Jude 4 in Response to a Muslim Question, Deepfakes and God's Law, Social Justice Stuff

Well, greetings. Welcome to The Dividing Line on a Monday. Should we call this the first Monday of the revolution? That is the question. It has been a very, very, very strange year so far. Very, very strange.

I was up there and then I disappeared. I'm not sure what happened, but I was there, then it went bye-bye. 2020 is going to go down in history. There is absolutely, positively no question about that as one of the strangest, strangest years in the history books.

But we are still here and I'm going to try to... You're probably tired of watching whatever it is you watch. If you're watching MSNBC, I'm not sure why you're watching us. And I'm not sure that you're still really functional at this particular point in time.

It doesn't matter what you're watching. It's probably getting a little tiresome by now, to be honest with you. So we're going to try to focus upon other things. It's not that there aren't important things to be saying.

I've tried to make a few comments here, there, and everywhere that hopefully is helpful. Just for those that are interested, we have a curfew here in Arizona now for a week from 8 p .m. to 5 a .m. At least, I mean, New York's only 11 to 5, which is odd.

The only part of that that bugs me is I can't do any long outside rides right now because 5 o 'clock is only half an hour before sunrise. So you're going to get fried if you try to do anything. What? Well, if you look at the fine print, which is apparently rather fine.

Well, I know. It excludes religious services. There's a whole list of stuff that it excludes. Does it exclude long-distance bike riders? I think it might. I think ultimately it excludes everything but protesting downtown.

Oh, okay. Yeah. I'll take a look at it. But anyway, when it was first announced, we're like, oh, great. We've got to get all our people home by 8 o 'clock. Our service starts at 4. And if Jeff breaches, we're doomed because we've been having discussions about this amongst the elders.

It seems ever since Jeff had those seizures a couple of years ago, his internal clock doesn't work anymore. And so five minutes to him is an hour and five minutes to the rest of us, but it just sort of works that way.

And so we made the decision that we would move the sermon he was going to do to next week and the four elders would each speak a word of encouragement to the congregation. And I looked at the video today.

I did 14 minutes. Luke did eight minutes. Zach did five minutes. And Jeff did 21 minutes. And Jeff thought he did five minutes. So there you go. There is absolute documented evidence that something's not quite right with that boy.

Anyway, but you can find that on Facebook, Apologia Studios, if you want to. A lot of the folks found it very encouraging to have all four elders speaking. And of course, we address different issues and different things.

I spoke a little bit from Let Not Your Hearts Be Troubled, You Believe in God, Believe Also in Me from John chapter 14. But we did want to address the fact that I've been on this earth for over half a century.

I've never seen anything like this. There have been rough spots in the past, but never, never in the middle of a alleged pandemic. I say alleged because there's new stuff coming out. And look, if that pandemic doesn't explode and kill half the population after what's been going on, then we really didn't need to be locked down all that time anyways, because those masks that those folks are wearing, they're not wearing it for social distancing.

I assure you that it's for the cameras. We've made looting and rioting much easier. And there are literally people going, well, at least they're showing concern for others. No, they're not. It's like, oh, wow.

They really let these people on MSNBC. It's interesting. But anyways, I said I wasn't gonna do anything about that. So we have a bunch of other stuff to talk about. And this is a live program. And so not very long ago, half an hour ago, approximately, I started seeing, I only got in about 45 minutes ago to the office and I started seeing something in my Twitter feed.

By the way, I can actually say this out in the open now. I have opened a parlor account. It's a cross between Facebook and Twitter in the sense that you do have a limitation on how long you can go, but it's three and a half times Twitter's limitation.

It's a thousand characters. And so you can say a lot in a thousand without doing some of the really, really, really long Facebook article type things that can go for pages and pages and pages. And it's allegedly, for now, dedicated to free speech and non-censorship and stuff like that.

And I've already got over a thousand followers on Parler. And so what I've been trying to do is I'll write something on Parler and then I'll link to it. Because I haven't been wanting to say that on either Facebook or Twitter, because I just get a feeling that might not be wise.

They might not really be into you advertising other things on their platforms, especially things that are going to be more free than they themselves are, I suppose. But anyway, it was on Twitter that I saw a conversation taking place that included Zakir Hussain from, I think Zakir's in the Birmingham area.

At least he was last time that I was over there. Who knows when that's ever going to happen again. But Zakir and I have done a couple of debates and he was asking a Christian apologist on Twitter about Jude 1 .4.

And he quotes Jude 1 .4 as saying, Jude 1 .4 mentions the Lord God and Lord Jesus. How can, how can Lord, how can Lords, I guess it probably, how many Lords do you count here? One, two, or three. Remember you admitted Deuteronomy 6 .4 says one Lord.

So please tell me how many Lords can you count in Jude 1 .4? Thanks. Now, this is a, the kind of objection that you would sort of expect to get from our Muslim friends. I know that Zakir has my book on the Trinity and if read it with understanding would know the answer to this question.

But because obviously the term Lord, well, first of all, you'd have to look at what the term Lord is. Normally it's the term Kurios. It's in the Old Testament. It can be, it can be Kurios, it can be, I mean, sorry, Adonai, it can be Yahweh, all depends on the underlying Hebrew.

And so there's, there's always that question has to come in and that comes in here in Jude 1 .4. In fact, if you, if you have your Bible and if you are one of those who has a Greek New Testament, you might want to look at this.

This is a important text. I actually sort of dealt with it a little bit at G3 two years ago. When I talked about Jude 5 and the change that has appeared in the translation of the ESV at Jude 5 because of CBGM, coherence-based genealogical methodology, the material that I'm studying in my PhD work, slowly at the moment because that work has been slowed down by everything that's been taking place in the world too, unfortunately.

Anyway, the reality that the old reading of Jude 5 was the Lord delivered to people out of Egypt and now the ESV says Jesus delivered to people out of Egypt. And so I did go back in the context and I looked at Jude 4 as part of that.

So if you want to sort of sermonic discussion, you can go and look that up on the YouTube page. But what do you have? Well, let's take a look at what we have in Jude 4. I'm going to move this over here so that I can bring up accordance.

And so what you have in the NASB, I've got three columns up here. I'll get rid of them. But anyways, for certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God in licentiousness and deny our only master and Lord Jesus Christ.

Now, I desire to remind you, though, you know all things once for all that the Lord, after saving a people of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe. So here is the material.

And immediately when you look at Zacher's citation, you see that he has mentions the Lord God and Lord Jesus. And so what he's looking at is the King James Version and specifically the Textus Receptus.

The reading of the Textus Receptus is extremely poorly testified amongst manuscripts. There are very, very few manuscripts that read as the TR. And this is primarily because there is an important cluster of variants right at the end of verse four.

And the TR is basically an attempt to sort of find a way of navigating through these without access to some of the earlier manuscripts that we have today. And so what you have, um, let me take the, uh, Textus Receptus out there and go to this one here.

And we'll just take out the commentaries real quick, and then we can blow this up so it's a whole lot easier to see. There you go. All right. So here are the, uh, the options at the end of verse four.

And, uh, in, in the Nessioland 28th edition, we have, and the only despotane from despotas kai kureon haemon yesun kriston arneumenoi. So arneumenoi is to deny. And so, uh, they are the ones denying the only master and Lord of us, Jesus Christ.

So in the Nessioland 28th edition, uh, you have one singular description of Jesus. He is described as the manan despotane kai kureon. And this is important because it's the very next sentence where you have, but I would, you know, brethren, um, that Jesus having once saved a people from the land of Egypt.

So if verse four is primarily about, uh, Jesus, and that would be consistent in going to verse five, that we're still talking about Jesus and the two readings would, um, strengthen one another. There would be a consistency in the text at that particular point in time, but over on the right-hand side, you can see the various readings that we, that we have here.

And so you have, um, our Lord Jesus Christ in P72. Um, then you have the Lord and our Jesus Christ to P78. You have our God and Lord Jesus Christ seemingly in P Psi and, and, uh, the Byzantine text. And then you have, uh, the reading of the Nessioland text, and that is, uh, our only despot and Lord, uh, actually that's not including despotane.

We can skip that one. Uh, just simply, and our, our Lord Jesus Christ is the reading, uh, that is found in Sinaiticus, Alexandrus, Vaticanus, and a number of the other, uh, unsealed, well, the, some of the unseals and, uh, and minuscules Vulgate and a few sources like that.

So you can see, this is an example of where the Byzantine text is giving demonstration of its, um, later character. I'm certain that its defenders will, you know, can come up with a way to try to get around that, but the mass, vast majority of people would say that this, uh, it clearly is one of those places of the Byzantines, a later, uh, a later reading in light of what is already found in the, in the text itself.

So what do we have then in, uh, in Jude 4? Well, it seems that the question that Zacher is asking is based on equivocation regarding the term Lord. So, especially because it, uh, takes us back to Deuteronomy 6, 4, and in Deuteronomy 6, 4, uh, in fact, let me, let me, um, go there real quick, uh, because it's a, it's an important text and you will notice, ouch, that, um, blow everything up here a little bit for you, including the Greek Septuagint.

So Deuteronomy 6, 4, of course, is Shema, Shema Yisrael, Yahweh Eloheinu, Yahweh Echad, uh, Shema Yisrael, Yahweh Eloheinu, Yahweh Echad, and in the Greek Akua Israel, Kurias Hathais Haimon, Kurias Hais Esten.

And so you have the term Kurias used twice in the Greek Septuagint translation of Deuteronomy 6, 4, and it is translating the same Hebrew word, Yahweh. So, there is only one Yahweh, there is only, uh, one being of God, and yet the New Testament writers, and it seems, given the reading of Jude 5, Jude inclusiveness, New Testament writers will use that term and text that were specifically about Yahweh of the Father, of the Son, and of course, the Spirit of Yahweh is, becomes the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Lord.

So, you have that one special term, Yahweh, being used of three persons who are clearly differentiated from one another. It's very plain that they are not being identified as being identical to one another, and yet there is one Yahweh.

So, as we have, as Christians have believed, uh, one being of God, Yahweh, shared by three persons who are distinguished from one another, the Father, the Son, the Spirit. Now, when we come into the New Testament, the Greek, it's not really a translation.

Kurias is not a translation of Yahweh. Yahweh is a, is a specific name, really. I mean, it has verbal aspects to it of existence and being, probably, but kurias is not a, a translation or transliteration or anything else, really.

It is, it's almost a placeholder, in a sense, because there are other words in Hebrew that are translated as kurias as well. Adonai, Adoni, in its various forms, uh, likewise translate as kurias. So, we've also seen that, that, that shema, Akua Yisrael, Kurias hatheas haimon, kurias hais esten, the Lord is one, is what is behind Paul's words in 1 Corinthians chapter 8, when he takes that shema and he expands it out in light of the Incarnation.

And says, not all men have this knowledge, but for us, there is one God, one Lord, and now in light of the Incarnation, the coming of Christ, the shema itself is expanded in light of God's own self-revelation that is found there.

So, when the question is asked, how many Lords are there? Well, if we mean Yahweh, there is only one. Uh, there is only one Yahweh, but that's not what we're looking at when we are looking at, uh, Jude 4, because what we have here is that he is warning about people who are coming into the Church and who are changing their, their, the, the whole book is going to be warning about false teachers, and he's warning about some of the characteristics of their false teaching.

And the result of their false teaching is that they are denying tan manan despatain kai kurion haimon yesum kristan, the one despatain kai kurion. So, the two terms are being used as a singular title or descriptive of Jesus.

Now, despatain goes back to Old Testament usage, and obviously, in English today, despot is not a positive term. Uh, we use despot almost universally in a negative fashion now, but that, that cannot influence our reading of the New Testament.

You can't take 21st century English usage of the translation, really, despot is just a transliteration of the Hebrew term despotain, despotas. Um, you can't allow that to influence your understanding of what the term is supposed to mean or something along those lines.

That's something that's very, very important to, to emphasize. And so, you have two words, master and lord. I mean, you want to, you want to differentiate in your translation. You just don't go lord and lord.

In other contexts, you could translate this term despot as lord, but since he's using both of them as a descriptive, then the normal process of translation in English is that you're trying to differentiate the terms.

And so, is there something special about despotain? Well, yeah, it normally refers to, to power and authority, power and authority. Kurios can have the same meaning, but if you're looking for some kind of a difference between the two terms, that's what it would be, is that, um, despot would be the exercise of authority, um, the exercise of, of power and, and authority.

And it's not, it's not an overly commonly used term, but that might be what the difference is. And so, you would have our only master and Lord, Jesus Christ, which would then fit with what we then see in verse five, because it was Jesus that saved a people out of Egypt, but later destroyed the ones not believing.

So, I, I mentioned that despot is sovereignty in action, power in action. Well, he saves the people out of Egypt, and then what does he do? He destroys the ones who do not believe. And that's going to become sort of a paradigm for what's going on in the early church as well, is that there are those who are, who don't believe, and they are sneaking into the church, and they are perverting the order that he stood up against and so on and so forth.

So, the, the text seems to be consistent when you look at that rendering thereof of the fact that you, you don't really have a, an issue here. There, the, the question says, you know, how many Lords do you count here?

Well, you, you count one Yahweh, but you might say that verse four says, changing the grace of God into licentiousness. And so, you know, you do have the appearance of the term tuthayu there, so maybe you might want to see that the, the Father is made reference to there or something.

But of course, the New Testament is filled with passages where the Father and the Son are mentioned, and the ease with which they are associated with one another is, is just further evidence of exactly what it is we're talking about when we talk about the fact that the New Testament was written by Trinitarians.

It was already their common belief. It, it comes out in the way they express themselves. They don't have to stop and go, okay, now let me, let me explain this new thing to you. No, they're, no, it's already the common possession of, of the people, and that's why you don't have those stopping and the explanation and so on and so forth.

So, here is a situation, leaving the apologetic issue to the side for a ministers. When you are seeking to open this text and preach this text, or if you're just leading a Bible study, on a really, really practical level, you have to remember that everyone's got one of these now.

And it's not like, it's not like the old eight translation New Testaments that we used to lug around when I was in high school that weighed 47 pounds, but still, people have a number of different translations available to them.

And you need to recognize that people still use the King James and New King James, which are based upon the Textus Receptus. And therefore, and you might have, even amongst some of the more modern translations, sometimes a translation committee will choose to not slavishly follow the Messiah text in their translation.

And if someone's trying to follow you and their Bible doesn't say what you're saying, that can ruin everything. And most people don't want to stick their hands up, maybe in a Bible study they would, but you know, most people aren't gonna do that in a church service and go, what are you doing, Willis?

Where'd you get that? That's how my Bible says. And so they, the whole study is completely less, you know, leaves them behind and they don't, they don't hear anything you have to say because, well, they couldn't hear anything you had to say because they were looking at something else going, what, what is this?

So you always have to take the time to check some other translations and see, especially when you have a cluster of variants, as you do here, you have to see what has been rendered in that particular text.

So you don't lose anybody in the process. So what does all of that mean? Uh, does seem that there is a pretty consistent way of reading Jude 4 and 5 in a way that's focused upon the centrality of Jesus as Yahweh.

He is described as despotane kikureon. And then it is said that he delivered a people out of Egypt and then destroyed the ones who didn't believe. And we know this is what that, that's what Yahweh did.

Uh, and so if Jesus is identified in this way, then that, that helps you understand why Jesus is our only master and Lord, which of course no Muslim can ever say that this is, and here's, here's, here's the reality.

Muhammad never read Jude 4. Zacher, if you have read Jude 4 and even tried doing a digging into it, you've done a whole lot more than your prophet did. He didn't know anything about this. He didn't know what was in there.

There's no, you can't show me any evidence that he had any knowledge whatsoever of the actual content of what's in the Injil. What's, what's in the very gospel message itself, what's in the New Testament.

He did not have access to that and did not know what was in it. And, um, so as a result, ironically, uh, Zacher, what happens is because of that fidelity to Muhammad, then you have to become one of those described here.

Now, not described here as in, because what's, who's being described in verse four is somebody inside the church, and they're trying to, to change the grace of God and licentiousness and thereby denying our only master and Lord Jesus Christ.

But because of your higher authority in the text of the Quran, you end up being an Arnuminoi, one of those denying, uh, our only master and Lord Jesus Christ. And, um, that's the whole issue. That's, that's the whole subject right then and there.

So little book of Jude has been, uh, analyzed in the CBGM methodology. And so that's why, as I said, Jude five, the reading has, um, been altered in. And again, some of our Muslim friends and others misunderstand that I can go back to, um, the earliest printed editions of the Greek New Testament that gave variation.

And you will see that we've known for a very, very long time that there were manuscripts in, uh, existence of the book of Jude, uh, that said, Lord, and manuscripts that said, um, Jesus, we've known this for a long, long time.

It's not like, you know, you just decide to make something up one day. This is, this is a variant that has been known of for a very, very long time. And then the analysis of that text in the CBGM said that basically the manuscripts, when you look at the manuscripts as a whole that say Jesus and compare them with the manuscripts that say Lord, the manuscripts that say Jesus have a higher coherence than the manuscripts that say Lord.

The closest relatives to the manuscripts that say Jesus, as far as the stream of transmission is concerned, also say Jesus. But the ones that say Lord, their closest relatives sometimes say, say, say Jesus.

So the change has gone one direction. It was easier for a scribe when copying this to write Lord than it would have been Jesus, because it was easy to say the Lord delivered a people out of Egypt. It's exactly how you'd normally say it.

Jesus delivered a people out of Egypt. That's, that's more of a challenge. That's more of a challenge. And that's why the scribes did what they did. So there is some information and the first half hour of the program brought to you by a current Twitter discussion.

This is nice. Chris Williams, a good guy to follow on Twitter as well. And he just posted a picture of Nick Needham's four volume, 2000 Years of Christ's Power, and said, wife blessed me with this set.

This was back on May 5th. And then he just said, finished the first two volumes since this post. Halfway done. I'll have to, see what I'm going to do here, Chris, is I'm going to do this neat little screen grab thing.

And if I can remember, hopefully I can remember, I will send that to Nick and go, Hey Nick, look, we're reading. Some of you saw that. Man, that seems like a long time ago. It was early December, wasn't it?

Seems like a lifetime ago. I popped over to London and then took a sleeper train, the Caledonian sleeper train from London to up to Inverness, where Nick Needham is and surprised him, knocked on the door.

He didn't expect me to be coming. And Nick is a dear brother. He's a good friend. I hope he's doing well up there. They are locked down in a way that Americans just wouldn't allow it. We just wouldn't do it.

So it's hopefully things are getting better. I don't know. Anyway, it's been a little while since I've chatted with Nick, but it's good to see Chris is reading. If you'd like, Chris, I might be able to ask Nick to come up with some quizzes for you, something like that to look at, if you want to check out that kind of stuff.

Have you noticed it's almost a little frightening to scroll through Twitter or Facebook for what you're afraid you're going to see, you know, some other building or some horrific beating or something going on.

Yeah, it's, you're almost afraid to go new messages. Well, okay, no, I'm not sure I wanted to see that. Yeah, somebody asked me if you tried Gab. Actually, I did when it first started. And then everybody came down to me like a ton of bricks, because if you go to Gab, you're automatically a white supremacist or something.

So I haven't been back over there. I'm gonna have to minimize this stuff. It's because that's not my understanding of what happens in airplanes. But anyway. Okay. There is a, I saw just, I mentioned this real quick.

There is an article out that's fascinating. Coronavirus may be a vascular disease. May be a vascular disease. There is a study that is talking about the prevalence of blood clots in the deaths that have been analyzed.

And I'm not gonna go into details about it. I did, I think I retweeted it. At least I hope I did. But check it out. See if you can track it down. And if that's the case, then that changes everything as far as inoculations, vaccines, everything.

If it's if it's not actually a primarily respiratory thing that changes, that changes the whole story. And it also changes how you might want to best treat it, for obvious reasons. If it's a vascular thing, then we've got all sorts of drugs that help with that that no one was really thinking about using.

Because it's sort of like, well, why would you? I don't know if it's actually a vascular disease rather than a respiratory disease, then you might think along those lines. I think we're gonna be finding out a lot about it in the future.

I continue to be very, very concerned that there is going to be some kind of an insanity that says that you have to take certain drugs, be shot up with certain things to ever be able to travel or do anything again in the future.

And I am concerned about that. Far more concerned about something that you may or may not have heard of. But here's where the biblical worldview comes into conflict with where we are right now. Have you heard of something called deep fakes?

Deep fakes. I first ran into this stuff, maybe last year, maybe the year before, I forget. And you may have seen some of these where especially the supercomputing power that they're working on and developing, especially when it comes to artificial intelligence, things like that.

You can literally change people's faces and morph people in video into somebody else. And it really looks like that person. It's not the cheesy Photoshop, stick somebody's face on somebody else's face type thing that you can always tell.

According to this article, they are making such fast strides in this technology that it's not going to be long that actually they're actually having to now develop technology to try to detect it. It's getting so good.

For a while, you could just sort of look at it and go, oh, there's some flickering there. The light's not quite right. But now you can't really do that anymore. And so they're actually companies starting up, websites starting up, where they will go into in-depth analysis to try to recognize the deep fake.

But most of them recognize that there's a limitation, not to the deep fakes, but to the recognition of the deep fakes. Now, the article goes into the obvious problem with this. The obvious problem with this is that you can accuse anyone of anything, put them anywhere, and all of a sudden your eyes say, yeah, he said these words.

He insulted this person. He confessed to having done this. That's him going into that place of ill repute. That's him buying those drugs. And there have already been situations. There was a small country, I'd never even heard of it, a small country sort of over in the Balkans someplace.

I think it was. I forget where it was. But it was a small country where there's sort of a despotic leader. And then he sort of just disappeared. It's sort of like what happened with the guy in North Korea for a while.

Hadn't seen him for a while. And then when a picture was released, everyone's going, is that really him? I'm not so sure. Is someone trying to fake us out here or what? Well, what happened was the guy seemed rather robotic, rather different than normal.

And so someone started saying, that's a deep fake. That's not real. And it led to a coup attempt. Now, it failed and the guy was alive and he's still in power. But the point is it led to a coup attempt, the rumor that that was a deep fake.

And so when you think about that, I'm not just talking about the dystopian movies where they're able to clone you or make someone that looks like you and gets you into all those, all that trouble. Or I'm right here.

What I'm talking about is the necessity for us to understand the wisdom of God in the Christian worldview and in his law. Okay. I can name four people that are right now heading for the keyboard. Oh no.

But listen, listen to what I'm saying. We have sought to emphasize the fact that one of the problems that we are facing in our society right now, that right now I follow some people on Twitter who are radically sold out to the social justice model and to the social justice worldview.

And as a result, they are of course interpreting everything that's going on in the world right now in light of that social justice model. And they want a new nation. They're not even, they're not even hiding it.

For them, the age of the constitution United States is finished. There needs to be a new nation. Tear it all down so you can build something new. That's, that's what you're seeing in our streets right now.

Tear it all down, build something new, build something new based upon a completely different worldview too. And that social justice model, one of its primary problems is the issue of what justice itself is.

And the fact that once you have a secular worldview, once you have a secular mindset, justice has to be something that is done now in this life right now, because it cannot be done after this life. So, so once you don't have a, once you don't have a perspective that will allow you to see eternity and a day of judgment, because our legal system was designed in a worldview where the vast majority, even though those who weren't necessarily Christians, still imbibed and functioned upon the idea that there would be a day of reckoning, there would be a day of judgment, that the secrets of men's hearts will be laid bare.

That we, it did, our constitution could never have been written after Darwin. Our system of law could never have been put together after Darwin, but it was before Darwin. And so those who wrote it, those who envisioned it, recognized that justice should be sought in this world, but would not always be obtained in this world.

And so they borrowed from biblical law, key concepts such as due process. You can't just simply, it was always wrong. It was always illegal. It was always immoral for a mob to take the law into their own hands and bring about execution.

String them up. That was lawlessness. Due process is a mechanism to protect the innocent first and foremost, because as we all know, due process can lead to guilty people being freed. Something wasn't done right.

Law wasn't followed. Evidence wasn't collected right. And we can all think of at least one instance in our, most of our lives, if you're over 30, where the system didn't work and the murderer went free.

Well, eventually got caught for something else, but still the murderer went free. Our system does that because it was based upon the idea that it is worse to imprison an innocent man than it is to let a guilty man walk free.

And that's why I saw a America's Got Talent clip where a black man had been imprisoned for 37 years. I think it was 37 years. And then DNA evidence cleared him. And he sang beautifully, sang a song and, you know, everybody was just, you know, in tears and, and everything else, especially for the 37 years of his life that was taken.

The presumption of innocence and due process, where'd that come from? It did not come from a Darwinian worldview. There is no basis for that in Marxism. There is no basis for that in any socialistic system at all.

The worldview that gave rise to that is the Christian worldview. But what that means then is within the Christian worldview, that makes sense. It makes sense that the guilty will sometimes get away for now, but they will never ever get away in the end.

That's how, that's why the Bible can say, will not the judge of all the earth do right? The answer is assumed. Yes, the judge of all the earth will do right. It's the way it is. I have pointed out many times that it is the confusion that now exists in our land.

We are in a transition. We're transitioning from the last remnants of a Christian worldview to the secular worldview. That changes everything. I've argued that our constitution, in light of the words of John Adams, wise man who in 1798, 10 years after the constitution was ratified, said in a letter that the constitution was designed to rule a moral and religious people, and it is not capable of ruling a people who are not moral and religious.

We are not a moral and religious people any longer. We murder babies or up to the point of birth. We have leaders in our country today that will vote against pieces of legislation that say that if a baby is born alive after a botched abortion, that you must give it aid.

They will vote against that. The entire democratic party votes against that because the entire democratic party is owned by Planned Parenthood. So we are not a moral and religious people any longer, and therefore we are in this transition where the old idea was you protect the innocent, and that means sometimes justice is not done in this life because it will be done in the next, and therefore you have satisfaction knowing that there's going to be no injustice, no injustice that ever goes unpunished.

To now, we've got to do it in this life right now because if that person dies and they are not punished, there will never be any punishment for that crime, and hence when the Me Too movement started a couple years ago, Kavanaugh hearings, how many people did you hear saying, doesn't matter if a bunch of white guys have got to go to prison, you got to catch them all.

Doesn't matter if innocent guys got to go to prison, got to catch them all, you see. There were people literally saying that. That's what happens when as a culture you lose any connection whatsoever to a final day of judgment.