look at a lexicon and and how you use a lexicon it's it's extremely useful and So, yeah, there it is.

Someone just put it in channel biblical words in their meaning by Moises Silva Yeah, 1995.

That's probably because I would have read it before then I think And it's it's available at Amazon stuff.

So I would I would highly recommend it to you would find it to be very very useful

All right. Let's let's continue on I mean we we can open the phones at eight seven seven seven five three three three four one

But I have stuff queued up and have for a quite amount of time From Dan Barker and this next alleged contradiction that he threw out.

This was in the debate with Kyle Butts This one is

I it may be the worst example of Dan Barker Completely ignoring the concept of context and I guess he feels

I can get away with it because he you can say oh, well, that's all that's what you people are Always saying context. Well, yeah most the time when you misunderstand what someone else has written or said

It's because you're ignoring the context context is absolutely central and definitional to the interpretation of language

Anybody knows that that's the case the deeper you go into language. The the more that becomes the case is that Context is

King. So check out this next alleged contradiction from Dan Barker Now Did you hear any of those texts say the

God of the Bible is not good No, none of them did he quoted a number that said

God is good But then he went off and he quoted other things about God's interaction with sinners with evil men one of his favorite texts is

Isaiah 45 7 and Of course, it's it's a well -known text the one speaking of himself

God the one forming light and creating darkness

Causing well -being and creating calamity. I am the Lord who does all these now as he pointed out he likes to quote the

Hebrew there and You have uber ah -rah

But you had right before it a different phrase

Or say Shalom I'm sorry. I'll say Shalom a saw means to make and but ah means to create and probably in Looking at what's called

Hebrew parallelism and Hebrew poetry when you have verbs being used in String like this you have yet SAR at the beginning

Then you have but ah, then you have oh say then you have but ah again

Probably not indicating completely different things. These are just the entire range of words used in Hebrew to refer to God's creative action and God is the one saying that if things happen in this world

He is the one who is sovereign over these things. So he forms light and he creates darkness.

I Form light and create darkness now light and darkness are meant to be opposites of one another

I make Shalom peace well -being and I create raw, but ah raw now his

Again of he's brought this up. I don't know how many times and the debates that I've heard God creates evil.

Remember when we played this section from the Wilson debate and Douglas Wilson Surprised him

By saying yeah. Yeah, I believe that I accept that's not a problem and I think he's a little taken back by that because people are normally trying to get around it and the way they

Normally try to ground what's said in Isaiah 45 7 is well, this is just calamity as in the opposite of Shalom well,

I I don't think that the The translations like the

ESV or the NASB that do not render raw as evil arm are trying to hide something

Because they are taking honestly the contradiction in the poetry between the two polar ends of light and darkness and now on the positive side you have

Shalom and Shalom is a a deep rich word in the

Hebrew language It is it is one of those try little roots in the

Semitic languages That is so strong that it continues on into Arabic I've mentioned this before but we always have new listeners

Islam Shalom these are related to one another as they all see

Islam is a religion of peace well the the concept of Islam means submission it is the peace that comes through submission to Allah and It's the peace that comes when

When the victors foot is on the neck of the of the conquered rebel

That's the kind of peace That is that is being discussed there and so this this concept in Hebrew is not merely the lack of Conflict the lack of warfare.

It is a wellness of being that's why it's translated Well -being in both the

ESV and the NASB which again substantiates my assertion that the ESV is the NASB without semicolons

But anyway It is it is a positive assertion of well -being and so the opposite of this would be the calamity that comes upon the city the

Warfare the the breach of the wall the the watchman crying out by night because the attack is happening so on so forth

So within this context, I think that is a fair rendering of the Hebrew It is improper to say that that's a wrong translation because once again, it's taking into consideration

Hebrew parallelism Hebrew poetry And and things like that, but at the same time

It is obvious to me that when God speaks in Isaiah 10 of bringing the

Assyrians against the is Sinful people as the means of his judgment the means of his punishment

That that is not in any way shape or form to be Separated out from this that the idea of the calamity in Isaiah 45 7 does involve the existence of evil and For Dan Barker It was very painfully clear in his debate with Douglas Wilson and that hasn't seemingly changed

Those two just can't be the same. He cannot allow for the Christian doctrine of compatibilism

He probably would not have been taught that in his undergraduate studies, which he himself

Identifies as as I said a glorified Sunday school The concept of compatibilism and God's sovereignty would not be a part of the systematic theology classes that he would have been taking back then during the

Jesus movement in California, so he simply dismisses the the biblical understanding of the relationship between God's sovereignty and the existence of evil and the overarching

Glorification of God in in all these things and then creates an alleged biblical contradiction based upon his

Misunderstanding of these things, but once again, there was no contradiction. It is his

Interpretation of what these things mean obviously for him God is good That means God could never have a purpose the existence of evil

Therefore since the Bible says he does have a purpose existence of evil that means he's evil. Therefore. It's contradiction Be very careful in listening

Many many Christians find themselves they get themselves into a problem because they don't challenge the presuppositions and I'm not talking just going all the way back to the founding presuppositions of The naturalistic materialist and so on so forth which will of course come out in our debate at the

University of Illinois But even in the arguments that are presented Many Christians will grant

Inappropriate improper presuppositions To the arguments they will not challenge the factuality or the use of facts that lay at the very foundation of the argument

That's being presented They just want to go to the conclusion and try to deal with the conclusion

Well, it may not mean this it may not mean that rather than going. Wait a minute. The entire question is flawed the assertion that the

Bible says God is good and yet the Bible says that that God in his sovereignty brings evil into existence and he has purposes for it and The Christian goes both are true.

Well, they can't be true. Why not? Well, because I artificially limit your

God to my practice. That's what he's saying That that's really the whole essence of the argument and so much of what

Dan Barker says Involves him limiting God to time and space So much of his argumentation is well, you know,

God can't be Eternal because you know that he'd always be trying to keep up with what he's doing and blah blah

It's all based upon a timeline concept of God moving through time And experiencing past present and future and all the rest that stuff which isn't the

God that we're talking about in the first place and So you have to examine those things challenge those things

And I it is really one of the most common apologetic failures as I listen to other debates as I listen to As I listen to Christians asking audience questions of debates, oh just To beat my head against the wall.

Oh Please think through what you're gonna say before you get up there I was listening to some audience questions in one of these debates while riding yesterday, and I just I wanted to Ride my bicycle in the telephone pole would have felt better than listening to these people that just Do not think critically they do not think with clarity and perspicuity

And they they're raising questions and all they're doing is tossing softballs To the other side and it's just it's very very disturbing sometimes

So anyways something very important Christians must think critically And it's funny that I just haven't mentioned that in light of the rather lengthy blog article

I'm not sure if you probably haven't even had a chance to see it Given your morning, but I posted a pretty lengthy blog article.

I was gonna do a video on it I might still do a video on it, but in response to the USA Today op -ed piece that took took shots at me and I sent the link by the way to the author of that op -ed piece

I haven't heard back from him yet, but I think I will I think I will hear back from him, but I posted a pretty lengthy article there and One of the things that I clearly pointed out or attempted to clearly point out

Was how many times double standards were being used how many times? The the author of the article simply was not in any way shape or form fairly interacting with Either Ehrman's book or the criticisms thereof and certainly wasn't trying to represent both sides or all those things and that's just Not gonna get any better folks.

I mean Last night and then this morning. I was noticing that the that Homeland Security has has put out a

Yeah, we've got all we've if you if you are opposed to abortion

And you think that abortion is murder and if you are if you believe that we have a god -given right to defend ourselves against evil people if if you think that a nation that cannot

Define its own borders and its own citizens is in grave danger if if you are opposed to gay rights and and the promulgation of homosexuality you are a right -wing extremist and Your government is now considering you to be a dangerous person a person needs to be watched

My how quickly things change which means of course and this is important for me from my perspective.

I Always think of it along these lines Can you name me any of the founding fathers that would have not been an extremist from that perspective?

and if that means you're identifying all the people who founded this nation as Extremists, what does that make you that makes you a revolutionary?

So who's the revolutionary and who's the person who is still standing in the tradition? Well, anyways,

I think you understand where I'm going there. Anyhow Things are are not looking good.

And that means that we cannot expect fair treatment from people and that means these kind of bad arguments are gonna get more and more play and sometimes we as Christians become tired of dealing with the same bad arguments and You get so tired of you just don't even want to respond to it

I mean you're out used to be be out in Salt Lake City. You'd be out in Mesa Here comes

James 2 again, and I'm so tired of responding to James chapter 2 But you got to realize the person you're talking to may have never heard a response

James chapter You may have given the best response in the world to James chapter 2 Ten minutes beforehand, but the guy walking up now he didn't hear what you said ten minutes beforehand, and it's easy for us to forget that and so Arguments like this obviously from from any meaningful perspective are really bad but because of the internet really bad arguments get repeated a lot all the stuff about Mithra and Dionysus and and Osiris and all this stuff.

Yeah, it's been debunked a thousand times before It demonstrates gross dishonesty or ignorance in the part of anybody using that kind of argumentation.

No question about it but It's gonna keep coming up and it's gonna keep coming up.

It's gonna keep coming up and we have to deal with it Let's try to get one more alleged contradiction in here before we run out of time

Genesis 20 to 1 came to pass after these things that God did tempt. Abraham, God does not tempt people,

God does tempt people. He does not exist. Again very shallow bringing together of completely different contexts though again

Sadly given that this type of stuff is rarely discussed in many churches I can see a whole lot of folks sitting there going

Never thought about that before or obviously one of the best ways to do it is always pull something from the

Old Testament You'll leave a lot of Evangelicals wondering what in the world to do with that because they don't read the

Old Testament very often Or really deal with its relationship to the New Testament but you obviously

And you know on this one, I would have a hard time thinking that that back in his

Professing Charismatic Pentecostal days even in those particular circles in those days

There had to have been some discussion at some point. I think if he was attending Katherine Kuhlman stuff, maybe not but you would think that at some point there would have been some discussion of Testing and trying and temptation that in the one you're talking about a

A person who has the evil intention of causing someone to stumble and the other you're talking about someone who's trying and testing someone for example in regards their obedience in regards to Abraham You'd allow

James to have his context and you allow Genesis to have its context It's just hard for me to think that there wasn't some discussion of that at some point

I mean, but then again, I'm not a part of those circles. And so Maybe most the discussion is about eschatology or you know

Visions or dreams or something like that and you just don't get in that stuff I I don't know but I know that one of the things that may cause some level of fireworks is the fact that I will need to be very clear in pointing out that the

Experientialism that Dan Barker Embraced the kind of quote -unquote

Evangelism that he did which was little more than used car salesman techniques And he himself admits this that's why

I'm glad I listened to that lecture that he gave him. It's sometimes there's a temptation I just want to hear the debates. I don't want to listen to you know lectures to fellow humanists no, that's when you hear folks at their most honest and when he's admitting that he's basically using the same kind of Techniques that people use today to sell used cars as if that somehow was gospel preaching and and the you know

Katherine Kuhlman type of Wild -eyed Experientialism that would have been his

That's not the religion that I'm talking about that is not the religion that I'm going to be defending and I'm going to be speaking from and He likes to you know emphasize his convert status, but the reality is that He converted from something very very different than what

I profess today so anyway we will continue with I think there's a few more alleged contradictions to get to and get back to the

Tony Costa Shabir Ali program on unbelievable and your phone calls all the rest that stuff

Lord willing on Thursday afternoon We'll 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 -973 -4602 or write us at P .O.

Box 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