Upcoming Discussions and A Few Articles

Greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line. It is Thursday, and the world is still insane, but God is still on His throne. I was just, once again, distracted by stuff coming in from social media. This one caught my attention because it's at the University of Utah.

Another one of those situations where you are being given the very, very clear indication that the next generation of voters are already very comfortable with totalitarianism. They're very uncomfortable with liberty.

They're uncomfortable with disagreement. They're uncomfortable. Everybody has to think the same thing, say the same things. And I keep thinking about that one young, they're called activists, they're actually revolutionaries, in the restaurant yelling and screaming at this person trying to get them to make the communist symbol, put their fist up in the air in the communist symbol.

Which, if you don't realize what that is, well, of course, nobody reads history. I mean, the 1960s were so 1960 ago, so no one cares. And the camera panned a little bit. I think maybe the person was just moving.

You know how it is with your cell phone, doing cell phone videos. It's not exactly professional level stuff, but that's what we get these days. And here's this older couple sitting next to the people that are being berated and screamed at, and they are just in utter compliance.

They're just sitting there with their fists in the air, probably to the point where their fingers started getting numb, but they're just in utter compliance. And that's what you've got going on here. They're going to kick a senator out because he made someone feel unsafe, which means he actually thought for himself.

He didn't just go with the group. And this is just so universal that you just go, how did this happen? I mean, my kids will tell you that I was very straightforward in presenting the Christian worldview, but never in this mindless totalitarianism.

I mean, they saw me engaging other worldviews all the time. And hopefully, maybe the fact they also saw me spending so much time studying and learning what the other side was saying, that the whole idea of just simply silencing the other side wouldn't even enter into their thinking.

So that's the difference here, I think, is that you have this communication of this totalitarianism, and it comes along with the idea that it is a good thing to silence anyone who differs from you in anything.

Looks different than you, so y 'all dress the same, say the same things, utter the same words, make the same gestures. How did a movement that started off on the basis of destroying cultural norms of morality end up now creating its own that are just the exact opposite of what it was trying to destroy?

Absolute totalitarianism, it's obviously the opposite of liberalism, which is why I think we need to stop using that term. Liberalism is actually allowing freedom of expression, and then believing that the best way of promulgating truth is to contrast it with error.

We live in God's world, therefore, and that again is about the only place my hope can find any foundations here, is in the reality that this kind of totalitarianism, because it enforces a worldview of lies, cannot long last.

But right now, it just seems to be absolutely everywhere. It is astonishing to see, and just so sad, because these are supposed to be students, they're supposed to be learning critical thought, and it's very, very plain that they have been taught the exact opposite of critical thought.

That is, they cannot critically analyze anything at all. It's just not possible. So, there you go. It's absolutely all around us. Now, was it on the last program that I talked about, the lady that came out after?

The lady that was arrested down in Australia for her Facebook post, that came out afterwards, huh? Most of you have seen it by now. It's on LifeSite News and all sorts of other places. But the video of...

Now, it's interesting, because one of the articles I saw identified her as a witch, as a Wiccan. That was the only article I saw that mentioned that. But I sort of could tell by the language that, while she has kids, she's living with a guy who isn't married to him.

So, we're not exactly talking about an upstanding Christian woman here. But she had posted on Facebook, which, by the way, has tried and convicted the young shooter in Kenosha. He has been tried and convicted by Facebook.

And my understanding is, if you post anything in support of him, it will be removed. Yeah, that's what I'm hearing. So, they've tried and convicted him. Yeah, all that stuff is just... You're not allowed to do it.

Even though you could post all the GoFundMes to get people out of jail for burning buildings down and doing stuff like that, that's fine. There you go. Yeah, there we go. I looked down at my screen, and the screen says, We've designated the shooting in Kenosha a mass murder and are removing posts in support.

Yep, there it is. Yep, so, Facebook has decided that the legal system in the United States is not relevant, and that they have greater authority than the legal system. You know, we all still use it, and we all complain about it, but we all know what's coming.

And we probably should just start weaning ourselves off of it. And if somebody else, if Parley would put some money into expanding its services, and maybe allowing you to do a little bit longer stuff on it and stuff like that, there's room for people to be moving in and let Facebook just die a thousand deaths.

And just tell every single sponsor, advertiser, it ain't touching you as long as Facebook continues doing the things it's doing. But I don't see that happening. You get used to something, and that's where you see all the stuff going on, and that's where you want to be until they get rid of you.

And they're going to. But yeah, there's that going on. And where was I going with that? I had seen something over there. But anyway, a couple articles I wanted to get to. I hope you enjoyed the last program where we went through John Chapter 6.

I didn't really see any commentary on that. We did get it posted and everything, right? And part of it, honestly, I think along these lines, the continuation of the thoughts through the next section, unless you are involved in dealing with a lot of Roman Catholics, just doesn't ring the bells as much.

It's not as exciting as the battle in Reformed theology and stuff like that. But for me, it's vitally important because there is a need to give a meaningful, deep exegesis of the continuation of Jesus' thought and the presentation of his centrality.

And it's striking how he presents it and how few Protestants see it. And that means the other side, which has been given a false narrative, an ahistorical narrative, an acontextual narrative, connecting it to something really literally that doesn't develop for a thousand years when you really go into the issue of transubstantiation.

We have to have a meaningful response that comes from passion in our hearts, a passionate understanding of what's being said. And I'm afraid, I guess I'm guilty of it, and I think a lot of us are guilty of just breaking John 6 up into portions and not really seeing how, you know, we know everything there is to know about 637 through 44, should know it through 45.

And then after that, it's just sort of like, yeah, it goes on to that other stuff that, you know, if you deal with Roman Catholics, you know, you can talk about that stuff. And that's just not the case.

Because once in a while, we will go, remember 665? That says something, it sounds like. Yeah, so we do need to know those things. Oh, by the way, let me mention this before I get to these articles. I'm doing a lot of this Zoom stuff, and I got to remember to find out of this WebEx stuff.

I was really disappointed that WebEx didn't have green screen capacities. Got to find out about that. Is that an add-on? Is that something you have to pay for? Plugins? We got to find out about that.

Because that's like, come on, catch up with the Chinese. That's not good. Got to catch up with the Chinese on that. But I'm going to be doing a bunch of stuff. I'm going to be teaching in Germany again tomorrow morning on church history.

And I'm doing a sweater vest dialogue via that mechanism. I should remember to take that sweater vest, because that's the lightest sweater vest. It's hot in that room. It's going to be the perspiration of the saints.

Sweater vest dialogue, I'm afraid, today. But I'm still going to wear my sweater vest. I'm sticking with it. It's like a hair shirt. I'm going to stick with the traditions here. But we're going to do that tomorrow afternoon after the program.

So it will probably be up. Normally, sometimes it gets dropped over the weekend. Sometime next week, we'll be talking about God's law. So you might find that to be interesting. And then tomorrow evening, we are going to...

I've got a stack of my texts over here. And so you can sort of garner an idea of what we're talking about. I'm taking the Stephanus home. And Dr. Gurry at Phoenix Seminary had... See the... Huh. Well, you can sort of see the top of it right there.

That's Codex Sinaiticus down there. That's my... I thought for sure we used to be able to see that. Oh, maybe we did when it was farther over here. Yeah, that's what it was. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Good, good.

Anyways, Codex Sinaiticus. Dr. Gurry at Phoenix Seminary posted a picture. And they have a bunch... I'm not sure how many of that they have. It's the same one. It's that facsimile of Sinaiticus down there.

And so I asked him if he could curl one of the facsimiles of Codex Sinaiticus. Because he's a young man. He's younger than my son. So I asked him if he could. And he says, I use different muscles. And then he said, I told the students about your Stephanus and they were really interested.

Would you be willing to come out and do show and tell with your... Could you please bring a Stephanus text and have you noted... Look how bright... You see the gold on the edging? That's original. That's original.

So that... So this year, this is 470 years old. Yeah, 470 years old. Now, obviously, we had it rebound and everybody... It had to. It was falling apart. But the text itself, 470 years old. So I'm taking this home and I'm taking my Tyndale Jeffrey Rice Rebind Tyndale Reprofessor home and I'm taking one of my TRs home.

Why would I be doing that? Well, because tomorrow night, Stephen Colton and I are joining Samuel on the same program that the four perspectives on apologetics thing was done. And I guess its actual its actual origination point as far as airing is in the Philippines or something, I think.

So it's nighttime here, but I guess it's morning over there. And so our primary topic is discussion of the Texas Receptus. And we're going to be looking at the Kamiohonium and I think we're going to do Revelation 16 .5, maybe Revelation 14 .1, Luke 2 .22.

Some of the key texts that of necessity define the TR-only position because they go against all the other positions. They go against the majority text, Byzantine text, and of course against the eclectic or modern critical text theories.

They are unique readings to the TR. And of course, the argumentation that one utilizes to substantiate each one of these readings. So Long Riding of Mark and Kamiohon, Long Riding of Mark and the Prick of Adultery are not unique to the TR because those would be Byzantine and majority text readings.

But these others go against the majority text, they go against the Byzantine text, they go against the critical text. So they're definitional of TR-onlyism. And the arguments that you would use to substantiate those readings such as Long Riding of Mark or the Prick of Adultery, are all going to be contradictory to each other.

So this to me is the fundamental revelation of the error of TR-onlyism is that you have to use different arguments for each of the unique readings that identify your position over against the positions that are closest to it.

So the arguments that a TR-only person uses over against Maurice Robinson in the Byzantine text position, Byzantine priority position, or a majority text position, or even position of James Knapp, they're going to be different from one another.

And so the arguments you're going to use for Revelation 16 .5, Revelation 14 .1, Ephesians 3 .9, Acts 8 .37, Luke 2 .22, they're all going to be different. They're going to be different from one another.

They're going to be contradictory to one another. In fact, if you use the standard that you use in Luke 2 .22 for Ephesians 3 .9, then you're going to get different results. And this is what illustrates the fact that TR-onlyism is not a textual critical theory.

It is simply a means of defending the textus receptus as it exists in this form. Your conclusions already decided the arguments that you use to get to the conclusion can all be very different. And so we're going to be discussing that, and we've been asked to spend a few minutes.

I guess there's a conflict going on in that area on that side of the planet in regards to Islam and a member of parliament having made a comment about the Bible being corrupted or changed. And I'm just like, well, is he a Muslim?

Yeah, he's a Muslim. Well, that's Tarif al-Nas, Tarif al-Mana. These are, this is, this goes all the way back to the earliest sources within the first couple hundred years. Two mainstreams, the Muslims who believe that it was the interpretation and meaning that had been changed, not the text itself.

And then I think later the position that is now prominent, but only really became prominent after the publication of Azhar al-Haq from the Pakistani Muslim scholar in the 1860s, that the text itself has been changed, that there has been an actual corruption of the continental text.

It's not a continental text in Greek, but anyway. And so I was like, why would there be a controversy about this? This is just simply what Muslims believe. It's what they've been asserting for forever.

And you can go back and find Christians and Muslims arguing about this assertion into the earliest days of the interactions between these two religions. It's a necessary element in light of the nature of the Quran and the teachings of Islamic theology.

But anyways, we've been asked to comment on that and to give a response to that. So I'm going to point to Surah 5 and reiterate to folks what the issues are. A lot of you who listen to this program regularly already know and probably a lot of you have actually looked up Surah 5 and you know what I'm referring to there.

The fact that Surah 5 tells the people of the Gospel to judge by what is contained in the Gospel. And so for those words to have any meaning in the days of Muhammad means the Gospel had to exist in the days of Muhammad.

And the problem is that Surah 5 is talking about the Torah given to Moses, the Injil given to Jesus, and the Quran given to Muhammad. And so even the modern excuses used by Muslims while it's just only referring to the five books given to Moses, and that's the Gospels, we don't have a Gospel because it's just one and there are four in the New Testament, just don't make any sense because at that point in time what would those words have meant to the people to whom they were addressed?

What was given by God to the Old Covenant people? What was given by God to through Jesus to the Christians? Same thing that the Muslims look at the Quran as the full revelation of God given to Muhammad is found in the Quran.

Well, that's the New Testament for us. Actually, Old and New Testament Tanakh and the Hebrew and Greek scriptures together. And so we'll talk about that. And so that's a little preview of what you'll be able to see on that.

But I've got I hope my internet at home is working far better than our internet here. And it is. It's huh? Yeah, Rich says it really stinks right now. So there you go. So we're going to be doing that.

So that's what? Three programs before tomorrow evening from my house on various teaching church history and textual critical issues and talking about God's law. It's going to be interesting. So keep an eye out for all of those.

One third, I'm sort of behind on this. Sorry about this. But I don't know. I don't know about you, but sometimes it almost gets a little depressing, though we should take it as necessary indication of just what we need to be doing.

But on August 28th, article came out. I think this was from discern, but it was, uh, it was, okay, it was Ligonier's research. Lifeway research released by Ligonier Ministries. Yeah. So you've probably already seen a couple of these, but I think it's important.

One third of evangelicals believe Jesus was a good teacher, but not God. Obviously, once again, we face the reality of attempting to describe what an evangelical is. To even identify what that might mean, and it's tough to do.

But, uh, a new survey conducted by Lifeway Research released by Ligonier Ministries revealed that 52 of Americans and 30 of evangelicals say they believe Jesus was a good teacher, but he was not God.

So that means 70 disagreed. So I suppose we could take that as a positive thing in some way, but then again, that would mean that that 30 is pretty much agreeing with the Muslims, even though the Muslims would say he was more than a good teacher.

And Jehovah's Witnesses, who also would say he was not God, but at least they believe he's Michael the Archangel. I mean, is it really possible that there's 30 people who identify as evangelicals who do not have as high Christology as Jehovah's Witnesses?

That's depressing. Um, it's just like, uh, um, so, uh, one of the quotes is here, statistics like statistics like these from the State of Theology survey give us quite a shock, but they also shed light on the concerns that many American Christians and churches have expressed for decades, says Stephen Nichols, the chief academic officer of Ligonier Ministries, as the culture around us increasingly abandons its moral compass professing evangelicals are sadly drifting away from God's absolute standard in scripture.

It's clear that the church does not have the luxury of idly standing by. This is a time for Christians to tell you scripture diligently, et cetera, et cetera. Well, here's my question. When this is finally, uh, released in full, what I would like to see, wouldn't this be helpful?

I mean, this would really, really, really be helpful. I'm not, I doubt, I doubt that Lifeway asked this. Did they ask and really press for how often these individuals are under the ministry of the word?

How often do they, are they really in church? Because as far as I know, every single study has said that people exaggerate how many times they go to church each year when these surveys are taken by factors of like 10.

Um, oh, I, I probably go, I don't know, 10, 15, and they went to a Christmas Eve service and that's, that's about been about it. And I would like to know how many of these people are church-going individuals, A, and B, how many of them go to what we would call a confessional church, a church that has a confession of faith?

Because I'm going to tell you something. Let me just give you an example. I'm not bragging on it. I'm just giving you an example from my own life. Um, my church is a family integrated church and so the kids have to listen to all this stuff.

And in fact, Sunday, Sunday night, I decided off the cuff, I had not planned to do this. You can go and watch this, watch the sermon. You can go and I did the perseverance of the saints, the final point of the tulip.

And I talked about apostasy and made lots of important applications, I think, in regards to that. But one of the illustrations I decided to use was Eric and Summer and my grandkids have a new dog named Watson.

And when Watson first arrived, um, Watson's life was in extreme danger, uh, from my daughter. Um, at least from the comments she was making on Facebook. I sort of figured that Watson was not long for this earth, but he's still going.

And so I decided to use, um, Watson as an illustration. And so Eric and Summer and the kids are sort of over this direction. And so I just, I just looked down and I looked at Summer. I said, so is, is Watson still with you all?

And she's sort of like, like this. And then I looked at Clementine and I said, so Clementine, you still have Watson and her head stays down. Clementine, Clementine. And it's like, and she was so engrossed in whatever she was writing or drawing or doing something that everybody else is looking at her, but, but she's, she's just didn't, didn't even, didn't even see me there.

So anyway, the point is the kids are with us when we do our catechism study. And I'd say 95 of the kids at our church are homeschooled. And if you go into those homes, you will find the same catechism questions and verses being memorized and they're up on the wall and all the rest of this stuff.

This, this year I know in the co-op they're doing a lot of stuff on Colossians and things like that. And so the point is we have a catechism and we, we know what we believe and right now I've been on the same, I've been on the section of the catechism that talks about Jesus and the offices that he fulfills.

And I can guarantee you, the vast majority of our kids would be able to tell you what our catechism says as to the three offices that Jesus holds. How many in the audience would be, would feel comfortable if I asked you what offices does Jesus hold?

And of course we're talking about prophet, priest, and king. And so we've, we did that question, then we, we did prophet, that was especially back in March and April, I remember we were doing that one, and now we're on this wonderful catechism question that is going through how Jesus functions as priest.

And we spend time on that every single week. I don't know how you could possibly do anything but be unconscious from the first hymn to the last prayer and not answer this question from this survey correctly, if you're a member of our church.

So what does that tell you about the churches these people are attending? Either they're A, they're not attending, or B, they only attend the main services and they don't avail themselves, because a lot of churches have decided, a lot of churches have decided that the education part doesn't need to be a part of the worship part.

So if you want to go deep, then we have classes that you can go to and you can go deep. But we want everyone to feel comfortable just to come to the service. We don't want to put any undue pressure on you.

And as a result, there are certain churches you go to, those sermons are never going to introduce you to these things. And I can guarantee you in the sermons themselves, we will bring those questions up.

Remember, what's the answer to this? And we expect audience feedback, we expect a response in regards to memorized scripture and all sorts of things like that. So it really makes me wonder because how do we make sure that the next generation knows that yes, Jesus was a good teacher, Jesus was a wonderful prophet, he is our high priest, he is our king, he is Lord, he is the son of God, he is the son of man, and he is Yahweh in human flesh.

How do we function in such a way to where we are basically saying you'll only come to know that if you go to the special classes. But if you just sit in the sermons, we'll make sure you never feel uncomfortable.

You'll always, you know, least common denominator Christianity all the way across. Look, there's a lot of people that have taken that viewpoint. I understand that. And if this was a some type of a secular educational system, okay, fine.

Here's the difference. We believe that if they're true Christians, everybody's indwelt by the same Holy Spirit who gave us the New Testament that says we're to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.

And the Holy Spirit can accomplish that. So we can call people to a higher plane. We don't have to we don't have to do this secular safe space stuff. There is no safe space for the spirit indwelt person.

Okay? No safe space. The spirit does not drive us to safe spaces. The spirit drives us out into service and risk in the name of Christ. And how can we do that? Remember the beautiful picture? Hebrews chapter 6.

Yes, Hebrews chapter 6. I'm starting a campaign so that when people hear Hebrews chapter 6, they don't think of the apostasy warning at the beginning. They think of the we have an awesome Savior passage at the end which describes Jesus as our forerunner who has gone into the holy place who is an anchor for us and anchor for our faith steadfast and sure.

So if I have an anchor that's steadfast and sure, then I can go out in service and never have to worry about the safe space because my anchor holds in the only safe space there is. How's that? I don't even know.

It was not that long ago that I first heard that phrase safe space. We didn't grow up with that. That's not a part of our experience. We have a safe space in the presence of God in Christ. That means we can go out and we don't need to be hiding in a safe space with our cuddly blanket and favorite stuffed toy which is where most of the world is.

Anyway, so I'm not sure where the state of theology thing is going to be published at or whatever, but it's interesting. Yesterday, oh, man, here's another article I need to get to. I actually I don't yeah, I did get it, I think.

I haven't had a chance to listen to it. There's an issue. I want to get to it. It's important. It's just so many other things. We're definitely staying busy despite the lack of travel. But I do want to comment on Tremper Longman's stuff on Exist 21 and abortion eventually.

I think there's something that's really missing in the commentary that he gives and in his book on the Bible and what is it? The Bible and the ballot or something like that. I think I just got it. I haven't had a chance to I've only seen the argument about this and need to delve into it more.

We'll get around to that. But a while back you undoubtedly saw that Biologos are semi evangelical elites with a strong left-leaning bent as far as their politics go. And, of course, they're the folks who are strongly opposed to creationism, especially seven-day creationism or young earth creationism.

I'm not sure they would say they're opposed to intelligent design so much, but they're very strongly in support of a full-throated embrace of at least what used to be called, a God started all this stuff and then that's how it all got going.

Anyway, so Biologos, you will normally find them on the left side of most issues. So they put out an article just a couple weeks ago in essence saying that Christians should be the first ones in line to be vaccinated against COVID -19.

And the way I put it when I first saw it is Biologos is already in the bus with their sleeves rolled up and they most certainly are. What makes it interesting was the announcement from President Trump yesterday telling the states to start setting aside locations for vaccinations right around the time of the election.

Which I assume means that he has been given information that at least one of these vaccines that are in stage three trials will be mass produced and available by early November. Now, I'll be perfectly honest with you, the chances of that are very, very small.

And we all know that people tend to massively underestimate all the necessary time elements in the production of such things. But let's say it happens. The argument, as we all know, is going to be very, very, very obvious and very straightforward.

And it will go along these lines. If you have already been wearing a mask so as to love your neighbor, then the next thing that you must do is you must be vaccinated so as to love your neighbor. And if it turns out that these are similar to flu vaccines in that they do not provide lifetime immunity, either requiring boosters or, like most flu vaccines, requiring seasonal insertion and then that's something you just need to be doing regularly.

And I am not having to wear a tin foil hat because this has been in numerous articles, published articles and various sources, that the documentation of your immunization is going to be extremely important in future access to travel, international travel, could be internal travel, all travel, in airplanes and things like that, who knows how far this will go.

There are certainly lots of people, especially people who are in charge in Victoria, Australia, who want to use these things to massively increase government monitoring of movement, control of individuals, expression, words, everything.

So, if you've already bought the masks show your love for others argument, then vaccines will show your love for others even better than masks will.

And so that's why BioLogos is already in the bus with their sleeves rolled up. And look, I am not against all vaccines by any stretch of the imagination. I have been poked and prodded what? Oh, well, you've got to understand, if you're going to raise the microphone, you're saying you want to participate.

So, don't raise the microphone if you're not going to be participating. I've got to hit the right button here. Okay. So, you are further out from it than I was. I was right on the border. You noticed I don't have that mark.

I do. You do? Yeah. Wow, I do not have that mark. The polio thing? Somehow, in my youth, I did not get the polio vaccine. However, I have been told by doctors for years that I need to watch out for Hep C.

Gee, but they've been doing it for years. How did they not know that they were spreading hepatitis for almost a decade? Almost a decade they were giving out that vaccine. I'm not sure what you're referring to.

The polio vaccine? Yeah, the polio vaccine. They used a hypodermic needle that used air and the particles from the guy who got the shot just before you went blowing back into the device and then gets.

Shot into you the next time around. They're spreading Hep C all over the place and it doesn't manifest until you're in your 50s. Yay. Yay. They're all smart. They know what they're doing. We should trust them, right?

Because they've never, ever, ever had problems before. No, the 1976 flu thing didn't happen and none of that happened. But look, I'm not against all vaccines. I think Jonathan Edwards would have been against all vaccines for other reasons, but I am not against hearing the argumentation.

My understanding is, for example, that the frontrunners in this vaccination program are genetically manipulated substances that imitate a certain element of the COVID -19 virus that then causes your body to produce antibodies against it that are also effective against COVID -19.

It's obviously a very interesting area of science, so on and so forth. Okay. I'm not saying that just simply on principle I would never take a vaccine against COVID -19, even though, to be honest with you, I don't take flu vaccines either.

And the reason I don't is I almost never get the flu. And the reason I almost never get the flu is that I work very hard at maintaining my immune system, and therefore I almost never get the flu, so why should I take a vaccine for something I almost never get?

And that would be the same thing with COVID -19. And you say how can you turbo charge your immune system? There are ways of doing so. The most effective way is taking care of your gut, because a lot of And I realize I am insanely active, a whole lot more than most people would be.

I was listening, Rich just went like this. Yeah, I'm on track for 9 ,000 miles on bike this year, and that's a little bit much, I realize that, but ran 15 kilometers this morning. This was fun, listening to the Tour de France.

That's interesting while you're running. It's one thing listening to Tour de France like I did yesterday when I'm riding and they're riding, but this morning I ran 15 kilometers in 90 minutes and I was listening to the Tour de France.

It was a little bit I would have never do it. Here's the thing. Here's what I want minimally, absolutely minimally. I want five years of documented testing. This is a genetically modified substance. I think it's based on RNA, which can be taken into the genetic structures of living beings and might have impacts years down the road that we can't tell or predict right now.

So minimally I'd like to see five years of studies and of course we're not going to have five years of studies until five years from now. Ten would be nice. And of course you know that part of the speed at which this has been done involves indemnification of the drug companies.

They cannot be sued. You take this vaccine and you end up bed ridden for the rest of your life or blind or deaf or something else. You got nobody to sue. You can't sue the vaccine company. They have protection.

They're not going to lose anything. So once you put it in that context, then I'm going to go I'd like five years worth of study please and they're going to say you don't get five years worth of study and so I'm going to go well thank you very much but no.

And yet we all know that in many countries that's not going to be an option. In many countries already they have said once it's available everyone will be vaccinated. And I think those same countries will then say you cannot enter our country if you have not been vaccinated.

That's what we're going to be up against. That's the situation. And that's why we're exchanging all of our foreign currency which we've had sitting in.

The office for all the traveling because I just I don't see how I'm going to be able to do it. You're looking at the computer like you just saw. I just did a quick search on it and realized what I got.

Apparently I must have been right on that benchmark there where they switched from the air jet gun to the sugar cube. And I remember getting the sugar cube for polio. So the fact that you're talking ancient history here.

You're talking ancient history. The fact that you have that scar puzzles me because I thought they had stopped doing that but we got the sugar cube thing and but my point here is that we don't think like you're talking about here down the road.

We need jerk reaction. Polio was a bad thing. But they did that method for eight years. Eight years. And it's not until those children got into their 50s that they started realizing what had happened to them.